Energy plans and the final debate—week of 12 October 2008

During Wednesday night’s debate, it was difficult not to sink into your chair and glaze over while listening to presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain argue yet again about their solutions to the US energy crisis. Energy, with a few nods to climate change, took up a good deal of debate time, but the discussion consisted mostly of each candidate restating his well-known positions. Both candidates realize that global warming is a serious threat to the planet, and both understand that it is caused by human activity.

That said, McCain wants 45 new nuclear power plants, more off-shore drilling, natural gas, clean coal, and solar, wind, and tidal energy. Obama will consider “safe” nuclear power and wants expanded domestic oil production, more efficient cars, and wind, solar, biodiesel, and geothermal power.

There are differences between the energy policies of the two, but compared with the narrow, oil-based energy policy of President Bush, both McCain and Obama seem almost radical.

A good discussion of how the candidates batted their energy ideas back and forth during the debate was put together by Kate Sheppard at huffingtonpost: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kate-sheppard/what-the-candidates-said_b_135147.html .

Although energy was the focus of the “science” in the debate, the candidates discussed the declining state of science and math education in the US and what they would do to reverse that decline. Both acknowledged the problem, and McCain said he would boost innovation by growing “public understanding and popularity of mathematics and science by reforming mathematics and science education in schools.” Obama was more specific, talking about his incentive program to bring more teachers into the schools. He noted he would prioritize math and science teachers. A more detailed discussion of the education exchange during the debate can be found at Wired‘s site: http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/10/science-and-mat.html .

Perhaps one of the most interesting point-counterpoint discussions during the week wasn’t between Obama and McCain but between the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times. On October 12 the New York Times ran an editorial, “Up and Down the Learning Curve,” attacking McCain’s energy plan as being focused on “drilling for more oil, mainly in previously off-limits areas of the outer continental shelf.” The editorial also said McCain’s “big idea” of more nuclear power “promises too much.” Obama was praised for evolving an energy plan that is now “coherent and farsighted.” The newspaper noted that “Mr. Obama . . . keeps moving up the learning curve on energy issues, whereas Mr. McCain seems to regress.”

Three days later the LA Times, in an editorial titled “A President with an Energy Plan,” trashed both McCain and Obama. After noting that “meeting our energy challenges will remain among the most important concerns of the next president,” the editorial says, “that’s why it’s doubly disappointing that neither Barack Obama nor John McCain has a responsible energy plan. In pandering to voters in swing states, both have backed dangerous, dirty energy sources in contradiction of their own principals.”

The LA Times editorial, coming from a newspaper in a state that is trying hard on its own to limit carbon emissions, is as detailed as it is harsh. It can be found at http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-energy15-2008oct15,0,5415355.story.

Still more can be found on the election and climate issues in a piece at NewScientist.com titled “US Elections: Candidates Feel the Heat on Climate Issues.” That story, by Fred Pearce, puts the LA Times editorial in more context by including a good discussion of what California is trying to do to curb carbon emissions. See http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg20026774.700&print=tru e.Scientific American published a story by Steve McGookin, “The Big To-Do List—Scientific Challenges Facing the Next President ,” that goes into the possible impact of the ongoing financial crisis on science policy.

In that regard, TheHill.com published an important story quoting a McCain aide saying that McCain would exempt funding for scientific research from his promised across-the-board federal spending freeze. The policy adviser, Ike Brannon, says in typical Washington speak that McCain’s budget includes “a specific carve-out for spending on science.” That likely won’t include a new sky projector for Chicago’s Adler Planetarium (see last week’s entry). The Hill article can be found at http://www.thehill.com/business--lobby/science-funding-wont-be-frozen--under-mccain-plan-adviser-says-2008-10-14.html .

Associated Press writer Seth Borenstein wrote an interesting piece entitled “Scientists View Both Obama, McCain as Supportive” that, while general in nature, provides a good summary of the candidates’ science proposals and how they are both dramatic improvements over the current White House occupant’s policies. “Both presidential candidates . . . offer policies farther from the president than they are from each other,” Borenstein notes. http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hOdoQqjvyAZimWI1YUV7NLjjuo-QD93R42SG0

Jim Dawson