If you spend any time in Europe or listen to the BBC or read a European newspaper, you might think that energy and climate change are all that Europeans talk about. And with good reason. Europe is facing issues of energy security, diversity of supply and source, climate change and environmental degradation head-on. The European Commission has ambitious goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 20 percent and of producing 20 percent of heat and electricity and 10 percent of vehicle fuels from renewable energy by 2020. That is just 13 years away.

All of this is particularly challenging when you consider that the European Union is made up of 27 countries, each with its own needs and concerns. Yet there is consensus that even with advances in technology and efficiency and serious efforts in conservation, much more needs to be done. Indeed, the Stern review on climate change, recently published in the United Kingdom, concludes that the economic cost of implementing stringent controls and supporting more research now is far less than doing nothing. Doing nothing could result in a major worldwide depression in the not so distant future.

The European marketplace is taking this information seriously. Climate change is now being seen as a necessary business expense. The Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS), although in its infancy and still very rough around the edges, is one attempt to put a price tag on burning carbon with the goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Europe knows firsthand the impact of supply disruptions and the risk to its economic stability, particularly from Russia. Last year pipeline gas flow was disrupted through the Ukraine and this year through Belarus.

There are conflicting arguments in Europe (and in the United States) about whether to use more coal or less coal, more nuclear or less nuclear. Are clean-coal technology and carbon sequestration justifiable solutions for increased coal use? Can they (and we) solve disposal issues of nuclear waste and other toxic material? Whatever the disputes, Europe is investing in both old and new energy. They are leaders in wind, solar and biofuels technologies. Europe’s policy efforts are focused on sustainable building standards, more efficient vehicles, and, yes, environmental taxes. While most energy policies in the U.S. have focused on delivering greater supply, those in Europe have, to a great extent, attempted to reduce demand.

Europe, the United States and Maine face very similar challenges: declining fossil fuel reserves, underinvestment in energy infrastructure, and a desire to move toward new, low-carbon/zero-carbon sources of energy that are not yet proven in the market place. Our dependency on fossil fuels is huge, and the task to reduce this dependency is enormous.

The solutions may not be exactly the same as Europe’s, but we know what has to be done. We need both old and new energy, so let’s try to use the cleanest available sources and require that all the waste be accounted for, paid for, and disposed of properly. We must take responsibility for both our energy use and our waste. We need a realistic national energy policy and enforcement of regulations. We need leadership and action at all levels of government: federal, regional, state and local. We need more scientific research, and we need rational input of scientific and engineering research into decision-making. We need entrepreneurs and lots of new ideas.

If the U.S. and Maine can turn these challenges into workable policies and business opportunities, we should look to a future, in 50 to 100 years, where we will have zero carbon emissions, where perhaps hydrogen and photovoltaics will be our primary energy sources. In the meantime we have lots of work to do.

Elizabeth A. Wilson, Ph.D., is an adjunct professor of geology in the Department of Earth Sciences and a policy fellow at the Margaret Chase Smith Policy Center, University of Maine. She is moderating the Camden Conference Symposium on Energy at the Hutchison Center on Feb. 10. For information: info@camdenconference.org.