Con­tin­u­a­tion of the U.S.’s his­tor­i­cal pat­tern address­ing ener­gy prob­lems only in times of cri­sis is unlike­ly to cat­alyze a tran­si­tion to an ener­gy sys­tem with few­er adverse social impacts. Instead, the U.S. needs to bol­ster sup­port for ener­gy inno­va­tion when the per­ceived urgency of ener­gy-relat­ed prob­lems appears to be reced­ing. Because of the lags involved in both the ener­gy sys­tem and the climate sys­tem, decar­boniz­ing the econ­o­my will require extra­or­dinary per­sis­tence over decades. This need for sus­tained com­mit­ment is in con­trast to the last several decades, which have been marked by volatil­i­ty and cycles of boom and bust.  In con­trast to the often ‑repeat­ed phrase that one should ‘nev­er let a good cri­sis go to waste,’ the U.S. needs to most active­ly fos­ter ener­gy inno­va­tion when aspects of ener­gy and cli­mate prob­lems appear to be improv­ing. We describe the ratio­nale for a ‘coun­ter­cycli­cal’ approach to ener­gy and cli­mate pol­i­cy, which involves pre-com­mitment t o a set of poli­cies that go into effect once a set of trigger con­di­tions are met.