Smarter policy choices and smarter technology choices are our best path to reducing our dependence on oil in the transportation sector. Smarter policy choices are already being made – to increase vehicle fuel economy standards and use more renewable fuels—but without specifiying winners and losers—and letting the marketplace decide. Consumers are responding by investing in technologies that are more energy efficient than conventional gasoline. According to Wards Auto, compared to 2008, 2009 sales of hybrid vehicles grew from 2.1% to 2.9% while sales of clean diesel engines in cars and SUVs jumped from just 2.1 % to 3.7% of all engines.

Wholesale switchovers from one technology to another – like has been proposed by natural gas advocates—hardly makes sense, particularly at the mult-billion dollar level of taxpayer subsidies they are seeking.

Diversifying energy choices does make sense. Government Investments should be properly balanced between incentivizing development of future energy technologies while also increasing the use of currently available energy efficient ones to gain immediate reductions in demand for oil.

The tragic and still un-contained oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico may well go down as one of the most significant environmental disasters of record. That being said, the fact remains that United States’ insatiable demand for energy is unchanged.

As a country, we still use an enormous amount of energy every day and that energy has to come from somewhere. Compounding the already contentious debate surrounding our dependence on foreign sources of energy, there is a good chance that this disaster may sour Americans on additional, let alone existing, domestic oil production. Whatever comes next should reflect a more disaggregated but strong domestic energy framework that takes advantage of our nation’s many alternative resources.

AGA has long supported, to the fullest extent possible, the development of a diverse domestic energy supply, including coal, oil, nuclear, wind, hydro, solar and, of course, natural gas. And while everyone is encouraged by the increased awareness being brought to renewables, the fact remains that all of the power produced by alternative and renewable fuel sources meets only a small portion of the country’s daily energy needs.

A realistic plan for a sustainable low-carbon future, therefore, must include, and support, traditional and proven fuel sources such as natural gas. With major energy producers publicly turning to natural gas as their fuel of choice, the message is clear—as the cleanest of all fossil fuels, natural gas can provide the nation and its consumers with a proven, reliable, low-carbon source of energy.

Equally important is ensuring that the most effective and efficient application of natural gas—directly using natural gas to heat homes, to heat water, for cooking, and for other end-use applications such as natural gas vehicles—is encouraged and supported. Direct use of natural gas is more efficient, more cost effective and greener than converting gas to electricity to power the same end-use applications.

More than three out of every five barrels of oil the United States consumes go towards transportation. The process of weaning ourselves off oil starts with a change in attitude about the way we get around.

Such change is possible. When gas prices skyrocketed, we saw the market for SUVs dry up and the Toyota Prius become as much of a status symbol as a sports car. Automobile advertisers started touting fuel economy over horsepower, and the hype surrounding the Chevy Volt and the Nissan Leaf plug-in electric vehicles has been enormous.

But an attitude shift alone won’t end our dependence on oil. Federal and state governments need to implement smart transportation policy. Solutions such as building solar recharging stations for electric cars, electrifying and increasing the reach of high speed rail, investing in public transportation, emphasizing smarter urban development, and strengthening fuel economy standards will save more oil than would be sucked from the ground under President Obama’s plan to expand offshore drilling.

Solutions dovetail with each other. Smart growth links land development, transportation, and economic growth to people’s everyday needs. Instead of the sprawl of parking lots and big-box retail stores, smart growth communities are built around subway stops and bus routes and encourage walking and biking. Zoning is mixed so people can work, live, and shop in the same area. Solar recharging stations can be built in existing parking areas and augment local energy grids when they’re not being used. More investment in public transportation will expand the reach of these communities. Well-funded high speed rail corridors can facilitate quick, clean, and affordable travel between urban centers.

Of course, electric cars and rail won’t help us if our electricity is still generated from fossil fuels and other dirty, dangerous energy sources. We need to replace fossil fuels in our energy grid with solar and wind. The Obama administration’s approval of the Cape Wind project was a good start, but President Obama needs to put an end to his all-of-the-above energy policy. Every dollar that’s wasted on subsidizing corn ethanol, which actually increases our pollution and reliance on fossil fuels, is a dollar that could be invested in research and development to reduce the costs of photovoltaic solar technology. Ethanol tax credits are set to expire at the end of the year; we should let them. Money sunk into carbon capture, a dubious technology that at best will only keep us wedded to dirty coal, could be better spent on harnessing wind energy. And handing the nuclear industry a preemptive bailout leaves taxpayers vulnerable not only to dangerous reactors and radioactive waste, but also loan defaults and cost overruns.

The solutions to ending our dependence on oil already exist and so does the desire to change. So why do we capitulate to fear-mongering and defeatist rhetoric perpetuated by those who are invested in the status quo? Why do we allow the same corporations that caused the disaster in the Gulf of Mexico to shape the energy discussion in this country?

When the public debate is confined to false choices, we give ourselves over to unchecked corporate greed and pay-to-play politics. We need to see through demeaning industry rhetoric. To end our dependence on oil, we simply need to scale up technologies we already have. Weaning ourselves off dirty fuel is not just the right choice for the future, it’s the right choice now. And with smart policymaking and implementation, we can do it within a generation.

The Gulf of Mexico disaster is a deafening wakeup call that America's reliance on oil is deadly. The more we continue to drill for oil, the more we risk a catastrophe like this could happen again. Moreover, the United States holds only a tiny percentage of the world's oil reserves. As long as we rely on oil, we'll continue to buy most of it from abroad. And that means we're sending hundreds of billions overseas every year to hostile regimes and our enemies, instead of investing our resources here at home.

There's a better way. We know how to invest in energy solutions that are clean, renewable and domestic. American auto companies are already starting to build the next generation of cars that will run mainly on electricity. That's how we can save consumers from paying high prices at the pump, and it's how our struggling domestic auto industry can come back to life.

And we can power our homes and businesses with renewable energy that America has in abundance, like the sun, the wind and geothermal. Clean energy technologies are available now, and investing in them is one of the best ways to drive economic growth.

In addition to using cleaner sources of energy, we need to update our aging and inefficient electricity infrastructure. Modernizing our electricity infrastructure includes using more efficient equipment, tools that provide consumers with better information and control over their energy usage, and technologies that enhance renewable electricity utilization.

In the wake of the Deepwater Oil Disaster, we must unite behind solutions that will end our addiction to oil. This week, key senators are expected to unveil a new comprehensive climate and clean energy proposal. The need for legislation has never been more urgent. We must heed the lessons learned from this tragedy in the Gulf, and move forward this year on clean energy policies that will create new jobs, reduce pollution and reduce our dependence on oil.

BP’s tragic April 20 oil rig explosion killed 11 people and has flooded the Gulf of Mexico with 4 million gallons of oil and counting. This terrible event is another urgent reminder that we must drastically cut our oil use to protect our health, economy, and environment.

The United States has only 2 percent of the world’s oil reserves, yet we use one-quarter of the oil produced annually. We can never close this supply-demand gap. Instead we have to rely on “dangerous or unstable” nations for one out of every five barrels of oil we consume. Drilling for oil in formerly protected areas in the Gulf of Mexico and off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts will not provide oil for a long time, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

The fastest, cheapest way to reduce our oil dependence is to cut U.S. oil demand. Efforts to reduce oil use should focus on vehicles since 70 percent of oil use is for transportation and two-thirds of that is for passenger vehicles. We should act now to reduce our oil use in three key ways:

· Make vehicles significantly more fuel efficient while commercializing electric vehicles

· Develop cleaner, alternative non-oil-based fuels such as advanced biofuels and natural gas

· Invest in public transportation to provide practical, accessible, economical alternatives to driving

The Obama administration has taken important steps in each of these areas. It set new fuel efficiency standards to increase automobile and light truck fuel economy by one-third. This will save nearly 2 billion barrels of oil over the life of these cars.

The Obama administration also launched initiatives to build the infrastructure essential to increase the development and production of advanced biofuels. These measures will assist farmers that grow feedstock for biofuels, as well as aid companies that produce them. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act will help by investing $8 billion in public transit and another $8 billion in high-speed rail. Both of these efforts will help save oil.

The BP oil disaster and its horrible aftermath provide an opening for President Obama and Congress to take additional steps to reduce oil use. We should establish a National Oil Savings Program that gives the president authority to cut oil consumption by 7 million barrels of oil per day in 2030.[1] It should include interim goals of cutting 1 million and 3 million barrels of oil in the middle years. This idea is based upon a proposal made by Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) in 2003.

Such legislation should also incent or require more efficient cars, clean fuels, and more transit options. These are the essential elements of lower oil consumption.

As oil gushes into the Gulf of Mexico, Americans are clamoring for change. The Benenson Strategy Group just released a May 4-5 poll demonstrating that voters want clean energy reform more than ever. It determined that: “61% of 2010 voters support and just 31% oppose a bill ‘that will limit pollution, invest in domestic energy sources and encourage companies to use and develop clean energy. It would do this in part by charging energy companies for carbon pollution in electricity or fuels like oil.’”

Benenson also finds that “39% of voters now say they are more likely to support [clean energy legislation] in the wake of the oil spill” than before.

[1] These proposals developed in collaboration with the Alliance for Climate Protection, National Wildlife Federation, Natural Resources Defense Council, Sierra Club, and Union of Concerned Scientists.

Initial responses to tragic events like the recent Gulf spill too often involve overreacting. The best response, however, requires forbearance until emotions are settled and hard facts are in hand. In that light, officials can consider policy options more clearly.

In order to avoid considerable unintended consequences, policy decisions must be determined by context and perspective rather than emotional rejoinders.

While the magnitude of the Gulf spill and its short term impacts should not be underestimated, they also should not be judged out of context. Before this incident, more than 40 years had passed since the last offshore production accident. And it’s been two decades since the Prince William Sound tanker accident. The safety record of offshore exploration and production is excellent; industry has safely drilled thousands of wells in the Gulf of Mexico.

Usually, accidents that have large impacts lead to improvements in technology and operations. This will be one of the consequences of this accident as well. Before jumping to policy conclusions, we need to know what went wrong and what can be done to reduce risks in the future. I stress “reduce” risks, because we cannot eliminate them. Pursuit of absolute safety is a fool’s errand.

The Energy Information Administration forecast for 2030 shows that the US will be consuming about slightly more oil then and we do now—roughly 20 million barrels per day. Given population and economic growth that estimate reflects very significant improvements in energy efficiency and technology. But, there are limits to how much we can reduce our reliance on oil and still have a healthy economy and a mobile society.

The benefits of oil go beyond filling our tanks.

Diesel fuels trucks that move products from coast to coast. Jet fuel enables us to fly where ever we want. We rely heavily on oil for transportation, because it’s abundant, energy dense, and less costly than alternatives. Turning over the almost 250 million vehicles on the road today will take several decades and would require the availability of alternatives that are reasonably priced and meet consumers need for size, comfort and range.

Today, hybrids are the only viable alternative. But they are more costly than their gasoline versions. Plug-in hybrid technology is nowhere near commercial because of the constraints of battery technology and an electric power system not well suited for plug-ins. Advances in biofuels are taking place but we are decades away from cellulosic technology that can produce the volume of liquid fuels to satisfy the mobility needs of the American public.

Decades-worth of technological advances are necessary before alternatives to petroleum powered vehicles become ready for primetime in large numbers.

So, the hard fact is that we are going to need large volumes of oil for decades to come. Either we produce it here -- and reap the benefits that stem from domestic production, as well as its potential risks -- or we import even more fuel and accept the risks associated with that.

Climate policy should stand or fall on its own merits. It would be very unfortunate if the reaction to this spill was legislation that could not produce 60 votes on its own merits.

There are two problems with all current climate proposals, including the House passed bill last year. The first is that the deals that are cobbled together to get enough votes for passage invariably have consequences that likely will do more harm than good. Second, all proposals include emission reduction mandates with no basis in reality. The current version of Kerry-Lieberman would require a reduction of about 1 gigaton of carbon in a decade. No supporter of that goal can explain how it can be achieved without serious damage to the economy and without creating conditions that make the trading system more vulnerable to fraud and abuse.

Americans have already had enough synthetic CDOs and other such risky financial instruments and we certainly don’t need congressionally imposed shortages.

Energy Efficiency Should be America’s First Fuel

By Kateri Callahan
President, Alliance to Save Energy

With or without April’s devastating oil spill, we simply will never be able to drill our way toward energy independence. Instead, the first step in weaning ourselves off of oil and petroleum fuel sources should be to prioritize our nation’s first fuel, energy efficiency.

The United States currently consumes around 20 percent of the world’s oil despite having only 2 percent of the world’s oil reserves, while offshore drilling is projected to produce less than a two-month supply of fuel between now and 2030. The math simply does not add up. Our national energy policy is at a crossroads. Our neighbors are well on their way to realizing a new clean energy economy is emerging, while we remain wedded to the outmoded energy policies of the past.

By emphasizing policies like improvements in U.S. building codes, development of new appliance standards, residential retrofit programs for consumers, placing a price on carbon, and the creation of a national Energy Efficiency Resource Standard (EERS), the United States would lower our energy demand, lower the price of electricity, reduce pollution, and create jobs. These policies are straightforward, quick, cost-effective, and will generate substantial energy and cost savings for every single American.

At the moment, the effects of the Gulf oil spill on policymaker’s efforts to move toward enactment of energy and climate legislation are not yet evident. Various bills and solutions exist and it’s possible that this week’s release of the Kerry-Lieberman climate bill could spur a serious bipartisan effort to address these issues. However, without putting a clear focus on the need to fully deploy energy efficiency, any such efforts will fall short.

America’s first fuel, energy efficiency, is a huge resource waiting to be unleashed. We can lead on the new clean energy economy in the United States, but only if we have the political will and discipline to see it through.

Since Richard Nixon was President, every Chief Executive, frequently in response to an international or environmental crisis, has promised to kick America's addiction to oil and achieve genuine energy independence. And as soon as a President made that statement, the energy high priests promptly filled the opinion pages and journals with explanations of why it couldn't be done.

Well now it can. For the first time we have an adequate menu of oil-free transportation options to make freedom from oil a practical, low-cost energy future for America

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/kerry-analysis-02-18-2010.pdf -- not next year, but over the next decade. It's going to take a wide variety of solutions and innovations -- no silver bullet, but lots of silver buck-shot.

It's not rocket science. It's electrifying our passenger vehicle fleet, converting heavy trucks to natural gas, moving more of our freight on rail and boats and less on trucks, electrifying our railroads to reduce diesel consumption, and investing in the overall efficiency of our transportation system by eliminating bottlenecks and improving infrastructure.

It works -- by 2030, combining these strategies, we could cut our use of oil by 7 million barrels a day or so. Everyone ought to look at the US EPA study done for Senator John Kerry

http://www.epa.gov/otaq/climate/kerry-analysis-02-18-2010.pdf that gives us our first road map to energy independence (without harvesting natural gas in the heavy duty sector, so its understates the possible.)

This road-map effectively frees us from non-OPEC oil imports. It leaves Canadian tar sands and deep US offshore oil as highly dubious if North American oil sources -- so we need to look further and deeper. (One intriguing question -- we use about 30% of our oil as a feedstock for various chemicals. Could a creative combination of green, plant based chemical feedstock and domestic natural gas make a major cut in demand for petroleum in this sector?)

But let's be real, and let's be serious. It is quite obvious that in describing BP's efforts to capture leaking oil as "open heart surgery in the dark" BP America was speaking about more than the disaster recovery -- no one in the oil industry has a clue what happened, whether it can reliably be prevented, or whether this is an unavoidable risk of deep drilling. No one in the oil industry ever seriously modelled a mini-Spindletop at the bottom of the Gulf of Mexico. And no one can actually predict how much it would cost to produce oil under these conditions in a way we could tolerate economically and ecologically.

We do know that the multinational oil industry -- Exxon-Mobil, Chevron, Royal Dutch Shell, BP, et. al. -- has bet its future on heavy oils and deep offshore plays. They didn't do this by choice, but because they no longer have access to light, on-shore elephant fields -- even in Iraq, while multinationals got leases, they didn't get much of a margin.

So it is not unlikely that the long history in which oil companies represented America's source of transportation fuels is coming to an end -- they won't like it, but we shouldn't listen to them in setting our course.

Off oil, it seems to me, is not easy, and risky, but far safer than counting on another thirty years of black goo to get me to work.

The tragedy now unfolding in the Gulf of Mexico has spurred calls for a rapid shift away from fossil fuels and towards clean, renewable energy – and that’s exactly the right response. America’s voracious appetite for oil must be curbed before our nation can move away from dirty, damaging – and sometimes, as the current crisis shows – disastrous drilling for oil in our lands and waters.

The events of the past two weeks have shown once again that oil companies cannot effectively eliminate the threats that drilling off of U.S. shores pose to the health of marine wildlife, fisheries and coastal economies. It’s unconscionable that we should expand this threat by increasing our offshore oil exploration. In fact, we should be looking for ways to reduce our use of oil, to ease the continuing pressure to find more stores of oil, whether here in the United States or abroad.

There are a number of steps the United States should be taking to reduce our dependence on oil. In April, the Obama administration announced new fuel economy standards for automobiles that will, when they take effect, start to dramatically reduce the amount of gasoline burned in our cars and trucks each year, cutting oil use, global warming pollution and other types of air pollution. But much more will be needed, particularly as our nation’s fleet of electric cars expands and draws energy from our electricity grid, which is largely fueled by coal-burning power plants that also contribute to global climate change.

To truly move beyond dirty, climate-changing fossil fuels like oil and coal, we must rapidly expand our investments in clean renewable energy sources such as wind and solar. Renewable power from large-scale solar and wind farms can help to speed up the transition to a clean-energy future, as long as we also make sure that renewable development is done right, in the places that it makes the most sense. Siting renewable energy facilities should be done in the most sustainable way possible – near existing transmission lines, on fallowed farmland or on the plentiful former industrial sites and abandoned mines – before we raze pristine lands and destroy additional wildlife habitat. Poorly located clean energy projects aren’t really clean.

This week, we’ll see long-awaited comprehensive climate and energy legislation from Senators Kerry and Lieberman. The primary goal of this legislation must be to move our nation away from fossil fuels and towards clean, safe renewable power. This bill should certainly not include an expansion of offshore drilling, one of the most environmentally dangerous sources of fuel. America’s coastal communities, fisheries and wildlife are just too valuable for offshore drilling that we cannot control.

Logically, a climate and energy bill that rejects expansion of dangerous fossil fuels and embraces our clean energy future should win broad support from the public and the Senate. We’re hoping that logic, not political gamesmanship, will win the day.

Centuries from now, mankind is going to look back at a curious time in history when fossil fuels -- chiefly oil -- were a central element of our energy needs. For me, we’re about midway through what I call the Petroleum Era. The world’s oil reserves are declining, but oil will remain a major energy commodity for decades to come.

The issue for me isn’t oil use, but America’s continuing dependence on foreign oil -- in particular OPEC oil -- which is a critical threat to our economic and national security. We must do what every president since Richard Nixon has pledged to do: reduce our dependence on foreign oil, particularly oil from nations that, well, range from those who don’t have our best interests at heart, to those who downright hate us.

You can’t have a sensible conversation about reducing OPEC oil use without focusing on transportation. It accounts for two-thirds of our oil imports.

Seventy percent of the oil we use is refined into transportation fuel: as gasoline to power out 250 million cars, light trucks, and SUVs, and as diesel to power our eight million heavy trucks.

Trucks running on diesel are the target. If we can change over our national fleet of refuse and recycling trucks, school and municipal buses, and over-the-road trucks from imported diesel to domestic natural gas, we can say “goodbye” to OPEC oil within seven years.

Since the Pickens Plan began I have said I’m for anything American. Oil is a very minor player in the production of electricity, so we can still grow our use of solar, wind, hydro, geo, nuclear, and natural gas -- all of which would be better for the environment and would create long-term, high-paying, non-exportable jobs -- without having any effect on our oil requirements.

We have about 4,000 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of recoverable natural gas -- that’s a 200-year supply. Natural gas is the most widely distributed natural resource in America. Gas lines run up every street and down every alley in just about every city and town in the nation. By focusing on heavy trucks and fleets the issue of a refueling infrastructure comes off the table. Trash, recycling, and express delivery trucks as well as school and municipal buses go home to the barn every night where they can be refueled at a central location. Eighteen-wheelers tend to run the same routes on a regular schedule so natural gas refueling facilities can be easily sighted and installed by private industry.

There is no perfect fuel. Solar and wind take large amounts of land. Nuclear is expensive to build, more expensive to dismantle presents a major problem of disposing of spent fuel. Oil and gas must be extracted from beneath the surface of the Earth which, in the case of the BP well was about a mile beneath the surface of the Gulf.

Until the perfect is discovered, developed and deployed, we have to make the highest and best use of the fuels we have available here and available now. If we want to take pressure our need to use imported oil, the best possible fuel is clean, cheap, abundant, domestic natural gas.

This is a critical mission, and we cannot let the tragic oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico divert our attention.

We can only start this discussion with an honest, realistic approach of our needs as a country -- those who would argue that oil is the only way forward, as well as those who protest all oil production (yet continue to drive cars, fly on airplanes) need to look at this not through the lens of the recent catastrophic spill, but through the lens of what we can do to address ALL of our needs: our energy requirements, our economic security, our environmental needs and safety concerns.
Let's at least try to unite all sides of this debate and find a reasonable and realistic starting point from which we consider ALL the consequences of ALL the different options for energy production -- from supply and cost to environmental impact and geopolitical impact -- and weigh the risks and benefits of all.

At the Consumer Energy Alliance we recognize that there are NO EASY ANSWERS to the country's energy demands and that all of our options have consequences. This is not to say that we cannot -- or should not -- strive to move toward a better future where more of our energy is derived from renewable sources But we also need to recognize that condemning all domestic oil production, without offering a viable alternative on the scale that is needed, helps no one.

The enormously devastating oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is just one reminder that stretching out an addiction to a polluting and planet-warming fossil fuel poses risks to our health, our environment, and our economy.

U.S. oil production peaked in 1970 at 9.6 million barrels per day. Since then production has dropped by almost half and now supplies less than 30 percent of domestic consumption. In 2009, the United States spent nearly $200 billion on oil imports to make up the difference.

With oil wells on land getting tapped out, U.S. oil production would have fallen off even more precipitously if not for offshore oil. Offshore oil production now comprises about a third of the U.S. total. The remaining “technically recoverable” offshore oil resource (most of which has not yet been discovered), is estimated by the U.S. Department of Energy at 93 billion barrels, equivalent to about 13 years of current U.S. oil consumption. Offshore oil can’t sustain us forever. Nor can we grow our way out of the problem, as some ethanol proponents have implied. Converting the entire U.S. grain harvest into fuel, leaving none for food for people or for animals, would satisfy at most 18 percent of our current gasoline demand.

As Fatih Birol, chief economist of the International Energy Agency, recommends for the world, “we should not cling to crude down to the last drop – we should leave oil before it leaves us.”

Fortunately there are alternatives. Much of the United States’ nearly 20-million-barrel-a-day oil habit goes to run vehicles, the same vehicles that in 2007 got city commuters stuck in traffic for a cumulative 4.2 billion hours, costing society some $87 billion, according to the Texas Transportation Institute. To get off oil, transportation options can be expanded beyond single-passenger vehicles to bus rapid transit, light rail, high speed rail, and space for bicycles and pedestrians.

Even though the U.S automobile fleet shrank by 4 million vehicles last year, cars will not disappear completely any time soon. However, the fleet can be cleaned up by marrying the electric and plug-in electric vehicles now starting to come to market to renewably-produced electricity. The U.S. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory estimates that over 80 percent of the U.S. car fleet could be powered by the current electrical infrastructure. Tapping into the country’s enormous wind, solar, and geothermal resources could green that grid.

While oil resources are limited, wind resources are abundant and inexhaustible. A recent study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that the world’s top carbon emitters had enough wind energy potential to meet their current electricity consumption many times over. The United States’ total wind potential was estimated at 22 times current electricity use. Much of the country’s readily-developable wind resource is on land, but even the offshore potential is 4 times the current electricity use.

To date almost all the offshore wind action has been in Europe, but that may soon be changing. China and Japan have just begun developing offshore wind. With the recent approval of the Cape Wind project off the coast of Massachusetts, along with projects being studied off the coasts of New Jersey and Delaware, the United States may join the game as well.

Unlike oil, wind is widely-distributed, clean, and non-climate disrupting, and becoming increasingly cheap. With wind, we have a well that will not run dry.

In response to the two Mideast oil embargoes in the 1970s, the energy industry backed oil out of the electric generation sector due to increasing costs and uncertainty of supply. Oil generation was primarily replaced by electricity from the dozens of nuclear energy facilities that were built and put into service during the 1970s and 80s. During that same period, nations poor in natural resources, such as France and Japan, responded by transitioning to nuclear energy-dominated electric portfolios that have proven to be reliable, affordable and low in carbon emissions.

Today, oil is used to generate just one percent of U.S. electricity. But its use for transportation has skyrocketed to more than 21 million barrels per day. Although Americans’ driving has recently declined, the cost of oil remains high because it is set in a world market that is experiencing tremendous growth as developing nations grow and industrialize. The threats that our overreliance on foreign oil present to our nation’s economy and energy security, coupled with future restrictions on carbon emissions, requires action to break this dangerous addiction.

Oil will continue to play a significant role in our transportation sector, but we have an opportunity now to begin reducing our use of oil for automobiles and fleet transportation. The advancement of plug-in all-electric and hybrid vehicles can reduce oil consumption. But this move requires more electricity, especially low-carbon electricity, if we are to take advantage of the carbon emission reductions that could be realized across the board. A typical nuclear plant could charge more than 5 million all-electric cars in a single day, and even more hybrids. This would reduce our need for foreign oil and prevent millions of tons of carbon dioxide from entering the air.

We need all energy sources to meet our nation’s energy needs, particularly those that are available to us domestically. No single energy supply can break our oil addiction and it can’t happen overnight. This is a frequent, but necessary refrain: We must expand a balanced portfolio of energy supplies, including a continued role for oil that necessitates the development of domestic sources. Congress must enact legislation that establishes a sensible long-term energy policy that focuses on a transition to low-carbon, domestic sources that enhance America’s energy security, environment and balance of trade. Energy could be the base from which we launch the next economic expansion for both U.S. and global markets. But we must act now.

The United States has no choice but to wean itself off oil. Refusal to do so will result in more disastrous spills, accelerated global warming, and the loss of new and secure job opportunities. The amount of money the U.S. has invested in clean energy over the past five years (not to mention decades) pales in comparison to the massive subsidies (in the trillions overall) we continue to give fossil fuels. If, as predicted, the Kerry-Lieberman led effort gives multiple billions in dollars of hand outs to the oil, coal and nuclear industries while at the same time giving only a fraction of that to solar, wind and geothermal, then that proposed legislation is dead in the water. This is why, despite its imperfection, the Cantwell-Collins bill is superior to the rumored Kerry-Lieberman approach. Cantwell-Collins at least creates a level playing field and it works off the successful Clean Air Act instead of waiving it. Oh, and Cantwell-Collins is actually a bill with a number, S.2877 (Kerry-Lieberman is not yet such a real bill) and Cantwell-Collins is bipartisan (Kerry-Lieberman is not, though we’d maybe give them brownie points if Bernie Sanders jumped on board).

Electrification of the transportation sector could allow pure, clean, domestic sources of energy like wind power to directly power our vehicles. While wind energy is already significantly reducing the carbon emissions and fossil fuel dependence of our economy, those savings would be expanded even further if wind energy could directly reduce the use of oil in the transportation sector.

Wind works to produce manufacturing and construction jobs, so using our nation's abundant, domestic wind energy to power vehicles would be a win-win for our economy and the environment. We look forward to exploring technological options that will expand wind's capability to reduce our current dependence on fossil fuels. Plug-in hybrid autos can be manufactured with technology available today, and will soon be introduced to the market. They'll get 80 or so mpg, and will allow wind energy to help reduce oil imports. Growth in their adoption would bring thousands of new manufacturing jobs both in wind and in the hard-pressed automobile industry.

Estimates of the U.S. wind resource have consistently found it to be abundant. That conclusion was underlined early this year when the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) released a new assessment finding that U.S. winds over land (not including offshore) could generate 37 trillion kilowatt-hours of electricity annually, or nearly nine times the nation’s total electricity use. Clearly, there is substantial potential to put that resource to work in the transportation sector. Many states and utilities offer wind-powered electrical service where power is purchased from wind farms across the region, so as soon as people buy their new electric cars, fully wind-powered transportation will be available to many drivers, and in other cases, the cars will be powered by the electricity mix of the utility which often includes significant amounts of renewable energy.

Now more than ever, our country needs a smart, effective plan to cut our dependence on oil and launch a clean energy economy. The disaster in the Gulf is yet another reminder of the damage that oil drilling – both on and offshore – can cause to local communities, wildlife and the environment. No matter which way you look at it, it’s time to stop talking about cutting America’s oil dependence and start taking action.

We need to make every effort we can to protect the communities and ecosystems of the Gulf Coast by capping the well and cleaning up the spill. But we can’t stop there. Congress needs to send comprehensive climate and clean energy legislation to President Obama this year. The House has already taken action. It’s now time for the Senate to come up with a plan that launches a clean energy economy, cuts America’s oil dependence and curbs global warming.

A real oil savings plan would include several key measures. First, we need to continue raising the fuel economy of passenger vehicles and start boosting the fuel economy of heavy-duty trucks. Second, we need to expand production of clean and sustainable advanced cellulosic biofuels. Third, we need to provide more transportation choices that reduce the need to drive. Finally, we need to begin developing the next generation of advanced vehicles that run on electricity, instead of oil. Taken together, these policies would cut U.S. oil consumption by approximately 3.7 million barrels a day by 2020 and 7.3 million barrels a day by 2030. That’s nearly three times as much oil as we currently import from the entire Persian Gulf.

These are powerful solutions. According to researchers at my organization, boosting the fuel economy of new cars and light trucks to 42 miles per gallon by 2020 would save 40 times as much oil every day as the Coast Guard initially estimated has been spilled into the Gulf so far. Not only would more stringent standards save oil, they would also save people money. With gas at $4 a gallon, those standards would save drivers more than $60 billion in 2020, even after factoring in the extra cost drivers would pay for clean car technology when they buy new vehicles.

In our history, the United States is at its best when we respond to crisis by taking steps to ensure that we will never face the same danger again. The solutions are at hand. We have the technology. Now we need to move forward.

If there’s a silver lining to be found in the oil spill tragedy in the Gulf of Mexico, it’s that the spotlight is now back on the need for America to finally transition to an economy that emphasizes clean and renewable energy sources, preferably those that can be produced right here at home. Solar is a shining example of one such source that can help galvanize the move towards a clean energy future.

For starters, the solar resources in this country – unlike those of oil – are abundant. The southwestern United States is one of the world’s best regions for sunlight. In fact, this region has nearly two thousand hours of peak sunlight each year.

Second, because solar is not demand-driven, it is perfectly suited to provide the peak power we need in late afternoon and early evenings, when demand for electricity and air conditioning is at its highest. In fact, this period of the day is the most expensive and fastest growing segment of our energy market.

Additionally, solar has the potential to create jobs while reducing greenhouse gases. A single factory producing solar panels for a particular region’s electricity needs would create more than 2,500 permanent jobs, 850 construction jobs, avoid 170 thousand tons of CO2 ― and create $2 billion in local economic development over 5 years. All of this for less than a $1 increase in monthly household energy bills.

And finally, and most importantly, solar pricing follows a predictable learning curve. Each doubling of installed capacity drives a 20-percent reduction in cost. At that rate, solar will have the underlying infrastructure to make it a mainstream, affordable, free-market and self-sustaining industry. This is in stark contrast to fossil fuels, which have enjoyed subsidies for nearly a century and where costs over time will surely continue to increase and, with them, gasoline and electricity prices, too. The sun, in contrast, does not run low on supply or raise its prices.

Despite Sen. Graham’s (hopefully temporary) departure from the effort, it appears that Sens. Kerry and Lieberman will move forward with introducing a climate measure as early as this week. We hope that in light of the economic and environmental consequences of the Gulf oil spill, the rest of the upper chamber will recognize that our addiction to oil – both foreign and domestic – is an unsustainable energy approach and will need to be addressed with a sustainable energy solution.

The recent oil spill in the Gulf has, once again, elevated conversation on weaning the U.S. off of its oil dependency. As two-thirds of the oil in the U.S. goes to transportation, putting more fuel efficient vehicles on the road today should be a top priority for lawmakers when developing climate and energy legislation.

As some vehicle technologies move from demonstration phase to the market, we must not lose sight of the innovation that has already taken place to improve existing vehicle technology, including advanced diesel cars. Today’s advanced diesel engines are ultra clean, meeting the nation’s toughest air quality standards. Advanced clean diesel-powered vehicles average 30 percent better fuel economy and 20 percent lower CO2 emissions than traditional gasoline engines, which benefit both consumers and the environment. All of these benefits come without sacrificing the power Americans need or want in their vehicles. Advanced diesel technology provides an average of 50 percent more power (torque) than a traditional gasoline engine.

It’s important to recognize, however, that effective regulation on light-duty vehicles can only be achieved through technology neutral policies – refraining from picking and choosing specific vehicle technologies that will ultimately limit consumer choices. Policies should empower the consumer to decide which vehicle technology best meets their “real world” driving needs, today and in the future. Advanced clean diesel cars have risen in popularity with Americans since coming on the market in 2009. In fact, the percentage of consumers selecting clean diesel as an available option is surpassing the percentage of consumers selecting a hybrid electric powertrain option on available vehicles. They are finding advanced diesel provides real world fuel economy and, coupled with diesel’s traditional high resale value, it provides a low-cost method for CO2 reduction while simultaneously reducing our dependence on oil. It is also important to note that advanced diesel cars, combined with the use of high-quality renewable fuels can even reduce our oil dependency even further.

While we hope that the spill will soon be resolved, we remain optimistic that the incident will encourage lawmakers to reengage in the development of effective policies that bring new energy solutions to the U.S. in the long term and support proven technologies today that can help reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and dependency on oil.

This is a crucial moment for our country to pause and reconsider how we produce and use energy and how that energy is linked to the health of our planet.

As former President Bush said four years ago, the United States is “addicted” to oil. In addition to unsafe domestic production, we’re sending $1 billion a day overseas for foreign oil. Furthermore, we can’t forget that the oil spill comes on the heels of another tragedy: 29 coal miners lost their lives in West Virginia less than a month ago. While 40 percent of our energy comes from oil, much of the rest comes from coal – nearly 23 percent.

The United States has relied on these outdated, dangerous sources of energy since the industrial revolution. It should not take tragedies to remind ourselves that we can do better, but they are a wake-up call to Americans who are sick of what they’re seeing. They know it is past time for clean, safe energy in the United States and past time for the U.S. to play a leadership, rather than a back seat, role in tackling climate change.

Clean energy makes economic, environmental and safety sense. In a struggling economy, we can put Americans back to work -- not just manufacturing solar panels and wind turbines, but also in related skilled scientific, engineering and service roles. Other countries are learning that clean energy generation creates more jobs than fossil fuel generation. Furthermore, making the shift to clean energy will mean we see fewer tragic environmental and social disasters that this month seem to be the norm.

Congress has punted on this issue for years. But we’re now closer than ever to making a change in the right direction. The House of Representatives acted nearly a year ago, and Senators Kerry and Lieberman will introduce a bill in the Senate soon that will give businesses the certainty and incentives they need to jump into the clean energy race. Enacting climate and energy legislation is the single most important action the United States can take to move away from the dangerous past and into the safer, cleaner future.

While people will argue what should and should not be in the Senate bill, doing nothing is irresponsible in light of the risks we are seeing play out in the Gulf right now and we know are part of a warmer world. It’s time to put politics aside and do what is right for the people and the ecosystems that have suffered enough from our dependence on unsafe energy.