As the dust settled on a midterm election that significantly altered the political landscape, voters sent a clear message that cutting the deficit and ending wasteful government spending should be top priorities for Congress. Americans will be watching closely to see if lawmakers got the message. Eliminating ethanol subsidies and trade protection would be a good way to indicate that they did.

Democrats and Republicans have vowed to work together on this issue, hinting that the days of $6 billion per year in ethanol tax credits could be over when they expire on December 31. Senator Saxby Chambliss (R-GA), the top Republican on the Senate Agriculture Committee told Bloomberg News that “[t]here are folks who ideologically don’t want to see the tax credit,” noting that the election results were sure to strengthen that viewpoint. Chambliss could be referring to folks like Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK), who in a report by The New York Times on the bipartisan debt-reduction commission called corn-based ethanol tax incentives “a stupid idea.”

Exit polls also indicate that voters are dissatisfied with the federal government and want to see politicians find common ground on pocket-book issues that can improve the economy. Several pundits pointed to trade policy as one area where Republicans and Democrats might work together.

Nobody recognizes the opportunity more than – surprise, surprise – Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA), who pointed to trade as one area where farmers and ranchers might benefit from coming changes in Washington. According to his recent interview with Agriculture.com, Grassley thinks Republican control of the House will make it easier for President Obama to push for free trade, saying: “We export more than a third of our ag products. I think there is going to be more encouragement to the president, who I think down in his heart, is a free trader.”

Let’s hope that same enthusiasm for free trade also applies to the ethanol sector! By ending the ethanol import tariff, Americans would benefit from lower fuel prices, greater energy diversity and access to cleaner alternatives like sugarcane ethanol.

The U.S. corn ethanol industry may be getting the message on competition and the need to remove trade barriers on cleaner, more affordable energy. During a conference call with reporters this morning, the president of the Renewable Fuels Association reiterated his support for setting the ethanol tax credit and import tariff at the same amount – a concept industry insiders refer to as “parity”:

“We’ve always supported parity on the secondary tariff with the tax incentive. We think the only reason to have the secondary tariff is to protect the taxpayer, not the industry. And that has been our viewpoint and you know, I think indeed if the tax incentive were to be adjusted, it is quite likely that the secondary tariff would be adjusted as well.”

The next several weeks will be an important litmus test in determining whether or not Congress has truly heard the American people. Tough decisions will be need to be made to cut the deficit and restore fiscal responsibility and bipartisanship to Washington. Ethanol policy is a good place to start. We’ll be following the lame-duck debate closely and communicating with our growing list of nearly 20,000 clean-energy advocates when their voice can make the biggest difference. So stand by for more!

American voters have made plain their anger over the economy and their frustration with the party in power. But they often did something else: they supported clean energy where they could.

California voters defeated an oil industry attempt to undermine the state’s climate law, and voters around the nation rewarded the majority of climate champions.

Among House Democrats who voted for the American Clean Energy and Security Act, more than 80 percent won their races. Those Democrats who voted against the bill had a much harder time: about 60 percent of them lost their seats last night.

The climate bill was a winner for most of its Republican supporters. If the story line were true that Americans hated the notion of a so-called cap and tax, then GOP “traitors” should have been punished last night. In fact, 7 out of 8 Republican who voted for the climate bill were re-elected, elevated to the Senate, or made Secretary of the Army. Representative Mike Castle was the exception, of course, and the candidate who beat him for the nomination went down to defeat last night.

Clean energy and climate solutions were a win in cash-strapped California as well. Prop 23 was the first time climate solutions were put to a public referendum. And despite the millions of dollars that fossil fuel companies poured into the race, Californians made it clear they want to build a cleaner energy economy in their state.

There is no doubt this election brings a tectonic shift to Washington, and economic issues will continue to be uppermost. But those assuming new positions of power should be careful not to overreach, especially when it comes to undermining environmental safeguards that protect our land, air and water.

There is no mandate in this election for blocking climate action. Quite the contrary: a series of recent polls shows that a commanding majority of the public continues to support clean energy and climate legislation.

A full 62 percent of independents, for instance, see global warming as a problem that justifies national leadership, according to a survey from the Civil Society Institute. The Pew Research Center for the People and the Press reported that 87 percent of Americans favor legislation that would require utilities to generate more electricity from renewable sources, such as solar and wind. And 78 percent favor tougher energy efficiency standards.

Numbers like these constitute a mandate, and NRDC will continue to for the clean energy and climate policies that create American jobs, grow our economy, and cut dangerous pollution. Today Obama recommitted to working with Congress on a wide range of energy policies, and we will work with both of them to make sure they are as clean and green as possible.

It’s not just environmentalists who’ll be feeling hot under the collar in the wake of the election results. Business is also likely to be alarmed by the now-inevitable continued uncertainty regarding climate legislation. Without doubt, it is the corporate sector in the US that’s taken the lead in introducing measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, leaving the legislators well behind. This is because business needs to plan for the future and knows that it is only a matter of time before their now-voluntary actions will become mandatory.

Last night’s results will surely render the US presence at the upcoming climate summit in Cancun impotent. It is reminiscent of Vice President Al Gore’s performance at Kyoto. No leader could have been more supportive of an international, legally-binding treaty to mitigate global warming. And yet no developed country (with the exception of Australia) failed to sign up to the Kyoto Protocol other than the U.S.

I’ve attended every one of the UN’s so-called Conferences of the Parties on climate change from Kyoto through Copenhagen. Ironically, the high point for the US was in Bali – under the Bush administration – when the world’s largest emitter of greenhouse gases joined the international consensus to negotiate a successor treaty to Kyoto, most of which will expire in 2012.

The world has to face the climate change challenge collectively. US corporations can make significant contributions, but this global problem will not be fixed without the world’s largest economy signing up to an international treaty with concrete emission reduction targets. No agreement in the Mexican resort of Cancun without the US can carry any real weight. With the US generating around 27 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions, no agreement makes sense without Uncle Sam.

There’s been an increasing trend for business leaders to attend these UN summits. The International Chamber of Commerce and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development have hosted an official business day for the past three years. Private sector commitment is important, but it needs government support.

I fear that the US will appear as a lame duck in a very stormy lake when the talks start at the end of the month. With the Australian government now supportive on a new treaty, it looks like the US will be the only developed nation unable to step up to the plate in Mexico.

The 2010 election was the year of The Empire Strikes Back. Big Oil, the coal industry, and corporate polluters are desperate to stop the momentum toward clean energy that's been building for years. You can't stop the construction of 139 coal-fired power plants, implement the first-ever fuel-economy standards for medium and heavy trucks, or put the "protect" back into the Environmental Protection Agency without provoking a reaction.

In this case, the Dirty Energy Empire broke all campaign spending records and used their financial Death Star to target any politician who took a stand on clean energy and global warming. It may not have been a subtle strategy, but it was effective. What it doesn't change, though, is that most Americans still disagree with Big Oil and Big Coal about environmental and energy issues.

Given a clear choice between moving toward a clean-energy future that brings new jobs versus staying stuck in the old, dirty-energy past, Americans will vote for the future.

You don't have to take my word for it -- because that's exactly what happened in California. Voters decisively defeated Proposition 23, which was aimed at rolling back the state's landmark clean energy and climate law. When clean energy and already-existing green jobs went head-to-head on the ballot against economic scare tactics from Big Oil, voters didn't fall for it -- even though the state has the third-highest unemployment numbers in the nation.

Big Oil was defeated because the Sierra Club, along with a broad coalition of other environmental groups, clean tech companies, small businesses, public health advocates, and organized labor, worked hard to make sure that voters both knew the true intention and real consequences of that initiative. But another reason for Prop. 23's defeat is that advocates for the new-energy economy -- from Silicon Valley venture capitalists to Bill Gates himself -- stepped up to counter the more than $10 million in deceptive advertising that was spent by out-of-state oil companies.

In the short term, it's not good that there will be more climate deniers and dirty-energy apologists in Congress and in Statehouses. It's deeply disappointing that so many of the Sierra Club's allies and supporters suffered defeats. But it's not a short-term future we're fighting for. We're fighting for America's future -- and that means continuing to build a clean-energy economy at the local, state, and, yes, federal level.

When we win, it will mean millions of new jobs, freedom from dependence on foreign oil, and a cleaner, healthier environment for all Americans. And on that day, the headline will read "The Empire Struck Out."

(This response was written by Mike Sweeney, the executive director of The Nature Conservancy California.)

Well, last night's election was a huge victory as voters spoke out in support of taking action on climate change.

For those of us fighting in the climate change trenches, our work has only just begun. A dismal outcome at the climate talks in Copenhagen was the first of several dominoes to fall.

First, progress at the federal level completely fell apart. Then, special interests outside of California schemed up a deceptive ballot initiative called Prop 23 that aimed to repeal AB 32, California’s historical climate change law. The passage of this initiative would have effectively killed California’s clean energy, carbon reduction programs and undermine air pollution standards.

So, were Californians sweating this? To sum it up in one word: YES! And so were climate change advocates around the world. All eyes were fixed on the election in California.

And then, something remarkable happened. The San Francisco Giants defeated the Texas Rangers in the World Series and brought home their first-ever pennant to California. People took to the streets in celebration.

The very next day, Californians from every walk of life and discipline came out in droves to stop the dirty energy proposition. Businesses like Google, Cisco and eBay; labor unions, cities, churches, environmental groups, the American Lung Association and dozens of other health organizations, transportation providers, and concerned citizens – young and old – overwhelmingly rejected the initiative. Californians spoke out to protect California’s air quality, environment, and green economy.

Was it possible that these major wins were somehow connected?Probably not. But, they sent a strong message to the rest of the world that California is a powerful force – in both responding to the challenges of our changing climate and in our ability to develop first-class athletic teams.

Yesterday’s vote is the silver lining in a grim year for progress on climate change. AB 32 is one of the few comprehensive approaches now in place to deal with this urgent problem. The crushing defeat of Prop 23validates the progress California has made on climate change andcould be the catalyst needed to get national and global efforts back on track.

However, it was not a clean sweep for conservation in California. Although Americans voted to dedicate more than 2 billiondollars for conservation in key ballot measures across the nation, unfortunately Prop 21, the state parks initiative, failed approval at the hands of voters in California. Ongoing economic challenges, a contentious election and a very frustrating budget situation in California made it difficult to connect with voters about the urgency to bring stability to state park funding. As a result, parks, fish and wildlife conservation initiatives will likely face serious cuts in the years ahead unless new revenues can be identified.

The Nature Conservancy will continue to seek innovative solutions to support and protect our incredib le parks, recreation, wildlife and marine conservation programs. As a state, we have made impressive progress in protecting our natural environment, the air we breathe, the water we drink and the food we eat. Today is a good day to be a Californian. We have important work ahead of us. We look forward to working with you all to meet the challenges of protecting our natural environment and addressing climate change.

At least 30 members of Congress that had voted for the Waxman-Markey bill lost their seats yesterday. West Virginia Democratic Governor Joe Manchin won his Senate seat by bucking the president and his party with tough rhetoric and ads against carbon cap and trade.

The shift in power is likely to bring a more reasoned approach andhopefully more focus on cost-benefit analysis when changes in energy policy are debated, this will be in the long run best interest of the U.S. economy as well as global environmental goals.

California, however, seems to be on an island of its own this election season as voters rejected Proposition 23 which would have placed reasonable, common sense economic restrictions on AB 32. Nevertheless, the bankrupt state remains intent on going full steam ahead in pursuing unrealistic and expensive GHG emission reduction and renewable energy targets while the rest of the country is clearly saying “no” to cap and trade and higher energy prices.

First, was the election a referendum on Cap and Trade? Absolutely. While the economy and jobs were the most important issues, Cap and Trade certainly played a role in the historic gains in the election and it will continue to play a role as the EPA moves forward on the regulations.

On Cap and Trade, one needs to look no further than the ten House Democrats who voted for Cap and Trade but voted against the healthcare bill: Adler, Boucher, Kratovil, Skelton, Space, Teague, Chandler, Lipinski, Lynch, and Peterson.

Of the ten members, three were in noncompetitive seats (Peterson, Lynch, and Lipinski). In fact Lynch and Lipinski voted against healthcare because it didn’t go far enough. That leaves seven House members who voted against healthcare but supported Waxman/Markey, six of whom were defeated last night and the seventh, Congressman Chandler leads by only 600 votes but the race hasn't been called yet. The Cap and Trade bill figured prominently in all seven of these races, specifically in Congressman Boucher's district with his role in helping to craft the bill. In the Teague race, returning Congressman Pearce cited the Cap and Trade vote as one of the primary reasons he decided to challenge Congressman Teague.

For those who say the election was about special interest money, they are ignoring the fact that the Democrats and their allied groups outspent the Republicans and their allies.

The election returns have brought us – if I might borrow a line – change we can believe in. This should be a welcome change from the anti-business and anti-manufacturing beliefs that motivated many of the incumbents and other candidates on the Democratic side who went down to defeat. As a result of the election, it’s a safe bet that cap and trade and some of the other more extreme legislation that would destroy jobs and cause grievous harm to families across our nation will not pass both houses of Congress in the next two years.

The American people have voted against many advocates of over-taxation and over-regulation because they realize such policies reduce the chances of the economic recovery and job creation that our nation so desperately needs.

Specifically regarding California's Proposition 23, that initiative was defeated because a sophisticated multimillion-dollar misinformation campaign falsely led Californians to believe they were voting to clean their air of pollutants that posed a danger to their health. In fact, Proposition 23 would simply have temporarily postponed drastic reductions in greenhouse gas emissions that are made up largely of carbon dioxide, the same substance humans and animals exhale after every breath we take. The postponement would have been in effect only until California’s unemployment rate dropped to reasonable levels for a year.

The defeat of Proposition 23 will hurt families across California by destroying jobs and raising the costs of gasoline, diesel fuel, electricity and more. It is the wrong medicine at the wrong time for California’s ailing economy, which suffered from a 12.4 percent unemployment rate in September that left 2.27 million men and women unable to find jobs they so desperately need.

The victories of Jerry Brown and Barbara Boxer in Tuesday’s election certainly helped defeat Proposition 23, since voters who cast ballots for the winning candidates understandably heeded their calls to oppose Proposition 23. I would not be surprised to see Californians vote again on this issue in the future, after the full magnitude of the suffering created by AB32 becomes a reality. It’s tragic that this economic pain now looming in California’s future was not averted with the passage of Proposition 23.

Despite a few House pick ups by “climate know nothings”, the elections arguably will help catalyze movement on truly low-hanging fruit on American energy policy: e.g., regulating large carbon emitters, providing incentives for renewables, and cleaning up other industrial pollution (such as smog or lower level ozone) with negative climate impacts.

Atmospheric chemistry, statistics (think fat tails), and even current account balances are, in the end, empirical not political. The party that invented cap and trade won big tonight. So now it can defend free enterprise and correct co2 emissions free-riding (think 1950's Paul Samuelson). And take our (kids) country back.

It certainly doesn't look like it'll be a great day for the Democrats, but let's set aside for the moment how many seats they might lose on Tuesday. To understand the real significance of this election for energy and the environment, you only have to follow that timeless Beltway advice (picture Hal Holbrook in a dimly lit parking garage): "Follow the money."

Campaign spending skyrocketed this year, with conservative special interest groups outspending the Democrats 10 to 1. And the biggest of the big spenders? Dirty-energy companies and the special interest groups that represent them. They've dropped an astounding $247 million this year.

Why the spending spree? Well, in part because the Supreme Court made it possible but more because those big, entrenched carbon polluters are running scared. And they've got good reason to be. They're stuck on the wrong side of history because the majority of Americans (including a lot of folks who'd never dream of describing themselves as "environmentalists") now place clean energy and green jobs in the same category as clean air and clean water: Who in their right mind would be against those?

That's why the battle against Propositions 23 and 26 in California is so telling. Both were heavily backed by Big Oil (see Oil Change International's analysis here on the money behind Prop 23 and Prop 26) in an effort to roll back the state's progress toward clean energy -- and as voters have seen those initiatives for what they really are they've been quick to turn against them.

We can't outspend the most profitable corporations in the world, but we do have two assets you can't put a price on: the truth and the passion to share it far and wide. How far can that passion go to counter $247 million? We'll have to wait and see.

If the polls are correct, Republicans will recapture the House but not the Senate; although they are expected to pick up about 6 or so seats there. The make up of the new Congress will be a reflection of public unhappiness with actions that have taken place over the past two years.

A recent poll indicated that 70% of the public believes that the country is heading in the wrong direction. The new Congress and the current one in lame-duck would do well to take heed and focus on the public’s highest priorities -- the economy and job creation. Any action that will raise the cost of energy will delay the day when economic growth returns to the 4% range and unemployment returns to 6% or less.

The make up of the new Congress will almost certainly guarantee that cap and trade and energy legislation containing unrealistic renewable standards are not going to get enacted. If California does not pass Proposition 23, some in Congress may use that to push similar national legislation. That would be a colossal mistake. The state’s global warming legislation will not work and will make California’s current problems even worse because it contains mandates that cannot be achieved without causing serious economic harm. Unfortunately, the spillover effects will have unintended consequences for the national economy.

Only time will tell whether the country will face two years of grid lock or whether the Congress and White House will commit to find common ground on both economic and energy issues. The message from the election is going to be that the public does not want grid lock. The Tea Party rhetoric not withstanding, the public wants common sense legislation that restores consumer and .business confidence. Three actions will go a long way to doing that -- maintaining current tax rates, reducing deficit spending, and providing incentives for capital investment.

Promoting increased domestic oil and gas production would create good paying jobs, reduce the growth in imports and provide increased revenue to the government. And no congressional action is needed for that to happen. The Obama Administration may favor renewables and so called “green jobs” but the reality is that fossil energy will dominate our energy budget for decades to come. The sooner that reality is accepted, the sooner capital will flow where it is needed for strong, robust economic growth. A change in the emphasis of administration energy policy including EPA action on greenhouse gases would provide a good foundation for cooperation between the administration and Congress on energy policy that is not driven by political expediency and ideology.

A long term and sustainable energy policy needs to be based on technology research to make further improvements in existing energy systems and to develop the new ones that could become commercially viable over the next several decades. Those technologies could move us down the road toward low and no carbon energy systems. So good energy policy is also good climate policy.

While pundits will have a field day with their “predictions” following the election, no one really knows what is going to happen because no one knows what lessons the President and Democrat leadership will take from it. Words will be no substitute for actions and those will start with the lame-duck.