By Paul Bledsoe
Election seasons always feature exaggerated divisions, with candidates drawing bright lines between themselves and opponents. But lasting problems come when discourse devolves into false choices between important shared goals. Improving U.S. energy security and preventing catastrophic climate change are issues sometimes falsely opposed during election cycles, when there is little reason that they should be in competition.
For the last decade, during a period of relatively stable energy prices, public discussion has focused primarily on climate risk, for good reason. But as Americans deal with higher energy prices and Europe faces a full-blown energy supply crisis, it’s clear that sustainability and security are intertwined goals. Russia’s weaponization of energy and its impacts on EU climate ambitions provide the starkest example of the interdependency of climate, costs and security.
Read the full piece in The Hill.
