For the past few years, cap and trade legislation has seemed like the best–to some, the only–way to encourage a swift move to a lower-carbon economy, incentivizing renewable energies like solar power on the way. But cap and trade is facing such strong opposition that legislators have had to seek for alternative ways to address climate change.

Over the weekend, The Washington Post reported on the current move from three U.S. senators to propose an alternative to cap and trade legislation. Senators John Kerry (D-Mass.), Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) have been working on a bill for months that would approach carbon reduction by sector instead of instituting a national standard or goal. Calling it the “Framework for Climate Action and Energy Independence in the U.S. Senate” when they announced it to President Obama (PDF) back in December, the Senators emphasized their belief in a market-based system which, rather than a “labyrinth of command-and-control regulations”, would:

…allow us to reduce pollution economically and avoid the worst impacts of global climate change. It will also provide significant transition assistance to companies and consumers without using taxpayer dollars or driving up the national debt.

According to the Post, the legislation would put a cap on emissions from power plants that would increase over time; put a carbon tax on motor fuel; and slowly phase in a carbon cap on industrial emissions over time. Despite this latter and rather significant exemption, the Senators believe this bill could meet the President’s commitment at Copenhagen to get U.S. emissions down 17 percent by 2020.

As soft an approach as this seems in relation to true cap and trade legislation, however, the bill may still face strong opposition from those who fear it as a slippery slope towards the real thing. Because even though this framework removes a national carbon cap, it still places a price on carbon within certain sectors, and many (even moderate) Republicans remain opposed to this elemental piece of climate change legislation.

Governmental support for low-carbon technologies has proven essential to the success of renewable energy technologies in many markets, including domestic ones. Not only Germany and Spain, but New Jersey and California (to name a few) have watched their solar energy industries boom with strong legislative action behind them. In New Jersey’s case, an essentially cap and trade system (solar renewable energy credit or SREC trading) has made this legislative support relatively cheap for the state to make, as it places the burden on the market.

The crux of the problem is that in order to quickly and effectively achieve a reduction of greenhouse gas/carbon emissions, costs for traditional energy will have to rise. Legislation can get prices to rise before the market might force them to otherwise; this is what enables opponents to such legislation to call “energy tax!” and raise pandemonium. But such opponents aren’t factoring in the heavy costs of waiting to take action, which include not just climate costs, but real losses from failure to seize market leadership in the renewable sector.

If Senators Graham, Lieberman and Kerry fail to get the 60 votes they will need to pass their legislation through the Senate, we may be federally back to square one in terms of addressing both climate change and vigorous renewable energy development. So far, individual states have excelled at addressing these issues on their own, but the bulk of the country has yet to get on board. Send a quick email to your senator and let them know what you think.