---

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s genocidal war in Ukraine has visited utter devastation and unimaginable pain upon that beleaguered country. It might be ghoulishly wrong to even hint at a silver lining in this ugly dark cloud, but there are two positive developments that have resulted from Putin’s monstrous warfare. He has already awakened Western nations to the essential nature of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the need to strengthen and expand it. Much more important is that the war has shown the necessity of weaning the world off of fossil fuels.

During his presidency, Donald Trump continually raised concerns about the value of NATO, making repeated threats to withdraw the United States from the alliance. He recently admitted telling our NATO allies that he would not defend them from Russian attack. No wonder our European friends despaired for the future of the alliance.

But that changed with the election of Joe Biden, who understood the vital necessity of the alliance. By attacking Ukraine earlier this year, Putin made the strongest case possible for strengthening and expanding NATO. Under the leadership of the United States, those goals have been accomplished and the alliance is now playing a critical role in defending Ukraine against Putin’s aggression. Putin played the decisive role in restoring the strength and vitality of NATO.

However, Putin’s ill-advised war may actually produce an infinitely more important result — averting worldwide climate disaster. Ever since Al Gore brought global warming to the public’s attention in 2006, the scientific community has been calling for urgent responsive action. Such calls have been met by climate deniers, generally financed by fossil fuel interests, who claim it simply isn’t happening. While public opinion has slowly shifted toward the position of the scientists, little effective preventive action has been taken by governments across the globe.

There seem to be two reasons for the inaction — lawmakers in some countries, like many Republicans in the U.S., believe that global warming isn’t occurring or that, even if there is a problem, action can await because there are much more urgent issues to address. Putin has been able to short circuit the inaction by presenting an issue that goes beyond an environmental concern and which is extremely urgent — a hot war that affects the vital interests of a broad range of countries across the globe.

The argument has shifted from whether immediate action must be taken to avert a climate disaster to whether Putin should be deprived of the revenue stream from Russia’s vast fossil fuel reserves to finance his vicious war. The end result is the same, but the war-related argument cuts across ideological lines. From a political standpoint, it is much easier for some politicians to come out strongly against a ruinous war than to lift a finger to avert a climate catastrophe.

After the Ukrainians were able to stop the initial Russian onslaught and begin turning the tables, European nations, the U.S. and many like-minded countries took action to reduce or eliminate energy purchases from Russia. Conservation efforts have been implemented to reduce energy consumption, and dramatic steps are being taken to develop additional green energy sources.

The war has stoked a renewable energy gold rush to fill the gap left by abandonment of Putin’s dirty fossil fuels. The International Energy Agency recently reported that war-related energy concerns make it likely that renewables, led by solar, will overtake coal as the largest worldwide energy source by early 2025. Fossil fuels will continue to provide a significant part of the world’s energy needs, but that role will continue to diminish as dirty energy is priced out of the marketplace by cheaper clean energy. It will prove impossible for fossil fuel purveyors to price-compete with a free and boundless energy source — the colossal furnace that sits in the middle of our solar system.

War concerns undoubtedly facilitated passage of President Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act, which provides $369 billion for climate solutions. The Act will further intensify the push to develop innovative climate solutions. Before the war, GOP lawmakers generally shrugged when presented with compelling evidence that the world was headed toward climate ruination. Putin’s war finally provided the spark that spurred a dramatic and, hopefully, sustained response to the crisis.

Ukraine certainly did not volunteer for the role it has played in making it possible to rejuvenate NATO or finally jump-start what appears to be an effective effort to combat climate change. We must be mindful of the criminal violence that has been perpetrated against that valiant country and do everything within our power to help it prevail. That means keeping the commitment President Biden made to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on Dec. 21 to continue military and financial aid for “as long as it takes.” 

Ukraine has been fighting the war for its own existence, but in large part it has also been fighting for goals that are extremely important to the U.S., our allies and the rest of the world. Ukraine’s success is our success, and we can never forget that crucial fact.

Jim Jones is a Vietnam combat veteran who served eight years as Idaho attorney general (1983-1991) and 12 years as a justice on the Idaho Supreme Court (2005-2017). He is a regular contributor to The Hill.

This article was originally published on The Hill.
Views in this article are author’s own and do not necessarily reflect CGS policy.