Science in the campaign, climate change, and the vice-presidential debate— week of 28 September 2008

While the vice-presidential debate between Sarah Palin and Joe Biden, and the failure to pass the more than $700 billion rescue bailout of the financial sector, dominated the airwaves for the last week, some significant political developments regarding science will impact whoever runs the next administration: Research agencies discovered how much money they will have for the first part of next year; NASA received an anniversary present; the US-India nuclear technology bill passed the Senate; and energy and climate change moved to the center of the presidential debate.

In addition, PHYSICS TODAY published responses from the Obama campaign to a series of questions we asked both candidates more than three months ago. The McCain campaign refused to answer.

The PHYSICS TODAY questionnaire

Like most political campaigns, candidates are usually reluctant either to specify what they would do if elected to office or to provide the same answers to questions from different publications. The responses the Obama campaign provided to PHYSICS TODAY differ from the responses to the Science Debate 2008 questionnaire in two specific areas: the US national laboratories and international cooperation on science.

Obama also expanded his answer with PHYSICS TODAY on issues regarding nuclear energy and nuclear waste disposal at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. However, the responses on these two issues are virtually identical to the responses provided to Nature magazine and posted online on their website.

Running science in the campaign

The similarity in Obama’s response to all three publications is at the heart of the differences between the Obama and McCain campaigns. Nobel Prize winner Harold Varmus directly orchestrates a team of more than 40 researchers and educators for the Obama campaign, with an additional 30-40 other researchers providing more ad hoc advice. On the other hand, the McCain campaign’s point person on science, Douglas Holtz-Eakin , has no science background and is also the point person for other domestic policy issues, such as health, energy, and the environment. McCain has consulted scientists and policy analysts but has no formal structure for soliciting advice. Holtz-Eakin, in a rare interview with Science magazine, said that McCain relies instead on the knowledge acquired during his 26 years in Congress, including 6 years as chair of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee.

Along with Varmus’s science committee, the Obama campaign has at least 20 or more advisory bodies on issues such as health care and foreign policy. Former Clinton administration defense official Paul Kaminski is heading up an eight-person group on defense science that is examining work-force, training, and acquisition issues. Another group is looking specifically at science education. All the committees hold weekly teleconferences with campaign staff officials to provide feedback on the campaign and help prepare for the debates.

Although Rep. Vern Ehlers (R-MI), one of three physicists in Congress, is a strong supporter of McCain, he has also admitted that McCain hasn’t sought his advice on science. Rep. Rush Holt (D-NJ) and Rep. Bill Foster (D-IL) are involved and consult with and for the Obama campaign.

Climate change and the vice-presidential debate

Last week a new report was released that said in 2007 carbon released from burning fossil fuels and producing cement increased 2.9% over that released in 2006, to a total of 8.47 gigatons . Moreover, natural carbon sinks—such as forests and oceans, which take up a lot of CO2—took in less. The changes are at the very high end of scenarios outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and could translate into a global temperature rise of more than 8-10 degrees Celsius by the end of the century.

As Nature’s climate change website highlighted and the statements published on the PHYSICS TODAY campaign site show, although there are similarities, there are also significant differences between the candidates on climate change. This is particularly true in the case of the vice-presidential candidates, Joe Biden and Sarah Palin.

In an interview earlier this week with Katie Couric , Palin was asked if she believes global warming is the result of human activity. Palin dodged the question, referring to the Alaskan “sub-cabinet” to focus on climate change in Alaska. Couric asked again. Palin responded, “You know there are, there are man’s activities that can be contributed to the issues that we’re dealing with now, these impacts. I’m not going to solely blame all of man’s activities on changes in climate. Because the world’s weather patterns are cyclical.”

During the vice-presidential debate, Palin restated the views that climate change is not primarily caused by human behavior. “I’m not one to attribute every man -- activity of man to the changes in the climate. There is something to be said also for man’s activities, but also for the cyclical temperature changes on our planet. I don’t want to argue about the causes of climate change,” said Palin. Biden, looking visibly frustrated, responded by stating the government should support development of alternative, cleaner energy. “If you don’t understand the causes [of global warming], it’s impossible to come up with solutions,” Biden said. “I think it’s man-made.”

Palin also stated that she was the first governor to form a cabinet-level committee to deal with the impact of climate change. The subcommittee, however, was initially proposed by the Alaskan state legislature, not by Governor Palin, although it only became active with her support. Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick and Nevada governor Jim Gibbons both formed state committees months before Palin’s subcommittee was formed in September 2007.

Biden did make one significant error related to arms control in the debate. At 22:04 EST, Biden asserted that John McCain opposed the comprehensive nuclear test ban and that virtually every other Republican supported it. President Clinton never submitted the test ban for formal ratification because it faced overwhelming Republican opposition in a GOP-controlled Senate.

NASA at 50

On 1 October, NASA celebrated the start of its 50th year since its founding. President Bush helped NASA get on to a more promising start by signing a $630 billion spending bill that provides NASA a waiver to buy seats on Russia’s Soyuz spacecraft until 2016 and $20.2 billion in funding for 2009 (roughly $2.6 billion more than the Bush administration had requested).

The waiver (required because of legislation that blocks some government business with Russia because of Russia’s arms and nuclear technology deals with Iran, among other things) was heavily supported by both presidential candidates because NASA would otherwise be unable to reach the International Space Station once the space shuttle is retired in 2011.

Renewable energy, support for R&D in the bailout bill

When the Senate finally passed the banking bailout bill midweek (78 votes to 12), the bill had turned from a 3-page document to 451 pages with an additional $120 billion in tax credits and support for the middle class. Included in the supplemental were some of the following issues related to science and energy:

SEC. 117. CARBON AUDIT OF THE TAX CODE."(a) STUDY.—The Secretary of the Treasury shall enter into an agreement with the National Academy of Sciences to undertake a comprehensive review of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to identify the types of and specific tax provisions that have the largest effects on carbon and other greenhouse gas emissions and to estimate the magnitude of those effects.”

The addition hints that compulsory carbon trading will shortly be proposed by the next administration. The following tax credits division B--Energy improvement and Extension Act of 2008 were also included as part of the bill along with big tax breaks for oil companies:

Subtitle A-Renewable Energy Incentives Sec. 101. Renewable energy credit. Sec. 102. Production credit for electricity produced from marine renewables. Sec. 103. Energy credit. Sec. 104. Energy credit for small wind property. Sec. 105. Energy credit for geothermal heat pump systems. Sec. 106. Credit for residential energy efficient property. Sec. 107. New clean renewable energy bonds. Subtitle B—Carbon Mitigation and Coal Provisions Sec. 111. Expansion and modification of advanced coal project investment credit. Sec. 112. Expansion and modification of coal gasification investment credit. Sec. 115. Tax credit for carbon dioxide sequestration. Sec. 117. Carbon audit of the tax code. Sec. 205. Credit for new qualified plug-in electric drive motor vehicles.

The three Detroit automakers General Motors, Ford Motor Co, and Chrysler also received approval for their $25 billion loan for R&D development for the next generation of fuel-efficient cars as part of the bailout bill. The House of Representatives passed their version of the bill last week. The president’s signature, which the bill is likely to receive, is the last remaining step before the automakers can apply for the money. The Department of Energy has 60 days to calculate how to award the loan from the point the bill becomes law. The loans, which could be paid back over a 30-year period, are the result of more than two years of lobbying by the Detroit three and their representatives and will save the companies $100 million to $1 billion in lending costs. They will have to build vehicles that are 25% more fuel efficient than the average models in their class not to be in default on their loans.

Paul Guinnessy