If the vote on Senator Murkowski’s resolution tells us anything, it is that the debate over how best to address the many facets of climate change is far from settled. With the growing crisis in the Gulf of Mexico front and center in most Americans’ minds, the desire for action on energy legislation seems to be growing.

Central to any solution, whether hailing from Congress or the EPA, is the need for a balanced policy that embraces smart, proven strategies that take advantage of domestic low-carbon energy options. For the past 40 years, America’s natural gas utilities and their customers have a proven track record of conservation, energy efficiency and carbon emission reductions.

While the number of residential households using natural gas increased from 38 million in 1970 to nearly 65 million today — an increase of more than 70 percent — overall residential consumption over that time has remained essentially flat. That is because residential natural gas users have cut their natural gas use, per household, by about 40 percent. This decline in residential gas usage per household is due to better insulated homes, more efficient appliances and conservation/efficiency programs that are supported by natural gas utilities.

Natural gas contributes to America’s economy too, from the thousands of jobs held by those who work for local utilities to the building and maintaining of infrastructure that keeps natural gas moving. Natural gas utilities also provide solid careers at the local level – from field crews to senior management staff, these are community-based jobs. The natural gas utility industry contributes significant revenue to local tax bases and provides historically solid dividend income to shareholders, often customers of the local utility they own.

So, as Washington looks for the best way to address energy policy and climate change, our elected representatives should also take a look at the big picture because America’s natural gas utilities provide a lot more than just natural gas.

President Obama's address on Tuesday did a good job laying out the steps needed to bring about our country’s next great industry. For starters, America has to regain its economic competitiveness with respect to our investment in clean energy technologies. As the president astutely stated, we, as Americans, have the innovative spirit to lead the clean energy race once again, but only if we “seize the moment.” Furthermore, we need to address the lack of parity between renewable incentives and traditional fossil fuel incentives in order to create a truly balanced energy policy.

While we were disappointed the president neglected to call for a price on carbon in whatever energy/climate bill the Senate comes up with next month, it was encouraging to at least hear him cite the need for a renewable electricity standard and an increase in public/private investment in R&D for clean tech. As he mentioned more than once, the costs of “inaction” will be substantial, not only to our economy but to our national security and environment as well. As Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) prepares to meet with the Senate Democratic Conference today, we hope that he and the rest of the caucus will take the president’s appeal to heart and set America on a new course of prosperity.

Check out the Applied Materials blog - Clean Tech, Applied - for the unabridged version of this post.

At the start of the Obama Administration, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel warned against ever letting a crisis “go to waste.” Two years later, that same guiding philosophy appeared to direct last night’s speech. After 58 days of treating BP as a piñata, the President now wants to adopt the company’s tag line—Beyond Petroleum.

The president’s call to move off oil rapidly by using legislation and rhetoric to unleash new energy innovation is no different than President Nixon’s call for energy independence decades earlier. Style and campaign rhetoric are no substitute for substance and real leadership. Repeated calls to achieve energy independence by moving away from oil have proven misguided for over three decades and still are. Somehow, some in government continue to believe that they can order up new energy technology like you order a new car or next generation computer.

Making the same mistake over and over and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity (or simply the mark of stupidity).

We use and rely on oil not because we like it. We use and rely on oil, because it is abundant, versatile, affordable, and has a high energy content. Until we can develop alternatives with those characteristics, we will continue to rely on oil as a major input into our economy. Arbitrary actions that cause scarcity or make oil too costly will not only harm American consumers and limit our mobility but also make it harder for the U.S. to compete globally. President Obama can try to move the nation off of oil, but the rest of the world will not follow suit. And if our competitors’ costs of production are made lower because of our wrongheaded policies, we will export more investment and jobs overseas.

A large number of studies have carefully examined growth in greenhouse gases and energy use. The conclusion of all is clear; making significant reductions in emissions requires a whole new set of energy systems that will take decades to develop. A major R&D program and incentives for more private research needs to be the foundation for achieving that goal, but even it will take decades rather than years. We also need a tax and investment climate that favors implementation of new technology and capital stock turn over.

America is making steady progress in improvements in energy technology which means that oil use per unit of economic activity will continue to decline (but not to zero). Our transportation system relies on gasoline, diesel, and jet fuel and -- even with major advances in technology -- will continue to for decades to come according to the Energy Information Administration. Washington’s new CAFE standards are pushing the envelope technically, but the technology to achieve them will not be cheap -- raising the costs of new cars by about $1,000 each according to recent reports. Actions that force oil substitutes into the market place before their time will make that cost appear cheap.

Using the tragedy in the Gulf to push policies that do not reflect energy, economic, and technology realities will not usher in a new energy tomorrow. They will just add more burdens to a struggling economy. Pushing a political agenda that is out of step with the American people or which exploits its fear will make that struggle even harder.

If the President can’t even mention the US-created cap and trade market-based solution for climate risk, then how is Obama bringing any change whatsoever to Washington? Energy policy without a cap on carbon is, de-facto, a government-pick-the winners policy to choose how we get our energy – which any Republican can tell you will be inefficient and expensive. Why can’t Obama just say that hydrocarbons are problematic and that capping carbon emissions IS energy policy? Perhaps the Rove’s of this administration can grasp the simple political narrative of cap and dividend to bring focus back to the severe climate risk we are saddling future generations with. Emanuel + Axelrod, please have a serious discussion with Cantwell + Collins.

President Obama is right in trying to hold BP financially accountable for the disastrous effects of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. He should do everything in his power to make that happen. But the federal government needs to go farther to make sure a similar catastrophe never happens again in this country.

Just as BP must be held accountable, government officials who had a hand in allowing this to happen must also be held accountable. That includes the Department of the Interior, which rubber-stamped the Deepwater Horizon project without much-needed environmental reviews.

It’s also time to end the use of environmental waivers for drilling projects and to call off proposed offshore drilling projects along America’s fragile coasts.

We’re glad to hear the president wants to move toward cleaner energy policies, but they can't simultaneously include incentives for more offshore drilling or the gutting of our nation's flagship environmental laws — like the current Kerry-Lieberman bill — and they must reduce carbon to levels that scientists say will help avoid the worst effects of climate change.

A warming world is threatening our communities, our wild places, and the environmental benefits like clean air and water that we get from them. The Senate needs to act to address the causes and solutions to this growing problem, and the vote to reject efforts to weaken the Clean Air Act is a sign that the Senate might finally be ready to take on the challenge.

As we have seen time and time again, our nation’s addiction to oil is causing environmental destruction and degradation on a massive scale – some immediate, like the heavy toll on the Gulf of Mexico, and some over a long period like the melting glaciers and thawing permafrost in the Arctic. The Senate needs to look at ways to decrease our dependence on dirty fuels, and move us towards a clean, renewable energy future.

Our public forests and grasslands are on the front lines in fight against climate change. Protecting these lands protects communities across the nation that benefit from the clean water, healthy ecosystems, and recreational opportunities. They provide jobs that help put America back to work. But all of these benefits are at risk unless the Senate acts quickly and decisively to meet the climate crisis.

We cannot wait for another ecological disaster to take action on climate change, Now that the Senate has rejected the notion of going backwards and weakening the Clean Air Act, it can now devote its energy to moving forward to meet this great challenge.

First and foremost the vote and debate on the Murkowski Resolution last week demonstrates that a majority of the U.S. Senate supports repealing or at least delaying the EPA greenhouse gas regulations. Forty-seven Senators - including six Democrats - voted for an outright repeal while at least five additional members supported a two-year delay.

Second, with all Republicans voting in favor of the Murkowski Resolution, this means that the Senate Democrats will bear full responsibility for any problems that result from the EPA regulations. Any denied permits, increased energy costs, or resulting job losses will be blamed on the Senate Democrats.

Finally, those who supported a two-year delay but voted against the Resolution will be in a very precarious position if the two-year delay legislation fails to get sixty votes, if and when it is ever considered by the Senate.

So what does this mean for the broader climate debate. Simply put, the Democratic crossover in favor of the Murkowski Resolution shows a divided Party and demonstrates that the 60-vote supermajority threshold would be at the very least challenging - if not impossible - to reach on broader cap-and-trade legislation. Senate Majority Leadership simply do not have the votes to proceed.

The defeat of the Murkowski resolution is a shot in the arm to proponents of comprehensive climate and energy legislation. That the resolution was rebuffed at a time of strong anti-government sentiment shows that momentum is building for a clean energy economy that is less reliant on fossil fuels. The Gulf oil spill has strengthened this argument even further.

Now is not the time to settle for an energy-only bill, as proposed by U.S. Senator Lugar, R-IN. That approach would not get us the emissions reductions scientists say are necessary to avert the worst impacts of climate change. It would not spur development of renewable energy research or production beyond what is already being done. And it would not go far enough to reduce U.S. dependence on oil. To achieve all of those goals, we must put a cap on carbon emissions.

While no one yet knows how to achieve a 60-vote super-majority on climate and energy legislation, it is wrong to assume that the 47-53 Murkowski vote foretells how senators will vote on such a bill. Some of the Republicans voting in favor of the resolution made it clear that their vote was only about giving Congress sole authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions; it was not a vote against action on climate change.

Senator Susan Collins from Maine couldn’t have said it more clearly: "While I support regulating greenhouse gas emissions, I have reservations about the sweeping approach EPA is pursuing. … A better way forward is for Congress to finally tackle this issue and pass comprehensive clean energy legislation.”

Maine’s other senator, Olympia Snowe said: “it is Congress … that should be responsible for developing environmental policies that integrate our nation’s economic well-being as an urgent priority along with the reduction of carbon emissions, and I do not accept that these are mutually exclusive goals.”

And in his Cape Cod Times Op-ed Senator Scott Brown talked about the need to “foster the development of renewable sources of energy.” “What is clear,” said Brown, “is that we need to tap the entrepreneurial spirit of America to address these significant issues.”

A price on carbon would do just that; an energy only approach would not.

Thousands of U.S. business leaders across all spectrums of the economy understand this. They recognize that comprehensive climate and energy legislation is critical to job creation, American innovation and economic competitiveness. That’s why groups like BICEP, which includes Nike and other leading consumer and tech companies, have consistently supported strong national action on climate change.

Many of the senators who voted for the Murkowski resolution say they want Congress, not the EPA, to address climate change. So let’s do it.

Massive oil spill, hottest year on record, no “carbon clarity” for business decisions (US cleantech stocks are down 2/3 since the beginning of 2008) and the bill on the table, Kerry-Lieberman, is the product of old-boy vote buying with industrial subsidies (the refiner provisions alone are an embarrassment in light of the Gulf disaster). If this is the best our Congress can do (ironically, the rallying cry of KL), then Obama should pound the table and get it passed. If not, he should try some “change we can believe in” by moving from old-boys to new-gals and supporting CLEAR – a bi-partisan bill that offers fairness, progressivity, and a narrative the public can understand. Relative to another government-pick-the-winners approach like Lugar’s bill (where Indiana’s near total reliance on coal for electricity is a motivator for moderation), CLEAR’s logic should be unimpeachable for conservatives and liberals alike. Auction a shrinking supply of permits to coalmines, natural gas wells, and refineries - dividend ¾ of the revenue pro-rata to households – and let prices drive resource allocation to clean energy alternatives. Econ 101.

The Senate did the right thing by rejecting this resolution, which would have been a gift to the oil companies and other corporate interests. A bailout for the oil industry would have been not only morally wrong, but politically wrong-headed at a time when the worst environmental disaster in American history is devastating the Gulf Coast.

In this time of crisis, the Senate must follow up with comprehensive climate and clean energy legislation that will reduce our dependence on oil. And the political momentum for legislation is strong. Even many of the senators who voted for the Murkowski resolution said they accept the science of climate change. These views are in accord with the American public -- a recent Stanford University poll found three-fourths of Americans believe the earth has been warming and human behavior is substantially responsible.

A number of senators also said they believe that our climate and energy policies should be decided by Congress, not the EPA. And that is all the more reason for the Senate to move swiftly to pass comprehensive legislation that will create millions of new jobs, reduce pollution and end our reliance on oil.

Senators from both parties have put forward a number of proposals that could be included in comprehensive legislation. Now, leadership's task is to take the best ideas from all of these proposals and bring legislation to a vote.

There are several principles to keep in mind as the Senate puts together a comprehensive package. It must reduce our oil dependence. It should respond to the Deepwater Oil Disaster with new safeguards on the petroleum industry. It should include meaningful investment in clean, renewable energy. And it must also include a price on carbon pollution, which is how we can make clean energy profitable and ensure that polluters will pay for their harmful emissions.

A majority of our senators just proved that they stand with the American public, not the oil companies and other special interests. They must now carry that momentum forward and have the Senate join the House in passing comprehensive climate and clean energy legislation.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski scored a political victory last week even though she fell short by four votes of achieving a legislative victory.

Despite vicious smear campaigns by the likes of MoveOn.Org, Climate Progress, and Environmental Defense Action Fund, despite a White House veto threat, and despite me-too criticism from Nixon and Ford alum Russell Train and the subsidy-seeking Auto Alliance, all 41 Republican Senators and six Democrats voted for Sen. Murkowski’s resolution to stop EPA from ‘enacting’ controversial global warming policies through the regulatory back door.

Thanks to Sen. Murkowski’s courageous leadership, the Democratic Party is now the Party of Endangerment – that party taking ownership of all the regulatory consequences of EPA’s endangerment rule; hence the party responsible for endangering America’s economic future.

Obama officials and their congressional allies talk as if the endangerment rule were a legislative hammer enabling them to bully opponents into supporting cap-and-trade as the price of averting an economically-chilling era of litigation-driven greenhouse gas regulation under the Clean Air Act.

That is doubtful. A legislative extortion strategy works only if Republicans and moderate Democrats are too dumb to appreciate the political victory they and Sen. Murkowski just achieved.

The Party of Endangerment miscalculates, because pro-growth lawmakers are not stuck between a rock and a hard place. They have a third option: Just say no to cap-and-tax, let President Obama and his congressional allies take ownership of the regulatory cascade and economic fallout emanating from the endangerment rule, and then exploit the political backlash.

University of Colorado climatologist Roger Pielke, Jr. put the point very well more than a year ago: “Far from being an incentive for Congress to act on its own, the looming possibility that EPA will take regulatory action is a strong incentive for Republicans to stalemate Congressional action and a nightmare scenario for Democrats.”

Michael Shellenberger of the Breakthrough Institute came to the same conclusion. Threatening to sic EPA on the economy is tantamount to promising to commit political suicide. Team Obama, he says, might as well tell Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats, “Don’t make me raise energy prices! You’ll really be in trouble with your voters when I raise their energy prices!”

By denying President Obama bipartisan cover for greenhouse gas regulation via the Clean Air Act, last week’s Senate vote turned the endangerment rule into a political liability for Democrats in an election year. The pressure has just gone up on moderate Democrats and Republicans alike to avoid sharing the blame for virtual energy taxes that increase gasoline prices and destroy jobs. Hence, the prospects for cap-and-trade are now dimmer than ever.

The 53 Senators who voted against Sen. Murkowski’s disapproval resolution sent a strong, chilling message to the American people. Lifted straight from the pages of Gone with the Wind, their action told voters in no uncertain terms, “frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn.” Lawmakers know that when Congress reauthorized the Clean Air Act in 1990, it specifically denied EPA the authority to regulate CO2. As such, Murkowski’s resolution simply reaffirmed the law. So this vote was clearly one for partisanship and against the American consumer and tax payer.

Though our economy is struggling to recover from the worst recession in decades, Thursday’s vote did nothing to instill confidence in the businesses that have to make the investments necessary to create jobs and get people back to work. 53 “nay” votes flagrantly ignored the clear intent of Congress, as well as the law of unintended consequences. The prospect of EPA regulating every aspect of the economy -- as it will be compelled to do -- will stifle innovation and investment.

Having said that, it is one thing to vote against a resolution of disapproval -- a somewhat obscure maneuver which the average citizen might not fully comprehend; and it is something else to vote for legislation that will raise energy prices, chill new investment, make economic recovery and job creation more difficult, all the while enriching traders and those who can game the system.

The Kerry Lieberman bill contains mandates that simply cannot be achieved if America’s economy is growing. Its CO2 reduction target, for one, is totally impractical. If it took the worst recession in decades to reduce emissions 9% below 2007, what will it take to get 17% below 2005? In order to meet the Kerry-Lieberman target, the Energy Information Administration estimates that the mileage of every car on the road would have to double or we would have to build over 100 nuclear power plants. Who believes that is realistic?

Since that target cannot be reached by direct action, American companies would have to buy offsets. The EU experience has proven that offset markets are infected with widespread fraud and abuse. Only the traders and offset marketers are made better off.

While the Senate leadership and White House may try to claim that the vote on Murkowski’s resolution shows momentum, 53 votes is still short of the 60 required to pass a bill. When Kerry- Lieberman comes to a vote, pragmatism and a survival instinct is likely to lead some of the 53 to vote against legislation that will harm American citizens and further cripple the economy.

Last week, 47 Senators said that EPA should not use the Clean Air Act as the mechanism to regulate greenhouse gases (GHGs). AISI agrees; use of the Clean Air Act will cause enormous damage to energy intensive, trade exposed industries like steelmaking, which finds itself confronted by an aggressive, government-owned and subsidized Chinese steel industry that now produces fully half of the world’s steel; while exporting a lot of that steel here to the United States. This is the same Chinese government that has indicated it has no intention of burdening its “developing” steel or other industries with any similar carbon costs. But even though the Murkowski resolution failed, we do know that there are an additional five Democratic Senators who voted against the Murkowski resolution but who are also cosponsors of Senator Rockefeller’s bill, which would delay EPA regulation by two years. Should Senator Reid allow a vote on the Rockefeller bill it will easily pass the Senate. Senate passage would be a good first step, and if it becomes law, it would allow the Congress time to deal with the big issue. And despite the claims from some quarters, the Rockefeller bill is very carefully crafted so as not to disrupt the new EPA and DOT vehicle regulations.

It is harder to divine exactly what last week’s vote means for the prospects of passing a big economy-wide cap and trade bill like Kerry-Lieberman this year, since the chances of that happening this year were already pretty slim. I think the more important development this week was the introduction of Senator Lugar’s new bill. The existence of alternatives like the Lugar bill, the Cantwell/Collins bill, and the bipartisan energy bill by Senator Bingaman demonstrates just how hard it will be to gain 60 votes for any one approach in the few working days left in the session before the Supreme Court nomination, spending bills and elections intervene. Further, serious alternatives like Cantwell/Collins and now Lugar have not received the attention they deserve in the rush to embrace economy-wide cap and trade as the sole solution. I think Senator Graham had it right when he said that cap and trade is dead, at least as regards the big economy-wide cap and trade bills that have received most of the attention in the Senate thus far. Senator Rockefeller’s two year time out on regulations would give the Congress the time to look at alternatives to economy-wide cap and trade, allow EPA and DOT to proceed with the vehicle rules, and prevent harm to the steel industry and others in the interim. And in anticipation of the inevitable “they don’t want to do anything” slander, for the next two years we will do the same thing as we have done for the last twenty years: continue to steadily reduce the greenhouse gas emissions and improve the energy efficiency of what is already the lowest emitting (33% reduction in GHG emissions since 1990) and most energy efficient (33% reduction in energy intensity per ton of steel) steelmaking industry in the world.