Several senators are planning to mark the 40th anniversary of Earth Day by releasing a bill targeting climate change. The House passed its version of the legislation last summer and now, almost a year later, the Senate is trying its hand for a second time. Proponents claim this could be the basis for a bill that finally gets enacted into law. We will see. But one thing is for sure – all along the way there will be a litany of subsidies and giveaways added to grease the way for passage.

If and when a climate bill does land on the President's desk, it is likely to be chock full of handouts to Big Coal, ethanol and other biofuels, synfuels, renewables, nukes and good old oil and gas. Many of those subsidies will likely be added in the 11th hour in an attempt to sweeten the pot and win over enough votes.

We agree that climate change must be addressed, and taxpayers stand to lose if it's not. That said, we don't think taxpayers should be asked to give up the farm in the process. We hope lawmakers will hold themselves to a higher standard and not use climate and energy legislation as leverage to pile on the spending for their pet projects. In that spirit, we think there are a few things legislators must consider before they load up the goodies.

First, taxpayers cannot afford to pad the pockets of the high-cost, high-risk industries of the past with new and expanded subsidies, whether they be in allowance handouts, loan guarantee, or other incentives. Many of these industries have helped create the problem and providing subsidies for them could easily undermine any gains of climate legislation. For instance, coal is a mature and heavily subsidized high carbon industry, pocketing taxpayer handouts in excess of $80 billion dollars since 1932; the industry should pay its own way to meet the new demands of a climate constrained world.

Second, the mechanism we choose for setting limitations on carbon – whether they come in the form of cap and trade legislation, cap and dividend, a carbon tax or something else, should enable the market to sort out what technologies are best able to meet our energy needs. The nuclear power industry, often touted as low-carbon solution for the future, has never stood on its own two feet in the marketplace. Across the globe, nuclear power is substantially, if not wholly, supported by government funding. The U.S. cannot afford to squander money on an industry that can only survive with essentially socialized support. And it doesn’t stop with nuclear. Other so-called solutions like corn ethanol have fed from the public trough for years. In a carbon-limited world the market and science should dictate the winners and losers, not federal subsidies to the most politically connected.

Finally, whatever system becomes our means to reduce carbon emissions, it is critical that it set a new standard for transparency and accountability. The often opaque nature of financial regulators, most notably the Federal Reserve, has been a huge hurdle in restoring confidence in our financial system. The public must understand and trust whatever new markets and structures are set up to regulate carbon.

Tackling climate change will not be easy, but at the end of the day any legislation must put taxpayers' interests above that of big energy.