Our relationship with fossil fuels is always evolving. Oil in the 19th century was valuable not for gasoline — then a useless commodity — but because it was refined into kerosene for lamps.

Times changed.

Now they’re changing again. Faced with global warming, the United States looks to green technology to reduce the impact of coal, oil and natural gas. Smart money sees this as an opportunity. Google founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page are investing in solar power. Billionaire stock guru Warren Buffet puts his money in wind power.

Like them, I’m optimistic. Our response to global warming needs to be sweeping, but it needn’t be traumatic. Instead, we’ll create new industries and open new markets.

This Congress will debate cap-and-trade plans and carbon taxes to reduce our carbon dioxide emissions. As a member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, I’m calling for 25 percent of our electricity to be generated by renewable energy by 2025.

I envision several other exciting opportunities for us to exercise global leadership.

First, scientists are studying “carbon sequestration,” removing carbon dioxide from the emissions of fossil fuels. This can involve installing capture equipment in smokestacks at power plants and then storing the carbon dioxide underground or under the ocean. It can also involve “terrestrial sequestration,” which encourages the use of forests, wetlands and farms to perform their natural service as “carbon sinks.” Plants and soils remove 1.3 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere every year. This includes carbon dioxide and methane from wildfires and other man-made sources. The National Energy Technology Laboratory has managed such projects around the country, including Oregon. But its core research and development budget for this is winding down.

As chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on Public Lands and Forests, I’m calling for renewed investment in sequestration of greenhouse gases, as well as improved federal wildfire management and a better understanding of how global warming is contributing to wildfires. According to a study released last year by the University of California, the number and size of Western forest fires have grown “suddenly and dramatically” since the 1980s because of climate change. Warmer spring temperatures, earlier snowmelts and harsher droughts contribute to fires. This then aggravates the global warming crisis as those fires release huge volumes of carbon dioxide that a burnt forest can no longer absorb.

And if we adopt a cap-and-trade plan, why not let all natural resource managers create a new revenue source by selling carbon “offsets” to those who emit greenhouse gases? If your power plant emits a ton of carbon, you could arrange to offset your carbon emissions in an underground injection well, a forest or grassland, or under the ocean. That’s the best way that I can think of to jumpstart a national “carbon-based economy” to address global climate change.

Second, just as corn-based ethanol lets us reduce our petroleum consumption, it’s time to reduce our use of corn-based ethanol. Demand for corn as fuel competes with demand for corn as food. It drives up prices and reduces crop diversity.

Technology will let us capture energy from the burning or decomposition of organic material known as “biomass,” including wood chips, crop remains and garbage. My state, Oregon, leads the way with its Lakeview Biomass Project, a public-private initiative that will use discarded sawmill byproducts to fuel a 15-megawatt electrical plant that will contribute to the regional grid.

Finally, renewable energy, such as wind and solar, once again is getting the attention it deserves. Hopefully, enough research money will be provided so renewable technologies won’t have to compete against each other.

Yet I’m equally enthusiastic about lesser-known wave energy, which promises to turn the power off our coasts into electricity through generating units that float in buoys.

Unfortunately, the U.S. Department of Energy, for the second consecutive year, has not requested research funds for wave energy. I encourage more of my colleagues to join our push for such funding.

Wave technology is close to commercial viability. The Pacific Northwest Generating Cooperative has partnered with Ocean Power Technologies to start a 2-megawatt wave energy project off Oregon, with regulatory approval to increase to 50 megawatts. The Electric Power Research Institute estimates that wave energy off the United States could produce 6.5 percent of the nation’s generating portfolio, the same amount produced by traditional hydroelectric dams.

Let’s not be so intimidated by the enormity of global warming’s potential consequences that we fail to see the opportunities presented by our solutions.

The United States must reject the false choice between addressing climate change and promoting economic growth — not only to save the planet for future generations, but also for our own self-interest. If we don’t, we may find ourselves buffeted by our rivals in the global economy as much as we are by severe weather.

Wyden is chairman of the Subcommittee on Forests and Public Land of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee.