Prospects for passing some sort of long-term energy policy were good just two years ago, but a lousy economy and some aggressive lobbying by opponents of climate change policy derailed those efforts, and there's no reason to think things will get back on track in 2012.

The closest possibility may be clean energy standards legislation being crafted by Jeff Bingaman, a Democratic senator from New Mexico. But Republicans have already lined up against such a measure, and even existing clean energy policies are being questioned, especially after the failure of the solar cell maker and loan guarantee recipient Solyndra. (See "Solyndra: We Told You So.") Election year politics may force legislators to steer clear of hot button issues like climate change.

In the absence of a comprehensive energy policy, expect increased use of natural gas, which is cheap because of large newly economical resources in the United States, and decreased use of coal, which is the subject of new EPA regulations. Without policy support, or sudden, big improvements to battery technology, it's hard to see electric vehicles taking off quickly, and as the cellulosic ethanol industry has been slow to get going, don't expect biofuels to make a big dent in gasoline consumption. Indeed, the country may grow yet more dependent on oil as large new resources are exploited in places such as North Dakota and Texas, and friendly neighbors such as Canada. Some experts are starting to suggest that within a decade or two, the Americas would no longer need to import any oil. That might sound good, but oil prices will still depend on the worldwide market for oil—as long as demand is growing as it has been in recent years, prices will stay high, and volatile, even if the U.S. starts sending more money to Brazil and Canada and less to the Middle East.

Looking ahead, we can also expect to see more failures in the solar industry, as low prices force many out of business. One thing that will be interesting to watch is the extent to which the survivors manage to succeed, even in a climate of reduced government incentives. The U.S.-based solar panel manufacturing giant First Solar recently announced that it plans to stop targeting fickle subsidized markets, and instead sell to places where its technology makes economic sense on its own merits. Prices for solar panels may have decreased enough in recent years that the industry can survive on its own--serving areas with lots of sun and high electricity prices—albeit at a smaller size than it could with government support.

To hear some politicians speak these days, you'd think climate change could be solved as a happy side effect to creating jobs and reducing oil imports. Of course, the problem is much bigger than that. Just ask Robert Socolow, a professor at Princeton University and creator of the oft-cited "wedge" approach to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

In 2004, Socolow published an article in the journal Science that said greenhouse gases could be reduced substantially by combining several existing technologies with conservation measures, each technology or strategy forming a wedge. No single approach would be enough, but taken together, these wedges could make a big difference. The Science paper began with the provocative statement that "humanity already possesses the fundamental scientific, technical, and industrial know-how to solve the carbon and climate problem for the next half-century." The profound optimism of that remark has been used far and wide by those arguing for action on climate change.

But now, according to a report in National Geographic, Socolow says people should have read his paper more carefully.

He originally wrote that a combination of seven wedges, including reducing automobile travel and installing huge numbers of wind turbines, would make it possible to stabilize carbon dioxide concentrations at 500 parts per million. But he notes than none of these wedges would be particularly easy. The fuel economy of vehicles would have to double, 2 million wind turbines would have to be installed, and the amount of energy supplied by solar power would have to increase 700 times. Even then, he says, all the wedges would have done is keep annual emissions at about what they are now, which would likely still allow the world to warm by 3 degrees—hardly eliminating climate change. In comparison, global climate talks have focused on trying to limit temperature increases to just 2 degrees.

Socolow also says climate activists took his theory and extrapolated from it, suggesting, for example, that adding more wedges would make it possible to to decrease emissions more than he predicted. As a result, climate change began to seem like an easy problem to solve, which he thinks contributed to the lack of action since 2004. From National Geographic:

"With some help from wedges, the world decided that dealing with global warming wasn't impossible, so it must be easy," Socolow says. "There was a whole lot of simplification, that this is no big deal."

He said his theory was intended to show the progress that could be made if people took steps such as halving our automobile travel, burying carbon emissions, or installing a million windmills. But instead of providing motivation, the wedges theory let people relax in the face of enormous challenges, he now says.

"The job went from impossible to easy" in part because of the wedges theory. "I was part of that."

And from there, he says, a disturbing portion of the population moved to doubt that the problem is even real.

"I know no one who predicted that the climate change message would be rejected on a scale that it is now," Socolow said at a recent seminar at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. "Scientists and environmentalists interested in getting climate taken seriously have failed beyond their wildest imaginations.

"This is a time for self-assessment," he said.

The article goes on to quote Henry Lee, who directs the environment program at the Harvard Kennedy School's Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.

"I think we were victimized more by the advocacy community than by science," Lee said. Using Socolow's wedges theory and similar arguments, advocates suggested "you could get all of this and pay nothing. I think people feel angry now, that it's going to cost them."

Here's an alternative explanation. A concerted effort to dispute the reality of climate change paired with economic hardship made Americans care less about the issue. It seems unlikely that telling people that climate change is difficult to solve will make people more likely to support climate change policy.

On the other hand, if such a policy is ever to become law--and stay law for the decades it will take to address the problem--people will certainly need to be convinced that climate change is a problem worth doing something about, and they'll need to have a realistic idea of what sacrifices will be necessary to solve the problem. Trying to convince them that forcing utilities to use more expensive sources of electricity will help the economy, as some politicians and policy experts are doing, doesn't seem to be working.

Whenever gas prices spike, calls mount to increase oil production in the United States. Then experts point out that this won't make a dent in gasoline prices. And politicians ignore them and keep calling for more oil drilling. Today President Obama at least partly went along with these calls by announcing plans to expand drilling in Alaska, and speed new exploration offshore.

There may be good reasons to increase oil production in the United States--such as increasing high paying jobs, increasing the revenues of oil companies, and reducing the U.S. trade imbalance—but driving down gas prices isn't one of them. Increasing drilling won't decrease gas prices much for several reasons. The increase would be a drop in the bucket of worldwide oil production; it will take many years before oil starts to flow from new wells; and if prices fall too low, OPEC can just drop production a little, causing oil prices to rise again. What's more, gas prices are also related to a factor that's separate from oil production: refinery output, which can be hurt by things like hurricanes and floods.

Some numbers: Opening the Arctic Wildlife National Reserve to drilling could lead to production levels that would constitute "between 0.4 to 1.2 percent of total world oil consumption by 2030" according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. That could decrease oil prices by about one dollar, unless OPEC steps in, in which case it wouldn't do anything to oil prices at all. Drilling in the Outer Continental shelf could have a similarly small impact: by 2030, it could alter gas prices by three cents per gallon.