This summer, Americans are facing sky-high gasoline prices at the pump and are struggling to pay staggering electricity bills. Unfortunately, today’s record gasoline and energy prices are just a preview of what is to come if we move ahead with mandatory, punitive climate change legislation — like the Warner-Lieberman-Boxer bill just debated on the Senate floor.

Rather than pass this type of draconian measure, we should develop a climate change policy that embraces four key goals: 1) fostering innovation; 2) promoting energy security and battling sky-high prices by increasing domestic energy supply; 3) protecting American jobs; and 4) demanding global participation.

First, innovation. Any responsible plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions needs to factor in the reality that, for utilities and mobile sources, there is still a fundamental lack of market-ready technologies available to deploy. We need to walk before we run, and we need to aggressively invest in the development of the technologies we will need to rely on before we mandate their use.

Nothing is more en vogue than advocating for alternative energy sources and technologies. People on both the right and the left clamor for it — the surest indicator that this talk is cheap.  Of course, technology and innovation with alternative energy sources and tools are overwhelmingly popular; they can exemplify the drive and exceptionalism that is woven into the American fabric. But we need to be sure to promote innovation and technologies that work, are affordable and will be accepted by all Americans — not just the activists and the wealthy.

Second, domestic energy production. As American minds and businesses meet the challenge to create these long-term solutions, we must also increase our domestic oil and gas production and decrease our dependence on foreign energy sources so that we stabilize prices. As we do this, we cannot allow our climate change policies to put further strain on American fuel and utility prices. Most global climate change initiatives, including the recent Lieberman-Warner-Boxer bill, do nothing to promote energy independence and fail to take into account the larger costs that their policies would impose on Americans.

Expanding our domestic energy supply would ensure that more gasoline and natural gas is available to meet increased demands. Revenue-sharing programs in new producing areas would both encourage new production and fund much-needed and valuable programs, including conservation programs.

Third, jobs. We must do all that we can to ensure that climate change proposals do not result in American jobs being moved overseas, especially those in energy-intensive manufacturing and the oil- and gas-producing sectors. I recently introduced an amendment to the Lieberman-Warner-Boxer bill that would have taken steps to protect American jobs, including by requiring the submission of annual reports describing whether the legislation had resulted in the loss of more than 5,000 jobs in natural-gas intensive sectors.

Virtually all cap-and-trade regimes will result in a significant loss of American jobs. We should provide American workers with a certain level of protection rather than pursue policies that strangle our economy and have little or no global environmental effort. That brings us to our last principle.

Fourth, global mandatory participation. We must engage other major emitting countries, such as China and India, which are projected to contribute 60 percent of emissions by 2030. The Energy Information Administration ranked China 2nd in the world in terms of petroleum consumption in 2006 and ranked India 6th. In the same year, China was ranked 1st in coal consumption and 2nd in the consumption of electricity, and boasted a population of more than 1.3 billion. In 2006, the EIA ranked India as the 3rd in coal consumption with a population of more than 1 billion. As we speak, China is on track to build one dirty coal-fired electricity plant per week!

As nations such as these continue to grow in terms of economics and population, their consumption of natural resources will increase exponentially, and it is vital that they are held to the same standards we consider.

On the campaign trail recently, presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) chastised Americans for keeping their air conditioning at 72 degrees and consuming 25 percent of the world’s energy. But that percentage is headed down. And proposals like Lieberman-Warner-Boxer do nothing to effectively demand that the high-growth economies whose percentages are soaring enact similar legislation.

The time has come for action that’s both smart and bold. We must approach climate change responsibly, and we must engage other nations to do the same. By encouraging American innovation and promoting clean energy, while still continuing to foster an economic environment that encourages business growth, we can address climate change, reduce the cost of gasoline and energy and strengthen our national security.

Vitter is a member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.