(These comments were submitted by Kate Offringa, president and CEO of CNAIMA, the Council of the North American Insulation Manufacturers Association.)

Partisan rhetoric is heating up in our nation’s capital, brought on by the stagnated budget and debt ceiling debates. Amid this atmosphere, the increasingly visible need to reform America’s energy policies has created an often contentious discussion about how best to utilize our energy resources. Most eyes immediately turn to boosting domestic energy production, whether by expanding offshore drilling, through advanced drilling techniques like hydraulic fracturing, greater nuclear capacity, or many more renewable options such as enhanced investment in wind and solar power. While many of these options have merit, they are also often highly divisive, and quickly polarize the political climate in Congress.

One option with the potential to bridge the partisan divide on Capitol Hill, however, is energy efficiency: the urgent need to heat – and cool – America’s commercial and residential buildings in a way that’s far more cost-effective than what we’re doing now. A Republican lawmaker from the Midwest has joined with a Democratic legislator from the Northeast in trying to get their colleagues to coalesce around a powerful idea: America’s best and cheapest energy is the energy we don’t use.

Senators Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) and Rob Portman (R-OH) should be commended. In a forbidding and polarized climate, the two have come together in the spirit of bipartisanship to champion the Energy Savings and Industrial Competitiveness Act of 2011.

Energy efficiency’s attributes are undeniable. As consumers across the country confront soaring air conditioning bills and stiff prices at gas pumps – all while policymakers reassess the way America produces and uses energy – the Shaheen-Portman bill is based on some hard economic facts: efficiency is win-win-win. It would reduce ghastly monthly energy bills, put people to work in depressed sectors and markets, and make the U.S. less dependent on unstable sources of energy.

Shaheen-Portman contains low-cost tools that would reduce barriers to businesses and consumers looking to adopt off-the-shelf energy saving technologies. The legislation would bring model building energy codes into the 21^st century, requiring stricter standards for energy efficiency in federal buildings, and encourage private sector investment in efficiency by bolstering loan programs for energy efficiency retrofits and rural efficiency projects. It would also ease the adoption of a national model building energy code along with updating the International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) and the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) building codes by encouraging the Department of Energy to provide technical assistance to states.

One of the qualities that my organization, the Council of the North American Insulation Manufacturers Association (CNAIMA,) liked best about the Shaheen-Portman process was how its authors enlisted help from industry and policy stakeholders. Their legislation, as a consequence, sets a high standard for building efficiency improvements with a goal of reaching zero-net-energy commercial and residential buildings by 2030 – without imposing mandates. The bill would also encourage the Department of Energy to work with states to update their building energy codes within the next two years. Additionally, the bill would require electric utilities to provide consumers with up-to-date information about their individual energy usage, empowering individual consumers to better understand ways to reduce their energy bills and use power more efficiently.

Even a former President is now singing the praises of energy efficiency. President Clinton has made efficiency one of the touchstones of the Clinton Global Initiative’s (CGI) agenda to get America’s economy moving again. “Just look at the Empire State Building—I can see it from my office window,” Clinton told Newsweek. “[CGI’s] climate-change people worked on their retrofit project.

“Johnson Controls, the energy-service company overseeing the project, guaranteed the building owners their electricity usage would go down 38 percent—a massive saving, which will enable the costs of the retrofits to be recovered through lower utility bills in less than five years. Meanwhile, the project created hundreds of jobs and cut greenhouse-gas emissions substantially. We could put a million people to work retrofitting buildings all over America.”

Even if the former President’s job impact estimate is optimistic, there is no doubt we could get tens of thousands of hard-pressed workers in the construction industry back on the job – in a hurry – if legislation like Shaheen-Portman is adopted. As Senator Portman has said, “By making it easier for employers to utilize energy efficient tools, they can reduce costs, enabling them to use the savings to expand their companies and hire new workers.” Senators Shaheen and Portman aren’t Capitol Hill’s only bipartisan advocates of energy efficiency. Senators Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Olympia Snowe (R-ME), Mark Warner (D-VA), and Pat Roberts (R-KS), have all been champions of common-sense efficiency proposals. On the House side, the ongoing commitment of Energy & Commerce Chairman Fred Upton (R-MI) and Representatives John Sullivan (R-OK), Charles Bass (R-NH), and Jim Matheson (D-UT) demonstrates that energy efficiency and fiscal discipline can go hand-in-hand.

The partnership of Senators Shaheen and Portman proves that energy efficiency isn’t just bipartisan, it’s non-partisan. Looking for solutions to our nation’s energy policy issues, efficiency provides an option all parties can agree on. Let’s hope the push for greater energy efficiency will attract similar alliances across the aisle.

As our European friends have made clear, when it comes to energy, saying “no” is easy. America’s leaders are called to find ways to say “yes” – in ways that make sense for our nation’s security, environment and economy.

Shale gas is a striking example. As one of the most meaningful developments in America’s energy and economic security in at least a generation, it deserves a prominent place in the nation’s energy policy. For the domestic chemistry industry, it’s a “game changer,” creating a new advantage over our competitors around the world. After years of high, volatile natural gas prices that increased our production costs, shale gas economics is helping to increase U.S. chemical investment, spur growth in supplier industries, boost exports and create jobs. A recent ACC study found it could lead to over 400,000 jobs in chemistry and supplier industries, $16.2 billion in new capital investment by the chemical industry, $132.4 billion in U.S. economic output, and $4.4 billion in federal, state and local tax revenue annually. The benefits are already being seen, with several companies announcing plans to build U.S. plants or re-start production – often in economically depressed areas of the country.

Natural gas is critical to the chemistry industry. We rely on it not only for heat and power at our plants, but also as the key raw material, or “feedstock,” for our products. To put it simply, the chemical industry uses natural gas as a baker uses flour. Our products are then “baked into” manufactured goods used here at home and exported abroad. In fact, chemical products are used in 96 percent of all U.S. manufactured goods.

Now it’s up to governors and state legislators to develop common-sense regulatory policies that allow us to capitalize on shale gas as a vital energy source and manufacturing feedstock, while protecting our water supplies and environment.

More broadly, America desperately needs an “all of the above” energy policy that promotes all domestic energy sources, from alternatives and renewables to nuclear power to domestic oil and natural gas. Energy efficiency is a critical element of that policy. As a proven way to save energy and capital while creating jobs, it should be included in any definition of “clean energy” programs. We were pleased that President Obama included industrial energy efficiency as a priority in the Advanced Manufacturing Partnership he announced last month, but the fact remains that energy efficiency often gets short-changed. Building and appliance energy codes are other helpful policies.

The United States also needs to look at innovative approaches like recovering the energy in used plastics. Plastics are a valuable resource throughout their lifecycle. First, we need to increase recycling of plastics. For plastics that cannot be economically recycled, we should recover their high energy value through modern waste-to-energy technologies or conversion into liquid fuels. Europe has already decided to make energy recovery part of its energy strategy.

President Obama and Congress should lead in developing a comprehensive energy strategy. A truly American one will recognize and embrace opportunities.

Impacts to public health and the environment are important considerations to make when considering whether or not to use a particular energy technology. However, it is equally important that these decisions be grounded in sound science, and not be the result of overreaction on the part of policymakers to exceptional, isolated incidents like the Fukushima plant meltdown. Kneejerk decisions will not only scare away potential investors by creating considerable regulatory uncertainty, but will also increase costs and hurt the respective countries’ prospects for energy security. Therefore, to the question “Should America follow Europe’s lead on energy?”, the answer is unequivocally no. Policymakers should instead look at the totality of an industry’s safety record.

In the case of hydraulic fracturing, the practice is far from new or untested—the first time a well was hydrofracked was in 1947, and since that time over a million wells have been fractured with no confirmed incidents of groundwater contamination from fracturing fluids. Additionally, the formula for each fracturing fluid used in a drilling operation must, by mandate of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, be disclosed at each drilling site, and many industry leaders have recently agreed to voluntarily disclose the contents of fracturing fluids in the online Frac Focus Chemical Disclosure Registry.

The United States has also realized tremendous economic benefits from the shale gas boom over the last few years. A recent study estimates that in 2009, the development of the Marcellus Shale created 44,000 new jobs in Pennsylvania and $4 billion in value added to the state’s economy. The boom has been similarly good to consumers—in 2008, after breakthroughs in hydraulic fracturing yielded access to unconventional gas deposits, the wellhead price of natural gas plummeted from nearly $8 per thousand cubic feet to $3.67 per thousand cubic feet.

As a result of hydraulic fracturing, the United States has been able to reclaim its position as the world’s largest natural gas producer, and of the 24.1 Tcf of natural gas that Americans consumed in 2010, just 2.6 Tcf, or 11 percent, was provided from net imports. None of these advancements would have been possible had regulators clamped down, and France—which lacks a diversified energy portfolio—may want to take note.

Nuclear power generation also has a long legacy in the United States, with an equally clean safety record that contains no serious incidents as classified under the International Nuclear and Radiological Event Scale. In the most significant incident—the Three Mile Island partial reactor meltdown in 1979—no deaths or injuries to plant workers or in the surrounding community were reported, and the plant’s undamaged reactor remains in operation today.

Nuclear power also supplies a substantial portion of our electricity; today, commercial nuclear plants produce approximately 22 percent of electricity consumed in the United States. Although serious obstacles remain to nuclear power becoming the dominant source of electricity generation in the United States, including the massive expense to build new facilities, the difficulty in obtaining the necessary permits, and the lack of disposal options for spent nuclear fuel, the fact remains that nuclear is important to our energy mix and cannot be easily replaced in favor of less efficient and less established technologies. Wind and solar currently produce less than 2 percent of electricity consumed in the United States, making coal—at 47 percent—the more likely candidate to make up the difference.

In fact, Germany is already facing substantial backlash from other European Union countries, who fear that energy shortages will strain utility networks and may only be offset by increased coal consumption. This move comes when Germany’s electricity prices are already very high—electricity rates are about $0.36 per kilowatt hour, compared to an average of $0.11 per kilowatt hour in the U.S. Taking these factors into account, it would be unwise for the U.S. to follow Germany in its ill-fated pursuit of a green economy.

(These comments were submitted by former Under Secretary of State David Koranyi [left photo], now a non-resident fellow from Hungary at the Center for Transatlantic Relations, Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University; and Mark Olsthoorn [right], visiting scholar from the Netherlands at the Center for Integrative Environmental Research, University of Maryland.)

The impact of the ‘shale gale’ can hardly be overstated. Just five years ago many expected that the United States’ dependency on imported natural gas would only grow. Today, thanks to shale gas, the US is expected to become start exporting by 2015. In 2010, America overtook Russia to become the largest gas producer in the world. Gas is the fuel of choice for new power plants, which emit much less CO2 than coal-fired plants.

Europe has just started to familiarize itself with its shale gas potential, but the debate is already heated. Could Europe benefit from shale gas while avoiding the strong backlash seen in America? It depends on wise policy-choices and timely industry responses.

A series of authoritative studies have come to the conclusion that unconventional gas will not fundamentally change the picture in Europe, at least not in the short and medium term. Despite extensive unconventional gas resources, the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies identified a long list of impediments that could hinder developments in the old continent.

In general, the political environment is not nearly as conducive towards fossil fuels and drilling activities. A cascade of European Union (EU), Member State and local regulations, population density, water scarcity, lack of trained personnel and deficiencies in essential services (like well manufacturing) further complicate the picture. Incentives that helped propel the shale gale in the US (subsidies, tax breaks, land ownership and royalties, drilling traditions, higher public acceptance) are missing. These factors, in addition to more complicated geological formations, could result in lengthy permitting procedures and higher development costs. Public concerns inadequately addressed by the industry combined with the lobby of groups with conflicting interests led to a hasty ban on hydraulic fracturing in France. Sweden, Germany or the Netherlands might follow suit.

Nevertheless, the EU, and especially Central and Eastern European nations have high hopes that European shale gas can provide relief against the uncomfortably growing dependence on imported gas, often from a single source. We believe that sustainability and shale gas production are not irreconcilable. The real question is whether a safe but sensible regulatory regime striking a fine balance between the federal and state and between EU and member state levels in the US and Europe respectively can be constructed. It is time to come to sound scientific conclusions on potential environmental effects, measure and reduce lifecycle emissions, reassess water management regulations and pass legislation that requires full disclosure of chemicals used for hydraulic fracturing. Some companies have already come to realize that necessity and are advocating elevated standards. The European Commission is aware of the challenges and - together with the European Chemical Agency - are reviewing whether existing laws and regulations provide sufficient protection against environmental and health risks. This will take time, but is a crucially important exercise, which should also be adopted in the United States.

A transatlantic “shale alliance” is in the interest of US business and European energy security, and with the right policy, the climate should also benefit. Regulatory bodies, businesses and NGOs from both sides of the Atlantic should come together to stimulate good governance, smart regulations and enforcement and a focused energy strategy. Conventional and unconventional natural gas shall play an important role in the global energy mix - gas could improve energy independence in the US and in Europe and become a bridge fuel to a low-carbon future. However, without environmental safeguards and a long-term plan to displace coal and develop renewables in both the US and Europe, natural gas will be a bridge to nowhere.

It is both reasonable and responsible to raise questions about the safety of our energy technologies, and it’s certainly understandable that events like the nuclear crisis in Japan or new phenomena like the shale gas boom will lead to the dialogues that we’re currently seeing in many of the world’s major economies. While some countries have taken very quick and dramatic steps to address these challenges, we should hope that regulators and other key stakeholders in the U.S. will take a step back and proceed with care before taking rash steps that respond more to sensational media trends than they do to cold hard facts. The nuclear debate is a perfect example of this challenge, and the dialogue here in the U.S. seems to be moving in the right direction.

As many leaders have said in the days since Japan’s crisis first took shape, nuclear power is too important to the U.S. energy portfolio to abandon altogether. While it is absolutely necessary that we evaluate the safety of nuclear generation in the U.S., we have to remember that it has proven to be fundamentally safe when handled responsibly. But we also have to remember to consider the consequences of scaling back nuclear generation in the U.S. Any deficit created by a scaled back nuclear portfolio will need to be made up by coal or gas, which carry with them significant environmental consequences when compared to nuclear power.

We should also remember that generation is only “half the battle” when we consider the risks associated with our energy portfolio. Regardless of how our portfolio looks today or ten years down the road, individuals and businesses must do their part to maximize efficiency. As a leading provider of energy efficiency solutions to businesses of all sizes, this is a challenge we help customers address every day – every time we change a light, sign a customer up for a load curtailment program, or automate systems to reduce usage during peak times.

These types of contributions are as valuable as the questions we’re hearing about the safety of nuclear plants or the hydraulic fracturing process. At the end of the day, responsible generation must be accompanied by responsible use.

What can we learn? I write this from Berlin, where the Bundesrat, the representative body of the individual states, has just confirmed the government’s policy—in response to the Fukushima accident—to phase out nuclear power over the next ten years. Time will tell whether this was the right thing to do, but contrary to some of the other comments, it is not the action of reckless people. We ought to treat the German decision as the start of an interesting experiment and take careful note.

The Fukushima accident caused widespread long-lasting contamination and forced evacuation, some of it likely permanent. Despite what you may have heard, there are important similarities with the effects of the 1986 Chernobyl accident. Western nuclear programs dismissed the significance of that accident on grounds that it was the product of Soviet incompetence and so “it couldn’t happen here.” This time however the reactors are of US design and the operating practices, with their faults, were likely similar, too.

When it comes to dealing with our own plants consider that none of them is designed to handle a severe accident, one in which the fuel melts. Nearly half of them—the GE BWRs and the Westinghouse ice condenser plants—have what the NRC calls “low containment free volume and low containment strength.” Some of these should probably shut down, at least at the end of their original licenses. The situation is complicated by NRC’s grant of 20 year license extensions to most of them after what can only be described as very superficial reviews.

In short, rather than throw stones at the Germans, we should concentrate on putting our own house in order. There is much to think about.

As the United States sorts out its next moves on energy policies to enhance long-term security and strengthen its economy, policymakers will need to weigh both benefits and risks of various energy sources. Looking at what other countries are doing is a good place to start. European countries’ recent moves have one thing in common: each is moving to cleaner energy sources and greater energy efficiency.

Germany, like the United States, has a heavy manufacturing base. Yet its national leaders have chosen a long-term strategy to build an energy system based on renewable energy. Their recent decision to phase-out nuclear power is more than a political reaction to the Fukushima nuclear disaster; it is part of an ambitious plan to transition to renewable energy.

Germany’s decision to phase out what it sees as a less-desirable technology, while continuing to set strong emissions targets to tackle climate change, provides important lessons for other countries. Due its recent successes in renewable energy and energy efficiency, Germany is in a strong position to go even further. In the last five years, investments in its clean energy sector grew by more than 75 percent, creating a dynamic industry that supports 367,000 jobs. In 2009, Germany ranked third in the world in installed renewable energy capacity and it has invested more in future capacity than any other country.

What the German and French decisions share is the use of national policies to direct their country's energy future. What happens in the energy sector has always been heavily influenced by rules, regulations, and incentives. With the right policy framework, the private sector responds and makes ambitious energy goals attainable. Clear, long-term policies create certainty in the marketplace encouraging investment and job creation.

It’s clear that countries— from Germany and France to China and India— are making conscious moves to change the way they use and produce energy. These trends point to a significant jump in renewable energy sources that can drive innovation and enhance energy security. They also position these countries as likely winners in global energy markets. While the details will look different, that's a global trend the United States shouldn't miss.

If you're fortunate enough to be heading to a vacation in Europe this summer-- the two things you'll learn pretty fast are that they drive on the other side of the road, and a good majority of the cars don't run on gasoline, but diesel fuel. This of course is a foreign concept to most American car owners- but that is changing.

Natural gas extraction and nuclear energy policies that are of great contrast between Europe and the US, aren't eht only thing -- because there is always the backward US policies and incentives to use fuel efficient vehicles like diesels. In Europe over the last decade, about half of all new cars are sold with diesel engines; here in the US it's closer to 1 percent. In some countries the percentage of diesel new car registrations exceeds 80 percent. Why?

European governments startoineffectively incentivized the use of diesel cars thrugh fuel taxation policies that penalized gasoline by about $1 USD per gallon. Diesel fuel was therefore signicantly less expensive while being more energy efficient too. European environmental policy focused on CO2 emissions while US policy focused on reducing ozone emissions. Europeans got to liking the lower cost of fuel and ownership of the generally smaller diesel cars, but they found that they are fun to drive as well - lots of pick-up at low engine speeds, and that driving performance and economy still drives the diesel success story in Europe today.

Our fuel tax policy in the US is not something the Europeans will emulate anytime soon. In the US our federal and 17 state fuel tax policies penalizes every gallon of diesel fuel sold - tacking on 6 cents a gallon more in federal fuel tax (28% more) and states nearly as much. That's the wrong messaage.

Every diesel car put on the road in the US instead of a gasoline car is going to save 30 percent on fuel consumption and 20 percent less CO2 while putting more dollars in consumer pocketbooks than into gasoline tanks. And the clean diesels will do that today- right now with growing consumer demand, availability of fuel at more than half of all service stations and a proven technology track record to boot. Today there are 16 diesel car and truck models for consumers to chose from and that number is expected to more than double in the coming years as manufacturers plan to meet fuel economy standards.

The strength of America’s energy portfolio is the diversity of supply that is the result of diverse natural resources and technology leadership. While countries like France and Japan have limited energy options, our nation has myriad options at hand. Despite this, we have been challenged to define a long-term energy policy that takes full advantage of our domestic resources and technological leadership to make us more energy independent. We should continue to learn from international experience in energy and foster global relationships that will enhance issues that are inextricably linked to energy—issues such as environmental preservation, economic growth, eradication of poverty, expanding access to clean water and transforming our transportation sector. But we should take a measured approach to global events based on what’s right for America.

Nuclear energy development is one such area. For more than a half-century, nuclear energy has been a source of safe, carbon-free electricity. Here in America, 104 nuclear plants provide 20 percent of the nation’s electricity. Contrary to the premise of this week’s question, nearly half of the U.S. nuclear energy facilities producing electricity today have come on line in the past 30 years, including the most recent in 1996.

The United States produces more electricity at nuclear energy plants than France and Japan combined—and operates about one-quarter of all commercial reactors in the world. U.S. companies invented this technology and we continue to set the gold standard globally—both in technology and in the development of a regulatory system that ensures oversight of safety and security at the facilities.

In planning its energy future, every nation must consider the energy resources and technologies that are available to achieve its energy and environmental goals. As is the case in Germany and Italy with nuclear energy, political forces are the overriding factor in a country’s energy decisions despite more significant societal benefits that accrue to their citizens.

Like many, economist Ferdinand Banks questions whether the nuclear energy phaseout in Germany will stand the test of time. He writes: “It needs to be appreciated that if the German nuclear retreat were a reality instead of a politically motivated and bizarre fantasy, the French nuclear sector might have already started to expand in order to receive the hundreds of billions in export income that would become available when German nuclear facilities begin to close their doors.”

Today’s energy landscape is complex and no energy source is free of blemishes. Moreover, many are concerned about the absence of a sustained energy research and development program that will lead to the next big discoveries in energy. Absent these, it is clear we need to use energy efficiency and all available clean energy resources, including renewable sources and nuclear energy, to enhance our energy independence, protect the environment and meet the 24 percent increase in electricity demand by 2035. This approach is supported by the National Academies of Science, U.S. Department of Energy, International Energy Agency, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the Electric Power Research Institute.

President Obama and bipartisan leaders in the Congress, support both the development of renewable energy sources and the expansion of safe, carbon-free nuclear energy. Despite the accident in Japan in March, citizens that live closest to America’s nuclear energy facilities support them the strongest. Eighty percent favor the use of the nuclear energy in a June survey by Bisconti Research and 83% gave the reactor nearest to where they live high safety ratings.

Recent events in Japan confirm that safety must be the top priority of any nation utilizing nuclear energy. The U.S. nuclear industry and independent regulators at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission continue to triple check the safety of all reactors and will ensure that the lessons learned in Japan will be applied here. In this way, employing international experience to American facilities is invaluable. These measures far exceed the so-called “stress tests” that European reactors are undertaking over the coming months. Our total commitment to safety demands that every U.S. nuclear facility is fully prepared to effectively respond to the most extraordinary natural and man-made events. Continuous improvement means we exceed government regulations, not just meet them.

There are many international forums where policymakers, regulators and energy executives share policy, technology and regulatory insights. They are valuable exchanges for building the energy platform that will power the world into the 21^st Century while protecting the environment and enhancing the standard of living for all. Rather than emulating isolated, policy positions, these collaborative forums will produce common-sense energy strategies that stand the test of time.

There is much in recent European Union decisions about energy sources that should act as a beacon for the United States - or rather as a lighthouse, signalling dangerous obstacles and potential wreck.

Firstly, Germany, Switzerland and Italy's hasty decisions to pull the plug on nuclear energy in reaction to the Fukushima accident show how easy it is to allow energy source decisions to become victims of very short-term politics. There appears to be little about the nuclear situation in any of these countries that bears comparison with what happened at Fukushima. Moreover all three countries were committed to aggressive greenhouse gas emissions reduction policies that will be made much harder and more expensive, if not rendered actually impossible, by cutting out one of the three low-carbon approaches that the International Energy Agency keeps reminding us are all necessary if we are to have any chance of seriously cutting energy sector emissions - the others apart from nuclear being renewables and carbon capture and storage.

Europe is supposed to be united in the belief that greenhouse gas emissions reduction is a primary objective for the region. Those in the European energy industry trying to make 40-year investment decisions could be forgiven for thinking it is now clear that stated Government environment priorities can change with the news, so relying on them for long-term certainty or to offset conventional economic analysis makes little sense.

A second example of confusing markets by dropping policies that have become boring is the raft of obligatory energy efficiency measures now being proposed by the European Commission for the very industries that are covered by the much-vaunted EU Emissions Trading Scheme. What is the point of creating a carbon price to help markets make economic choices about carbon and energy use if the regulators then decide they know better?

In both cases, however, Europe started in the right direction, by identifying what the key problem was - carbon emissions - and then creating policies aimed at the carbon, rather than proxies or intermediates. Unfortunately the US has not got to that point yet. But when it does, we must hope that the policies adopted will be clearly articulated and then sustained. Policy risk in energy investment in Europe, at least, has suddenly been raised a notch.

I would hope that the lesson we take from Germany and France’s recent actions is that these reactionary and shortsighted decisions play no role in a well rounded U.S. energy policy – one that requires the utmost in safety standards, and evaluates the role any energy source can play in not only lowering costs to consumers but in spurring economic development. In the U.S. nuclear and hydraulic fracturing pass both these tests.

New Jersey’s attempt to ban hydraulic fracturing is not the result of thorough study or extended contemplation. Rather, state legislators reacted prematurely to fears that hydraulic fracturing may contaminate groundwater sources – a charge that EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson recently confirmed has never occurred in the U.S. In Europe, France’s attempts appear equally reactionary while Poland and other Eastern European countries are aggressively pursuing shale exploration as a way of achieving energy independence from Russia. Even those who have concerns about shale, such as the United Kingdom, are addressing those concerns through objective analysis and not shutting down access to the vast economic benefits shale will bring.

New Jersey’s ban will do nothing to address the perceived public health concerns regarding natural gas production. These issues are much better addressed with public information and outreach, employment of best management practices in natural gas and a regulatory focus at the wellhead construction and on above-ground operations.

The fact of the matter is that access to vast shale gas resources, and improvements in drilling, make this one of the most exciting domestic energy developments in the past 50 years – a development that is reshaping U.S. and global energy markets. Multiple economic studies have pointed to shale exploration as the key to a rebirth in domestic manufacturing, boosting economic output and creating high wage, high-skilled jobs not only in New Jersey but across the U.S.

As for nuclear power, I’d like to remind everyone that nuclear provides over 20% of this country’s electricity and accounts for about 75% of zero-emissions energy in the United States. Wind, solar and geothermal energy currently make up less than ten percent of emissions-free electricity in the U.S. And our domestic nuclear program underwent a thorough review of safety standards post 9/11 that led to several new regulations requiring additional redundant layers of safety and preparedness at all U.S. plants. Today every single nuclear plant in this country is monitored onsite by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. They monitor plant operations and hold the plant accountable to the industry’s stringent safety standards 24 hours a day, every day.

Despite these facts, no nuclear facility has been brought online in the United States since 1978. Just one facility is under construction in Tennessee. In China, 24 nuclear power facilities are currently under construction. I think that speaks for itself.

Reckless moratoriums have no place in our domestic energy program at a time when we can least afford it.

While banning risky energy development may make sense in some cases, there is a tremendous amount that can be done short of outright bans. The President and Congress could minimize the risks associated with energy development by promoting less risky options, like wind and solar, over the high risk and heavily subsidized fossil fuels. These are now winning the race for taxpayer support hands down, even though the President himself has labeled them “yesterday’s energy.” Similarly, by passing legislation to require offshore drilling be done safely, and to protect previously protected areas, we could start to level the playing field.

Right now, we really have no choice but to follow Europe’s lead because Europe is ahead in making a clean energy transition that is clearly inevitable. America was once a global leader on the environment. But the steady infusion of industrial money into our political system, with no change on the horizon, has pulled us back and left us with no choice but to follow.

This flow of industrial largesse into politics and public relations results in policies that favor industries that 1) are already raking in tremendous profits and arguably don’t need the money, 2) stand to lose market share if clean energy at home or abroad becomes competitive. As a result, these companies are spending money to hold-off clean energy even as they claim to be building clean energy in some cases. As a result, we Americans can thank industries like Big Oil and an Big Coal for making us global followers. Europe will get to the clean energy future before America, as will China and others, maybe even Saudi Arabia. Their economies will prosper as a result, and ours won’t. And we will remain dependent on them for energy technology, thanks to the fossil fuel industries.

But there is still time to catch up and retake the lead if we can recognize the error of our ways. It will require down-grading the influence and power of Big Oil and Big Coal. A good first step would be stop helping to fund their political and public relations campaigns. Take away the taxpayer dollars and let them support themselves. I doubt Bill Gates’s parents are still giving him an allowance because he doesn’t need it, and neither do rich companies who are destroying our environment. Instead we can invest those dollars in industries that will pay us back in with a lucrative clean energy future, and allow America to retake its rightful position as a global leader.

Should America follow Europe’s lead on energy policy? The answer is a resounding no. The response hinges on four characteristics of most European countries: dominance of an entitled class in governing, large central governments, high population densities, and high energy prices.

In the case of Germany, its leaders made a bold decision to shutter its nuclear facilities by the end of this decade but have yet to address how to make up the resulting energy deficit. If it imports more from France, for example, France will have to increase its nuclear capacity.

Germany’s main alternatives are coal and gas. Growing reserves of shale gas could go a long way toward meeting its electric power needs. But, gas as a substitute for nuclear power conflicts with the country’s greenhouse reduction goals.

Its current production of 17% of its electricity from renewables comes at a high cost to its citizens, who have seen their electricity rates double since 2000. The average cost of electricity in Germany is 30 cents per KWH. In the US, it is 9.7 cents. The burden of pursuing a green agenda is heavy, and it is doubtful that many Americans would accept electricity rates that high.

Germany has a population about one quarter of America’s, yet occupies an area the combined size of Virginia, North Carolina, and South Carolina. With such high population density, energy use is much different than it is here as are modes of transportation. With gasoline in Germany more than double the average U.S. costs or about $8 per gallon, automobile use is discouraged. The opposite is the case here because of our low population density.

The European way of life and the cost of it are not that appealing to Americans who largely seek rural living. Our economy and population density are based on abundant and affordable energy, and our geography will keep it that way for a long time to come.

Whatever the real—as opposed to hyped—risks of various fuel types, they are not sufficient to justify government wholly rejecting an entire source of energy or forcing changes in our lifestyles. Existing laws and regulations already drive health and environmental risks lower each year.

Conventional energy development should not be used as a hobgoblin to scare the public into supporting energy policies that will hinder economic growth and constrain mobility. Unreasonable environmental concerns such as those that have delayed the Keystone pipeline project neither benefit the environment or our economic well-being. The Keystone pipeline project will create a large number of U.S. jobs, increase tax revenue to the government, and allow us to substitute oil imports from Canada for those from the more unstable Middle East.

We should be promoting the development of all cost competitive sources of energy as a way of promoting robust economic growth, job creation, and a higher standard of living. A wealthier society is a healthier society.