Any credible policymaker, regardless of party affiliation, will concede that legislating environmental and energy initiatives is a balancing act.

On the one hand – with over 23 million Americans unemployed, discouraged or underemployed – there is a real and immediate need to protect and create jobs in the short run, a goal that may directly conflict with the environmental agenda. On the other hand, science and common sense remind us that if we continue to be reckless stewards of our environment in the long run, future generations will inevitably be burdened with our mistakes, and unemployment will likely seem a relatively insignificant issue in the grand scheme.

This is where politics comes into play.

On this issue, the Republican Party and presidential candidate Mitt Romney have proposed a reasonable and moderate environmental program that will benefit all Americans over both the short and long term.

Gov. Romney’s plan is organized around four main tenets: achieving domestic energy independence, privatizing the energy marketplace, diversifying energy research and development and promoting the mutual growth of the “green” sector and the broader economy.

Gov. Romney recognizes that energy security is inextricably linked to national security. Given the present turmoil and hostility in the Middle East, Romney believes dependence on foreign imports is not viable for the future. Instead, he thinks the U.S. should focus on developing its abundant domestic resources. American energy independence is necessary, not just from an economic perspective, but also from an international and political perspective.

While both candidates generally agree that energy independence is the ultimate goal, President Obama and Gov. Romney diverge markedly in their respective approaches toward achieving this objective. First and foremost, since experience shows that people best protect what they own, Romney favors letting private markets govern the energy industry.

This would be a stark contrast to the current president’s use of taxpayer funds as venture capital for risky environmental initiatives like Solyndra. Under Romney’s plan, the role of partisan lobbyists will be diminished, while the role of the American people and American business will be greatly enhanced.

Gov. Romney also plans to embrace an “all-of-the-above” approach to energy development, which would call for increased diversification and innovation in the “green” sector. While the Obama administration has consistently blocked the expansion of coal-based energy plants, Romney would seek to incentivize the expansion of low-cost and accessible coal-to-liquid and coal gasification processes. In addition, the Romney administration would look to invest in and develop alternative fuel sources such as wind, hydro, solar, biomass, geothermal, tidal and nuclear energy. This is clearly not your father’s conservative energy platform: diversity and progressivism, mixed with innovative free-market investment, will create the dynamic energy base this country needs to become energy independent.

Finally, while President Obama has failed to effectively manage the energy and environmental industries’ potential to catalyze the national economy, Romney understands that a symbiotic and powerful relationship exists between the “green” sector on a micro scale and larger goals of reducing unemployment while increasing GDP growth on a macro scale.

A strong and stable energy sector can be an invaluable engine of job creation in the short term, and a healthier economy will simultaneously provide for increased environmental conservation and energy research funding in the long term. Therefore, ensuring American economic vitality should be the top priority in our path toward energy independence. Pursuant to these ends, Mitt Romney would not waste millions of taxpayer funds by playing favorites with politically-favored energy companies, and he certainly would not block large and crucial energy projects like the Keystone XL pipeline to appease partisan lobbyists.

The libertarian and free-market ideologies that established this country have served us well in the past, but we now face a critical juncture in 2012: voters must choose whether they will support the regulatory, bureaucratic and wasteful policies of President Obama, or whether they will side with Mitt Romney and his moderate plan for energy independence, which is founded on diverse, market-based innovation.

Therefore, in terms of energy and environmental programs in 2012, the choice is clear: President Obama has a plan based on “big government” inefficiency and proven failure; Mitt Romney has a plan which is a dynamic and progressive defense of liberty.