President Barack Obama said in his State of the Union address he's not ready to call it quits on an economy-wide climate bill despite mounting political hurdles.

But his signaling for compromise with Republican proposals on nuclear power and offshore petroleum exploration was tacit recognition that without GOP support, one of the president's top priorities may likely fail this year.

Obama's pledge is seen as necessary to assure the international community that Washington is committed to a signing a binding treaty to cut emissions.

It's not clear, however, if Obama's pitch on climate will win over enough Republicans--many of whom see the climate debate as a political opportunity to capitalize upon--particularly without alienating some of the more left-leaning members of his own party.

The fate of climate legislation for the year has become increasingly uncertain in the face of voter angst over economic turmoil and recent GOP election victories. Many moderate Democratic Senators from midwestern manufacturing states--where a fair number face tough re-election campaigns--have been particularly resistant, fearing the impact on their industries. Momentum gained by House passage of a climate bill in June last year stalled amid opposition by moderate Democrats concerned about the economic impact and as legislative gears ground to a halt in the debate over health care.

The latest upset--Republican Scott Brown's Senate seat win in Massachusetts--indicated to Democrats just how low a priority climate legislation is for many voters: he campaigned against Obama's proposal to cap greenhouse gas emissions.

A raft of Democratic Senators have already declared a climate bill dead in 2010. That has prompted Capitol Hill analysts to predict the administration would pursue an alternative plan that focuses solely on cutting greenhouse gas emissions in the utility industry, or at the very least try to pass a bill funding incentives for clean energy and efficiency.

But Obama and several of his top advisers and cabinet officials said Wednesday the administration would push forward with a "comprehensive energy and climate bill."

Instead of pitching it as an environmental imperative, the president instead cast his climate proposal as a jobs initiative.

To create clean energy jobs, he said, "means passing a comprehensive energy and climate bill with incentives that will finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy in America."

But he also said it would require "building a new generation of safe, clean nuclear power plants in this country" and "making tough decisions about opening new offshore areas for oil and gas development."

That struck environmentalists--who've by and large supported the administration's energy policies--"in the gut," said Friends of the Earth President Erich Pica. Calling Obama's references to nuclear, petroleum and coal "alarming," Pica berated the president. "We elected him to make tough decisions, and 'all of the above' as an energy strategy is no decision. Letting special interests write energy policy is not changing the ways of Washington," he said.

Moveon, an advocacy group that represents the left end of the Democratic party, said a survey of 10,000 of its members showed the strongest negative reaction to the president's references to encouraging nuclear and fossil fuels.

But the president's comments also opened the door to a bi-partisan proposal being crafted by Sens. John Kerry, (D, Mass.), Lindsey Graham, (R, S.C.) and Joe Lieberman, (I, Ct.).

The administration has previously said that it's open to Republican urgings for new oil and natural gas exploration and expanding nuclear power, but many in the GOP remain unconvinced. Republicans want incentives to build 100 new nuclear power plants, compared to the Energy Secretary's proposal to raise loan guarantees limits for a handful more new stations, and the Interior Department has delayed plans that would offer new offshore resources to development. Adding fuel to potential GOP opposition, Obama indicated he's still aiming to cut billions of dollars in tax breaks to the oil industry.

Although Graham says there are a number of colleagues interested in a bi-partisan cap-and-trade legislation, none have yet made their alleged support public.

The president also reached out to moderate Democrats concerned about losing their industries, saying the climate bill is necessary for competitiveness.

"There's no reason Europe or China should have the fastest trains, or the new factories that manufacture clean energy products," the president said.

"The nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy. And America must be that nation," he said.

He also suggested a softening on opposition to trade protection provisions that many Democrats said were necessary to support a climate bill, says Kevin Book, head of research at the consultancy ClearView Energy Partners. Previously, the White House came out against tariffs on emission-intensive imports from countries that don't enact similar climate policies.

But Obama said Wednesday that, "If America sits on the sidelines while other nations sign trade deals, we will lose the chance to create jobs on our shores. But realizing those benefits also means enforcing those agreements so our trading partners play by the rules."

Copyright (c) 2010 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.