The stakes are certainly high, especially when it comes to the nation’s energy and tax policies. Failure to reform faulty policies, or worse, enacting more faulty ones in the name of “balance,” would seriously complicate efforts to ensure energy reliability and affordability in future years.

Failed policies that have not delivered a positive return on investment for taxpayers should expire. When pundits discuss tax policies, the issue of credits, deductions and subsidies always comes up. These specialized tax treatments are designed to encourage pro-growth in targeted sectors that in turn grow the country’s economy.

When a program works, such policies can energize an industry sector or a specific segment of an industry. When it does not, it brings in less revenue than the program costs.

When it works, such policies can energize an industry sector or a specific segment of an industry. When it does not work, it brings in less revenue than the program costs. The key therefore is the unbiased analytical analysis of economic data. If the data reveals a loser, then the policies should be ended.

Take for example this year’s $1.3 billion tax credit for wind. That credit has not been a success in terms of stimulated the industry. Some policymakers have endorsed a program to create an $80 billion tax credit for renewables, with a large chunk going to wind. Not only is the current credit not generating sufficient revenue, many aspects of renewables cannot even survive in the marketplace without significant government investment. Even T. Boone Pickens, once an ardent supporter of wind power, has announced plans to scale back wind investment, primarily because natural gas has made wind unattractive to investors.

Those who defend (and benefit) from the wind credit say that instead of cutting their credit, it is time to end oil and gas ‘subsidies.’ To an outside observer, this may seem perfectly reasonable. Why should oil companies receive anything at all? The answer is simple, it actually “grows the pie.”

Government policy plays a critical role in ensuring access to reliable and affordable energy while minimizing harm to public health and the environment. Although it is difficult to predict the specific impacts at this stage, the automatic, across-the-board cuts that will result if lawmakers fail to address the “fiscal cliff” will almost certainly restrict the nation’s near-term investment in energy innovation and environmental protection.

Taking a longer-term view, however, there is cause for optimism that federal lawmakers are having the fiscal cliff debate in the first place. It demonstrates that Congress and the White House recognize the need to protect future generations from harmful decisions made today. The entire concept of the fiscal cliff is the result of a calculated decision that lawmakers made a year ago in order to force action in the event Congress and the White House were not able or willing to address the federal budget before the deadline hit.

While this debate is focused on fiscal policy—public debt, government spending, tax revenue, and the impacts of a growing federal deficit—there are parallels to climate and energy policy. Both fiscal policy and climate change present difficult political challenges, requiring tough decisions in the near-term in order to avert negative impacts at a later date.

Hurricane Sandy and the droughts in the Midwest are two immediate reminders of the persistent economic risk we face from a changing climate. If climate models are to be trusted, we can expect many more costly reminders in the future. So what lessons can we take away from fiscal cliff negotiations that may apply to future climate policy?

• 1) A meaningful solution requires that lawmakers agree on the problem.
• 2) Postponing tough decisions will not resolve the problem. While not necessarily easy, the sooner that lawmakers tackle the long-term issues, the more likely society will be able to avoid damaging impacts.
• 3) An effective resolution will likely require give and take on both sides of the aisle.
• 4) It is still possible to solve difficult challenges if both parties will engage in a serious conversation.

Applying these lessons from the fiscal debate—namely why we are having the debate and how to hardwire action in the event federal policymakers do not address the issue in a timely manner—could go a long way toward addressing the “wicked” problem of climate change.

The fiscal cliff negotiations are an opportunity for Congress to affirm America’s priorities when it comes to energy and the environment. We need a balanced approach to addressing our fiscal issues so that those at the top--like Big Oil-- pay their fair share. That is why we are urging members of Congress to seize this chance to avoid devastating cuts to environmental and public health programs, bring an end to Big Oil handouts and renew critical incentives for wind energy, like the Production Tax Credit.

If Congress fails to address the fiscal cliff, funding for environmental programs – which currently make up just 1.25% of the national budget – would be slashed even further. Congressional inaction would mean eliminating tax credits that have helped the wind industry grow, starving our National Parks of funding, cutting programs for clean energy research and innovation, undermining efforts to clean up contaminated waterways, and ending programs that support more than 130 National Wildlife Refuges.

By passing a balanced compromise, we can avert these painful cuts while also bringing in revenue by finally doing what we should have done years ago – ending taxpayer-funded subsidies for Big Oil. Already this year, big oil companies have raked in more than $90 billion in profits. But under current policy, we send the oil industry an additional $4 billion a year in taxpayer subsidies. By ending these handouts, we can bring in $40 billion in revenue over the next decade alone.

Congress also must renew the Production Tax Credit for wind energy. This incentive has had bipartisan support since it was signed into law by President George H.W. Bush in 1992 and continued by every president since then. Unfortunately, it fell victim to election-year politics. But now that the campaigning has stopped, it’s time to renew this tax credit. The wind industry alone has created over 75,000 jobs, but many of those jobs will be lost unless Congress renews the PTC before it expires at the end of this year. An agreement to avoid the fiscal cliff could be our best chance.

The American people sent lawmakers a clear message at the ballot box last month when environmental champions from President Obama on down the ballot were overwhelmingly elected. Members of the House and Senate should listen to their constituents as fiscal cliff negotiations continue and develop a plan that defends environmental programs and invests in our clean energy future.

Could the festering Fiscal Cliff negotiations impact energy and environmental issues? As poet Elizabeth Barrett Browning said, “Let me count the ways.”

Ending “subsidies” to U.S. (only) energy firms to reap $46 billion in federal receipts over 10 years is bad policy that would destroy the competitiveness of domestic oil and gas companies and the government’s take will be less than $46 billion as a result of the tax changes.

U.S. oil and gas companies are producing oil and gas at the highest levels in decades, with greater expansion otherwise inevitable in the next decades – unless. . . New gas supply enables American companies to reopen shuttered factories and close some overseas. Such tax hikes endanger U.S. reindustrialization and nip recovery in the bud.

The oil and gas industry provides 9.2 million American jobs, 7.7% of our GDP and fuels or supplies raw material for industries that multiply those numbers. Since 2006 it has added 359,000 direct jobs; the rest of the U.S. economy lost 4.5 million. Don’t kill the golden goose.

The effective tax rate on oil and gas companies is over 44% -- far in excess of the 35% official rate; the industry invested $150 billion per year on American infrastructure -- 14% of U.S. industry capital investment and far more than government “stimulus” packages.

The new economics of natural gas are driving electric generating companies to switch from coal to gas; gas-fired electric generation is down from 53% to 47% and continues to drop. As a result, the U.S. is the only nation on a path to meet its greenhouse gas reduction goal for 2020 – unless these tax changes are enacted. Environmental progress is endangered.

Democrats are not unanimous on the tax hikes -- so many live in states that rely on oil and gas production and related industries. And Pennsylvania, North Dakota and other long- suffering states are beneficiaries of the shale boom, and can expect more prosperity from it. The final outcome is still up in the air, but the fight will be hard and long.

Automatic budget cuts will hit EPA, but carbon and greenhouse gas emissions top their enemies list, although the economics of shale gas has been improving that situation markedly. Having slowed regulatory implementation for the campaign, EPA will attack with a vengeance, to close or bankrupt generating plants around the country. The impact will be higher individual utility bills, power losses for industries and commerce, and unemployment rates – the economy will suffer for non-economic and badly conceived overregulation.

Utopians will insist that “green” energy will fill the gap created by the EPA – Wrong.

A new California State Commission analysis has discovered something that energy economists knew from the beginning – wind and solar energy (and sometimes hydro) need reliable, instantaneous backup during their frequent downtimes. Thus as states mandate more “renewables” to power their electric grid, they must build more gas turbine plants to generate power in place of the fuels of tomorrow.
Despite that, Congress is highly likely to renew wind-energy subsidies, and states and the federal government will probably expand “renewable” mandates. All of which amounts to a simple saying: bad policy chasing bad; good money, chasing bad.

Overall, the outcome is unsettled, but the national interest is to avoid going over the cliff.

In the first 10 months of 2012, 46.22% of new electrical generating capacity brought online was from renewable energy. This year the average prices of renewable energy decreased across the board. The wind sector has seen a steep decline in the cost of operating and maintaining wind turbines—38% in the past four years. The solar industry has watched prices decrease sharply and as a result, solar installation is booming in America. A new report by GTM Research and SEIA shows 44% growth in solar installation during the third (3) quarter of this year compared to the third quarter of last year. All types of renewable energy are contributing in a significant way to America’s energy portfolio. However, with the looming fiscal cliff, it is important to realize that in order to continue growing key American industries that provide good jobs to Americans, key tax credits must be part of the fiscal solution.

Congress should recognize the momentum that renewable energy has achieved and do what it can to encourage further growth and job creation during fiscal cliff negotiations. Going forward, we need to manage our budget in a manner that drives domestic job growth and economic activity in the short term while reducing the deficit over the long term, investing in technologies that pay off as they deliver electricity from sustainable resources that are, in themselves, free.

While Congress weighs its options for the looming fiscal cliff, discussion about the clean energy industry and its future has been given a backseat—which I think is a mistake. I believe the economic progress and associated job growth of the renewable energy industry should be considered in the fiscal cliff debate and Congress should be aware of the cascading negative effects should the industry become a victim of government cuts. According to a study released by the Economic Policy Institute, 436,000 jobs will be lost in the clean-technology sector if America goes over the fiscal cliff, which is nearly equal to the amount of projected job losses due to defense cuts. There is consensus in the bipartisan research world that renewable energy generates “more jobs than the fossil fuel sector per unit of energy delivered.” Equally impressive, each dollar in clean energy investment creates 1.13 times as many jobs as average government expenditures.

As a country, we need to understand that if there are steep cuts to clean energy – whether they are in the form of a fiscal resolution or the result of jumping off the fiscal cliff – we will see substantial job losses all along the value chain and lose an opportunity to be the leading manufacturer of the highest quality clean-technology in the world. The loss of the Production Tax Credit (PTC), for example, would cause construction for new wind projects to plummet 75%—sending shock waves throughout America’s wind turbine component assembly lines—and 37,000 Americans out of the 85,000 Americans currently employed by the wind industry will lose their jobs.

If we saw clean energy investment on its true merits, instead of dismissing government investment in the industry as dispensable, we would understand that tax credits and investments in renewable energy contribute to a more robust, resilient economy and job growth. Clean energy is a job-creator and can be a solution to rather than a part of the fiscal problem. As we decide which programs to cut from our budget in an attempt to solve our economic woes, we should not end tax credits just to say we cut the deficit. Cutting key tax credits for renewable energy would leave tens of thousands of Americans out of work, only doing harm to our economy.

The choices facing Congress are as stark as the stakes are high. Congress must not forget that the budget showdown is about real choices that impact real people. If the wind tax incentives expire, real workers will lose their jobs—and that won’t help our economy. If we continue to subsidize oil corporations—among the richest in the world—we will squander taxpayer money on wealthy companies that pump dangerous pollution into the air. And if we cut natural resources funding even more, we will end up with sewage in our water and shuttered national parks.

Instead, Congress has an opportunity here to chart a new course for the country’s energy economy. Over the past decade, for instance, the United States has led the world in wind power generation, and the benefits to our country are growing daily. The cost of wind energy has fallen more than 90 percent since 1980. The industry has created more than 75,000 jobs. And our country’s goal of cleaner energy comes closer with every turn of the turbine blade. The Production Tax Credit has been central to this economic growth. Killing it now would put tens of thousands of people out of work. But if we extend the credit, we can create more jobs and keep America competitive in the global energy market.

Our country’s budget deficit is a serious problem, but crippling programs Americans count on is not the answer. Any realistic budget plan needs to include bringing in new money by ensuring the wealthiest among us are doing their part. One part of raising that revenue should be ending century-old subsidies to big oil companies. This would save taxpayers billions of dollars while helping the nation move beyond dirty energy that pollutes our air and threatens our country’s future.

The goal of any budget deal should be far more than meeting a deficit reduction target. Congress should be working with the Administration to help build a stronger, healthier economy over the long haul. And the sooner Congress recognizes that a healthy environment and clean energy support a healthy economy the sooner we will be able to achieve that vision.

While the fiscal cliff negotiations ebb and flow, three important energy and environment goals should be recognized:

First, it’s vital that the wind power production tax credit be extended for a reasonable period of time in order for America to continue capturing the job creation, economic growth and environmental quality benefits from modern wind power development. The on-again, off-again PTC uncertainty discourages investment, costs jobs and weakens American clean energy leadership.

Second, federal R&D and commercialization support for renewable energy technological innovations is vital for America’s economic future and global leadership in the fastest growing energy sector. We should not shortchange R&D that can spur innovations in renewable energy technologies, which can help solve America’s energy challenges and be exported and transferred to help solve global climate challenges.

Third, EPA must have sufficient funding to effectively and efficiently implement and enforce its Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act or other statutory responsibilities. Elections have consequences. The partisan attacks on EPA did not persuade a majority of American voters. Unless Congress can muster the votes – unlikely, for now – to change the statutes, then EPA must be appropriated sufficient resources to do its job fairly, reasonably and well to achieve cleaner air and cleaner water for the public good.

America’s vacation destinations could be one of the casualties of the fiscal cliff debate. National parks, wildlife refuges, forest campgrounds and hiking trails are all on the chopping block as we near the edge of the fiscal cliff.

The proposed cuts to National Parks, National Wildlife Refuges, and other wild places and conservation programs will have a disastrous effect on the parks themselves and the communities that depend on them. Gateway communities, like those near Yellowstone National Park and other popular destinations, could lose out on millions of jobs and hundreds of millions of dollars in economic activity.

The great irony, of course, is that spending on these programs is hardly a drop in the bucket of the overall federal budget. Conservation programs make up 1.25% of all federal spending – it’s not like cutting back on the National Park Service budget is going to balance the budget. Yet the economic benefits of these areas are huge – many times more than the investment from the federal government. The outdoor recreation industry, which depends on America’s public wild lands, generates more than $640 billion a year, and nearly $40 billion in federal tax revenue (much more than the $12 billion that oil and gas drilling on public lands is good for).

And indiscriminate cuts would also slow efforts to move the U.S. to a more sustainable energy economy. Congressional budget battles will have major impacts on whether we can put Americans back to work building responsibly sited solar, wind, geothermal, and transmission facilities on public and private lands over the coming months. After more than a decade of single-minded focus on oil and gas drilling on our public lands, we must invest in smart planning and permitting for renewable energy at the Bureau of Land Management and Fish and Wildlife Service to ensure projects can move forward in a timely manner while ensuring protection for important conservation areas. Consistent funding for critical programs even in these lean budget times is needed to build smart today, ensure that new development happens in the right places, and to compete in the global market of tomorrow.

If Congress really wants to save money – and not undermine an efficient economic engine built on wild public lands – it should look to end the billions in tax breaks that the fossil fuel industry receives each year. More than $150 billion in tax breaks, subsidies, and other giveaways are provided to the fossil fuel industry, despite the fact that they are making billions in profits. Just 1/10^th of those subsidies would more than pay for the wind energy production tax credit (approximately $12 billion) which would help us end our addiction to oil and transition our economy to cleaner, renewable energy. Doing that, we’d still have plenty enough left over to wipe out the entire maintenance backlog for the National Wildlife Refuge System (around $3 billion).

If America’s parks and wildlife refuges are going be left dangling off of the fiscal cliff, tax breaks for big oil and the fossil fuel industry should be thrown over first.

We have come to the precipice because we’ve been spending like drunken sailors since 2000 or so. We have spent on programs that we can’t afford, on wars we should have approached more carefully, on tax cuts for job-creators who didn’t create very many jobs, and on various goodies built into the system and politically impossible to eradicate. Drastic action is necessary.

I work in renewables and have supported many environmental organizations and movements. In a world without financial constraints, I would like to see all of the energy incentives we have in place kept and expanded. These policies have helped to repurpose our work force for the next century in a sector that is vital for us to compete globally, they have caused a massive allocation of private capital for non-carbon-based energy projects and supported non-carbon-based energy technology, which is essential for our nagging climate change problem (I don’t care if you call it human-based or not, it’s getting warmer and we are clearly already paying a price)

And yet—eventually the credit card is maxed out and you really, really need to stop borrowing from all of your neighbors and start digging yourself out of the financial hole. We know that the fiscal cliff is a disaster, but our best plan for over a decade has been simple denial, which will eventually cause a bigger catastrophe.

There is no reason to have confidence in an agreement that averts the fiscal cliff—anything both sides can agree to will be watered down to the point that it simply kicks the can down the road. Going over the cliff will automatically give us the tax increases we need; dealing with the debt ceiling in Q1 will very likely give us the spending cuts we need. Both sides will be under tremendous pressure to put essential tax cuts—for the middle class—back in place before the economy is derailed. It’s not for the faint-of-heart, but ridding ourselves of extreme dysfunction is not going to be painless.

So how does this affect renewables incentives? I have personally benefitted from these credits; it is not a secret that they pick winners and losers. Sooner or later, we must get rid of them in favor of a framework that nudges technologically-advanced energy over anything invented in the 19^th century, but does not skew the market place or simply create goodies we will never be able to rid ourselves of. Given our current dire straits, incentives for specific types of renewables need to go as they expire. Incentives for coal, oil and gas should sunset at the same time.

Let’s jump off the fiscal cliff. We will learn to fly on the way down, putting essential spending and tax cuts back into place after we jump. Let’s let the renewables credits expire as scheduled and sunset coal, oil and gas incentives along the same schedule. And let’s level the playing field for renewable energy by allowing third-party power sales in regulated markets and coupling “avoided cost” (the price utilities pay for renewable power) and costumer rates so that utilities cannot control the viability of independent power producers. The renewables industry is ready to compete! We need to keep what we have in place—plans have already been made—but we do not need more except a fair marketplace and an economy that is not careening toward a bigger debt-laden, Greek-style catastrophe without any responsible adults in charge.

There’s lots of talk about what the fiscal cliff means for our economy, but precious little talk about the real world effects of the looming cuts. And there is even less talk about what these cuts will do to this country’s critical environmental programs. But this is an important conversation to have now because the fiscal cliff poses a tremendous threat to wildlife protections, habitat restoration and repair, endangered species and public lands management, conservation law enforcement, and many other important conservation activities.

For instance, our national wildlife refuges are wild places, but they still need to be managed and protected. Under draconian cuts that would be triggered by the fiscal cliff, refuges would be forced to dramatically cut staffing, and reduce or halt services like habitat restoration and fire management. This could put nearby human communities in danger, as thriving, well-managed wildlife refuge lands provide buffers against strong storm winds, flooding and fire. Many refuges or visitor centers are likely to close, reducing the more than $4.2 billion in contributions refuges make to local communities and economies each year. Reductions in refuge law enforcement officers would lead to an increase in poaching, drug smuggling, vandalism and other crimes. Protecting our environment is an investment in our future, but without sufficient funds, the National Wildlife Refuge System can’t do this work to its full potential.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service endangered species program conducts science-based species recovery efforts and closely monitors their success. It is the single most important protection and recovery program for endangered species in the United States. But the program is already severely underfunded and many declining species have been awaiting protection for years, while personnel are stretched thin managing conservation efforts and avoiding harm to protected species. Further cuts could ultimately cause species to fall through the cracks and decline further, or even go extinct, reducing the diversity and vitality of our environment.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Office of Law Enforcement is in charge of investigating and stopping crimes against wildlife both here in the U.S. and around the world. Illegal trade in wildlife ranks third in financial importance after the drug and arms trade and is connected to organized crime and drug trafficking. The program’s inspectors stop illegal wildlife shipments at ports while its special agents work to break up smuggling rings and help states prevent the poaching of U.S. game species. And the Office of Law Enforcement boasts the only wildlife forensics laboratory in the world. Without proper funding, the Office of Law Enforcement will be unable to fight the illegal wildlife trade, keep our native species safe from poachers, or thoroughly investigate wildlife crime.

These examples are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the potential environmental damage we face from the fiscal cliff or further cuts that could be included in an overall budget agreement.

America was the first nation in the world to create national parks and wildlfie refuges. Our environmental laws serve as models for the rest of thre world. And we have always prided ourselves on protecting our wildlife and natural heritage. It would be a shame if we turned our backs on that moral calling over political posturing. There is much more at stake here than how the numbers add up.

Gridlock in Washington today poses a very real threat of throwing the country over the fiscal cliff and into a double-dip recession, all compliments of political dysfunction inside the beltway. And the consequences, however unintended, promise to have a dangerous impact on the energy industry. The agreement that created this dilemma may have appeared to be smart politics at the time but it was bad legislation, showing mainly that government wasn’t working.

Those who believe it is smart politics to go over the cliff much like Thelma and Louise did should remember that theirs wasn’t a happy ending. Economists, including the Congressional Budget Office, have warned of another recession and higher unemployment. In 1986, President Reagan and Speaker O’Neill were able to overcome partisan politics and agree on a tax reform package. That is the model that should be followed today. The potential common ground is wide and fertile, and a basic framework already seems to be in place. It only takes a willingness to do the right thing.

There is a clear link between the availability of affordable energy and economic growth. A “grand bargain” should reflect that reality so that we continue to develop our own energy resources and use them to create jobs and boost economic growth. The boon shale gas production like that in North Dakota, which has the lowest unemployment rate in the nation, is clear evidence of the benefits of energy development.

The best way for the government to get more revenue is by growing the economy. Revenues have declined from the historic average of about 19 percent of GDP not because we are taxed too little but because the economy has not recovered adequately from the recession.

Democrats look at the oil and gas industry like an ATM machine to get more revenue, claiming incorrectly that oil and gas companies benefit from unique subsidies and don’t pay their fair share. Both assertions are patiently false, as has been documented over and over.

In a recent opinion piece in the Washington Times, I wrote that in 2011 the taxes paid by the oil and gas industry were higher than the corporate tax rate and significantly higher than the overall average tax rate paid by all corporations. The so called special tax breaks that the President and some in Congress want to end for oil and gas are available to all business and are intended to prevent double taxation, create incentives for creating US jobs, and to treat drilling expenses like all other business expenses.

So, why treat the oil and gas industry differently? Proponents of pushing these changes want to drive fossil energy out of the economy as part of a plan to promote “clean energy”.

Many European countries, especially Germany, have traveled the clean energy road and by doing so have taken drove their economies into a ditch. An analysis of Germany’s rush to renewables by the European Institute for Climate and Energy warned of “impending doom for the German economy caused by the lemming like charge to the Green mirage of affordable renewable energy.” The report went on, “The problem is that these energy sources are weather-dependent and thus their sporadic supply is starting to wreak havoc on Germany’s power grid and is even now threatening to destabilize power grids all across Europe! … after tens of billions of euros spent on renewable energy systems and higher prices for consumers, not a single coal or gas-fired power plant has been taken offline. To the contrary, old inefficient German plants have been brought back into service in an effort to stabilize the grid.”

Instead of punitive tax policies that will reduce private investment and raise energy prices, Congress should end subsidies like the production tax credit for renewables. They are pure waste. If the renewable industry cannot compete in the market place after decades of federal help, it never will, at least until there are some breakthroughs in technology that are not on the horizon.

The notion that budget cuts would be a “doomsday scenario” for environmental protection is a hobgoblin. Since 2007, Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) budget has gone from $7.7 to $8.4 billion, far out pacing any conceivable environmental risks. The EPA budget and those of other departments have plenty of room to accommodate reductions.

The last major government reorganization was over 80 years ago. The time is ripe for another one that makes the government function more efficiently and focuses on the services that government ought to furnish instead of all those is can and has chosen to furnish.

One question here is whether we should debate the specifics of resolving (or not resolving) the Fiscal Cliff for government programs affecting energy and the environment, or broader questions of how that resolution will affect the American economy. For a moment, I’d like to discuss the latter.

My sense is that we are living on borrowed time. We cannot continue racking up trillion dollar fiscal deficits indefinitely though to date we’ve done so without serious consequence. Perhaps that’s in part due to fiscal and political disarray in Europe and Japan, making America look better by comparison. But eventually investors worldwide (including here) may conclude that Americans have little intention of curbing their appetite for debt – and that better investment alternatives exist. If that happens, another Great Recession is not out of the question, which will not be good for either our energy markets or for our programs to protect the environment.

The Fiscal Cliff is a short-term manifestation of the political difficulty of dealing with the problem. Allowing the tax cuts to disappear means that all taxpayers, not just some, will have to chip in. Much can be said for this approach because all benefit from what the government provides. Cutting defense and discretionary spending has the benefit of further curbing our appetite for debt – if such cuts and the tax increases don’t adversely affect the economy. There’s the rub. Ideally we’d like to stimulate economic activity, or at least not discourage it, in the short term while closing the deficits over the longer. But it’s hard to make binding commitments for the future that aren’t reversible. So, maybe, to increase credibility, some spending cuts and tax increases should be made now. Should these involve energy or environmental programs? It’s tempting to say no, these should be sancrosanct, but then, that’s what the defenders of every program will say. Personally, I’m an advocate of shared sacrifice, nothing should be off the table. But, admittedly, that’s a lot easier to say than to enact. So, to our Congress, a Happy Holiday Season and I hope you’re up to it!

It’s generally accepted that avoiding the fiscal cliff will require a combination of expenditure cuts as well as revenue enhancements. In all likelihood, tax preferences and subsidies for the energy sector will be under the microscope for possible cuts. In that regard, Congress and the White House must be attentive to the macroeconomic consequences of reducing or eliminating these incentives.

For example, should the production tax credit for wind energy be allowed to expire at year’s end, the number of new installations would certainly decrease. But the impact on the economy, as well as “green” energy production, would be minimal. According to the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA), about 85,000 Americans are currently employed in the wind power industry and related fields. But despite nearly 20 years of direct subsidies, the contribution of wind to the installed capacity on the nation’s power grids is only about 4 percent. And because wind energy is intermittent and can’t be stored, it hasn’t reduced the need to build new base-load power plants fueled by natural gas, coal or nuclear.

Unlike renewables, that receive 75 percent of all the subsidies and tax expenditures available to the energy sector, deductions and write-offs for fossil fuels are quite modest. Oil-company tax deductions are unlike subsidies. They are the standard relief afforded manufacturers, mining companies and other businesses to help recognize the costs of operations. Oil companies can deduct their expenses for things like equipment purchases and rig-technicians’ salaries. The point of these deductions — as for any other industry or individual — is to ensure taxes are only levied on income after expenses.

Oil and gas companies can also deduct expenses related to exploration or development. The idea here is to provide an incentive to take on the often substantial risk of seeking new energy sources. When these efforts succeed, the energy market expands, prices drop and America moves that much closer to energy independence.

Overall, oil and natural gas companies claim about $2.8 billion a year in tax deductions compared with $12.5 billion in direct subsidies to wind and solar. That’s a small price to pay for the huge benefits the industry generates for the economy.

Over the last five years, through the thick of the Great Recession, oil and natural gas companies have added more than 160,000 jobs. These firms currently employ 9 million people, and 2012 will be the fourth year in a row that domestic oil production has increased. What’s more, natural gas output is at an all-time high.

The Obama administration has not treated the fossil fuel industry kindly over the past four years, and some Congressional Democrats want to eliminate all tax preferences to oil and gas companies as part of a deal to avoid going over the fiscal cliff. But tax discrimination is bad public policy. If fossil fuels companies are to forfeit their tax write-offs, so should every other manufacturing and mining industry. At the same time, the egregious subsidies currently going to renewable energy companies should be eliminated if oil and gas are to lose their tax preferences.

(These comments were submitted by Jessica Goad, Michael Conathan, and Christy Goldfuss of the Center for American Progress)

Every day we edge closer to January 2, 2013 when automatic budget cuts (sequestration) will occur if there is not a deal that ends the fiscal showdown. Much has been made of the harmful effects that sequestration might have on various sectors of government like the military, health services, and other domestic programs. But it is important to remember that automatic, across the board cuts to land and ocean management agencies will also have real impacts on the daily lives of Americans. This is because these agencies quietly oversee important programs that:

- Provide safety and security, including weather forecasting, park rangers, firefighters, and the Coast Guard

- Make significant economic contributions, like $385 billion in economic activity leveraged by oil and gas, mining, timber, grazing, and recreation on lands managed by the Department of Interior

- Preserve America’s shared history, heritage, and recreation opportunities in our national parks, forests, and seashores

In a report released in September, the White House Office of Management and Budget noted that “sequestration percentages for the non-defense function would be a reduction of 8.2 percent for discretionary appropriations and 7.6 percent for direct spending.”

This means that all of the agencies that manage our lands and oceans—the Department of the Interior, the Forest Service, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the Coast Guard—will face massive cuts between 7.6 and 8.2 percent of their budgets (and even up to 9.4 percent for one defense function of the Coast Guard).

Altogether, OMB predicted that this will amount to $2.6 billion cut from these agencies in fiscal year 2013. This amount of cuts will impair the ability of the agencies to implement important policies and programs. What’s worse is that these cuts will be compressed into the last nine months of FY 2013.

In other words, sequestration will be disastrous for the federal agencies that manage our lands and oceans and the role they play in making our lives safe, healthy, and fulfilling.

In a recent report entitled “7 Ways that Looming Budget Cuts to Public Lands and Oceans Will Affect All Americans,” CAP describes the real-world ways that cuts to these agencies will be felt by the American people:

1. Less accurate weather forecasts, particularly dangerous as snow storm season begins

2. Slower energy development

3. Fewer wild land firefighters

4. Closures of national parks

5. Fewer places to hunt

6. Less fish on your table

7. Diminished maritime safety and security

There is no doubt that spending on public lands and oceans provides many economic benefits and vital services to our country, from raising revenue to protecting national parks to safeguarding our coasts. Therefore, Republicans must come to the table with a realistic plan to raise revenue to fully fund these vital services in addition to their plans to slash government spending.

Balancing the budget by only cutting spending without a realistic plan to increase revenue means we will be less prepared for the next Hurricane Sandy. It means we will be unable to control massive wildfires as quickly as we can today. And it means we will have fewer places to hunt, fish, and relax.

While "the fiscal cliff" could have collateral damage to renewable energy and energy efficiency -- it is unlikely. At the moment, round-the-clock and back door negotiations over budget issues are being carried out. One of the biggest issues is will the House and White House continue the 19 explicit fossil subsidies totally $17.5 billion yearly. I expect a few will be shaved in any likely deal to avert the fiscal cliff, and I expect the wind credit will be extended with language likely orchestrating some future ramp down of the wind PTC. Midwest Republican and Democratic Members of Congress will not let the wind credit die without a fight which risks closing 30 US factories and assembly plants and several thousand installation jobs. Cuts in Department of Energy and Environmental programs would have some adverse medium and long term impact for clean energy development - but the global markets are expanding and private sector RD&D far exceeds federal government spending. The real risk to the clean energy sector is more about government "will" and attention, so we do not lose out totally on global technology leadership and markets surpassing $300 billion in the global markets for renewable energy and energy storage, and over $100 billion per year just in the efficient building sector.