It is time for the United States to stop shilly-shallying around the edges of environmental policy, bite the tax bullet, and lead world to a sustainable energy future.

The disastrous environmental, economic and social consequences of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico ought to shake us to our senses. Add this Gulf crisis to the deaths in West Virginia coal mines; plus the environmental degradation of mountains and water that are by-products of mining coal; plus the national security implications of our addiction to oil; plus the life-changing effects of burning fossil fuels on the world’s climate… and the sum is clear: The time for bold action and a firm commitment to an alternative energy policy is now. Right now! This minute!

Thomas Friedman wrote in his New York Times op-ed column that “the only meaningful response to this man-made disaster is a man-made energy bill that would finally put in place an American clean energy infrastructure that would set our country on a real, long-term path to ending our addiction to oil.”

I agree with Friedman, but there are powerful forces with deep pockets and a multitude of lobbyists aligned against major reform. These forces range from mining and oil interests, power producers, and the anti-tax zealots. They are committed to defeating or emasculating any initiative that would substantially alter the status quo.

But the dual tragedies of West Virginia coal and Gulf oil might have produced the perfect public opinion storm, a moment that must be seized.

A good place to start would have been the bi-partisan bill proposed in the United States Senate. According to Friedman, it “would set a price on carbon, begin to shift us to a system of cleaner fuels, greater energy efficiency, and unlock an avalanche of private capital to the clean energy market.” But this bill was lost amidst partisan wrangling.

This is an urgent issue, the future of the planet depends on how we deal with it. I suggest a two-stage process. First, set a clear goal that commits the United States to a date certain for eliminating our dependence on fuels that destroy the environment and endanger national security.

Secondly, establish an aggressive time line with mandated action steps that move us to that goal. The action steps would include a multi-year timetable for phasing out reliance on fossil fuels while ramping up new energy sources; and, setting a price for fossil fuels that accurately reflects their true cost. Then, impose a carbon tax that would increase annually until the price reaches the cost. The proceeds of the tax could be dedicated to alternative energy innovation.

Tax is a bad word in political circles, but we are currently paying a hidden tax through subsidies that hide the real cost of our energy consumption. This includes (according to Energy Security: Toward a New Foreign Policy Status by Jan Kalicki and David Goldwyn) the cost of maintaining a military presence in the Middle East; the health cost caused by carbon emissions and other pollutants; the cost of cleaning up polluted land, water and air; maintaining a transportation infrastructure for moving fuel; and the economic costs that volatile energy prices impose on the competitiveness of U.S manufacturing.

Kalicki and Goldwyn argue that “the disconnect between what Americans pay for energy and what it really costs has led to political deadlock… The failure to achieve basic changes has plagued Democrats and Republicans alike, both of which have feared antagonizing domestic producers and manufactures or risking consumer retaliation at even the mention of increasing taxes.”

They argue, therefore, that the legislative response is weak, and is limited to “shortsighted discussions of industry subsidies, or continuation of the war between producers and environmentalists.” Even though their book was written in 2005, it paints an accurate picture of the current process in Washington. Neither the American people nor our policy makers seem willing to think beyond the immediate interests of various constituencies.

Politicians in power, for instance, want to stay there and those out of power want to return, common good be damned; the primary concerns of business are shareholder return and customer price; and consumers want to maintain and improve their existing standard of living. The first group is subjected to powerful lobbying from the second, and the third is targeted with partisan campaigns of fear, obfuscation and manipulation by the other two.

Meanwhile, the United States is becoming more and more vulnerable as it increases dependence on energy imports, and is thus less able to deal effectively with threats from the Middle East. We are in danger of falling into energy insecurity, and being mired in constant conflict with unstable and badly-governed states.

We need leaders of courage who will act as statesmen rather than partisans. We need leaders who will seek a balanced environmental solution that preserves the interest of the nation, ensures long-term environmental sustainability, protects national security and stimulates economic prosperity… and that earns the United States a mantle of world leadership on an issue that affects every corner of the globe.

That leadership responsibility, I believe, has landed squarely in the Oval Office. President Obama needs to embrace it, seizing a moment when the public is acutely aware of the economic and environmental consequences of our current energy policies. He should  forge strong, bold and comprehensive legislation, and then use his bully pulpit to push it through Congress.

Tom Wright, a theologian and Church of England bishop, once said that leaders must grab the nettles, or resign themselves to a long walk around the thicket. This issue is a thicket full of nettles and it will take immense political courage to take hold of it. The alternative, however, is a long walk around a never-ending crisis, and our grandchildren’s children will pay a staggering price.

So let’s quit shilly-shallying around the edges of environmental policy, bite the tax bullet, and lead world to a sustainable energy future.