Critics of climate legislation claim that the U.S. cannot bear the cost of reducing the use of fossil fuels to power the economy. But the U.S. economy has shown great resilience in times of change.

The climate bill passed recently by the House, in fact, relies on innovation based on economic self interest. The bill’s cap-and-trade system is intended reward companies for reducing emissions through the use of green technology. Firms that clean up their act could profit by selling their unused emission allowances to those still hooked on their smokestacks.

The Republican weekly radio address on Saturday denounced this approach as “a bureaucratic nightmare that would make households, small businesses and family farms pay higher prices for electricity, gasoline, food and virtually every product made in America.” Speaking for the GOP, Rep. Marsha Blackwell of Tennessee claimed that efforts to achieve a 17 percent cut in emission levels, as President Barack Obama has proposed, would damage the U.S. economy for decades.

Such warnings deserve our attention. Efforts to rein in pollution and climate-changing emissions will inevitably create some hardships. But the U.S. should be able to manage a transition that does not jeopardize the overall economy; in fact, better energy efficiency and adaptability may become one of our strengths.

Last week, Maine Sen. Susan Collins, a Republican, and Democratic Sen. Maria Cantwell of Washington offered an alternative to the cap-and-trade system. Their proposal calls for the government to auction pollution allowances to industry, and distribute most of the proceeds in tax-free monthly checks to every American.

 It is estimated that these carbon “dividend” checks would amount to about $100 a month ”“ a substantial and ongoing economic stimulus. Checks would be distributed to every legal U.S. resident to offset increased costs. One-quarter of the funds raised from the auctions would be devoted to an essential priority ”“ clean energy research and development.

It’s worth debating this and other alternatives to the energy bill now under review in the Senate. The U.S. has an obligation to find politically acceptable ways to begin limiting the commercial exploitation of the atmosphere.

At the U.N. climate conference in Copenhagen last week, a U.N. scientific panel warned that proposed cuts now on the table are far less than what is needed to avoid a 2-degree rise in global temperatures. Even a 2-degree rise would raise sea levels by 1.3 to 4.5 feet, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changes predicted.

Though many politicians are still unconvinced by the threat of global warming, most scientists see the potential for serious impacts on human health, safety and economic well-being. Developing cleaner and more sustainable sources of energy is in the national interest.

— Questions? Comments? Contact Managing Editor Nick Cowenhoven at nickc@journaltribune.com or City Editor Kristen Schulze Muszynski at kristenm@journaltribune.com.