In early 2009 with the election of the President and overwhelming Democratic majorities in the Congress, the odds seemed high that a climate/energy bill would pass in short order. Since then, though, despite passage of the Waxman/Markey bill in the House, the Senate has been reluctant to act. Rustbelt Democrats have sounded a lot like Sunbelt Republicans when it comes to climate legislation, and there is growing apprehension that passing a potentially costly new bill to regulate carbon will further undermine our fragile economy.

Since members on both sides of the aisle and the American people would like to see action on such key energy matters as our dependence on foreign energy imports and the environmental challenges associated with producing energy, the question becomes: Is there a path forward that can help us improve our energy security and reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases without bankrupting the U.S. treasury or undermining the economy? I believe there is.

Rather than losing more time in an effort to pass an energy/climate bill that lacks sufficiently broad support to prevail, let us focus instead on how we will structure our energy sector over the next 20 years—and then create a set of incentives that can make that structure a reality.

In recent years, many states have adopted renewable energy legislation mandating that a certain percentage of their power be derived from sources such as wind, solar, biomass and geothermal. The House-passed Waxman/Markey legislation sets up such a standard for the country as a whole, and a version of that approach has passed the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources on a bipartisan vote. Today a principal barrier to final Senate passage is most likely the White House’s insistence that no energy bill be adopted unless it also contains some type of carbon regulation.

Yet even if Congress were to pass a national renewable energy bill, it would not be enough. Renewables are not the only “clean” domestic source of energy that can be ramped up over the next 15 to 20 years. If policymakers are truly serious when it comes to improving energy security and reducing the environmental risks associated with energy production, it is time for an increased role for nuclear power in America.

Around the world, from China to Finland to Abu Dhabi, nuclear power is being deployed and is considered a viable alternative energy source. Not so here. In the United States, we haven’t licensed and built a new reactor in decades. While there are many plans on the table, jump-starting the deployment of nuclear plants will require the U.S. government to play a major role in helping finance and license new units. Thus far, the Obama Administration has advocated for an enhanced government role in support of nuclear power. As with renewables, we need a full-court press to advance nuclear power if we are serious about realigning the energy sector. The time for that is now.

The simple fact is that we cannot improve our energy security or the environmental risks associated with energy production unless we significantly increase the roles of renewable energy and nuclear power. Neither one alone will be enough to sufficiently reshape the energy sector. What Congress needs to do now is to focus on passing an energy bill that sets attainable goals for both renewable energy and nuclear growth, and provides sufficient government incentives and support to make sure those targets are met.

I propose that we increase the role of renewables from current levels by 10 percent to 15 percent by 2030, and increase the percentage of power coming from nuclear energy by 10 percent during that same timeframe. If we do, in less than 20 years, America would derive more than half its power from non-emitting domestic sources. That would be an incredible achievement, placing us well on the road to addressing the energy challenges that most Americans and policymakers urgently want to overcome.

But to get there Congress needs to focus on the doable. As we learned in 2003 after the Northeast blackout, even a serious energy disaster does not cause members of Congress to vote against their constituents and political interests. Then, despite the fact that an energy bill was already in conference committee and leaders on all sides were confidently predicting its imminent passage, it took two years for a watered-down version of the legislation to make it to the finish line.

Rather than hoping that the Deepwater Horizon incident can help bring about a weak, likely unworkable energy/climate bill, the President and Congressional leaders should pursue a strategy with a higher chance of success. Let’s set some realistic goals and timetables to dramatically increase the role of renewables and nuclear power, and provide the federal backing needed to ensure those goals are achieved.

Such legislation may not solve all our energy problems, but the truth is there is no magic formula that can, by itself, accomplish everything. What we must avoid is continued inaction. Any new energy strategy will take years to fully implement and, therefore, we must begin the effort today. It is the best way to get us on the road toward enhanced energy and environmental security.

Spencer Abraham served as a U.S. Senator and America’s 10^th Energy Secretary. He is also the author of Lights Out: 10 Myths About and Real Solutions to America’s Energy Crisis. The book can be pre-ordered on Amazon.com.