In 1976, when Jimmy Carter was running for President against Gerald Ford, science was not high on the political agenda. Physics Today tried to change that by asking the candidates their views on the importance of science advisers, the value of nuclear power in the US energy mix, and the federal government’s role in supporting basic and applied science. The Physics Today political blog continues that 32-year tradition by posting the positions of the current group of candidates on science issues.

Browse by date, by candidate, or by the six questions we asked.


Barrack Obama

John McCain

May 14, 2008

McCain’s May speech on climate change

John McCain gave a speech on climate change on 12 May at the Vestas Training Facility in Portland, Oregon, that contained new details on how he would combat global warming through a cap-and-trade scheme and a stronger reliance on nuclear power. The day after he gave his speech, the first given on climate change by a presidential candidate in recent months, McCain held a press conference on the issue at which he stated that his two Democratic rivals, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, "have never to my knowledge been involved in legislation nor hearings nor engagement in this issue."

McCain has a history in the Senate of supporting some climate change and environmental issues. As part of a Senate delegation, he and Hillary Clinton had travelled in 2004 to Svalbard, Norway to see the effects of climate change on Arctic glaciers.

In 2007 McCain and Senator Joseph Lieberman introduced bill S. 280 to reduce emissions. The bill was cosponsored by Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama.

Brief highlights of McCain's speech include the following:

  • Stated that reducing US dependence on fossil fuels is not only a climate issue but a national security issue because “a large share of the world's oil reserves is controlled by foreign powers that do not have our interests at heart. And as our reliance on oil passes away, their power will vanish with it.”
  • Agreed that global warming demands “urgent attention” by the US government.
  • Stated that “we have many advantages in the fight against global warming, but time is not one of them. Instead of idly debating the precise extent of global warming, or the precise timeline of global warming, we need to deal with the central facts of rising temperatures, rising waters, and all the endless troubles that global warming will bring.”

McCain pointed out that the changing climate will force federal and state governments to modify how they repair and construct roads, bridges, railways, seawalls, and other infrastructure.

He proposed mandating that the US government consistently apply the best environmental standards to every purchase the government makes as an incentive to make low-carbon and energy conversation technologies popular and cheaper.

McCain’s call for more investment in nuclear power, by building new plants and developing technology to extend the life of existing reactors, is a distinct difference between between his and the Democratic candidates' proposals.

McCain pointed out that the 104 US nuclear reactors directly reduce US CO2 emissions by 700 million metric tons per year, assuming they replace fossil-fuel power plants. [Editor's note: According to the US Department of Energy, that number is incorrect. The Office of Nuclear Energy says that those plants save the equivalent of 175 million tons of CO2 per year (see pages 12 and 13 of the linked nuclear primer).]

“It doesn't take a leap in logic to conclude that if we want to arrest global warming, then nuclear energy is a powerful ally in that cause,” he said.

To tackle rising CO2 emissions, McCain proposed a cap-and-trade system in which companies would be given carbon 'credits' and have the right to sell off excess emission quotas. That he believed, would provide an incentive to energy companies in particular to reduce their emissions and make nuclear power more attractive to the energy sector.

The two climate plans offered by Clinton and Obama call for carbon credits to initially be sold at cost to industry, not provided free as under the McCain proposal.

McCain's cap-and-trade system would also include agriculture; it would provide incentives for farmers to switch to planting low-carbon crops or set-asides instead of raising cattle and pigs, which produce large quantities of methane, another heat-trapping gas.

McCain proposed that by 2012 the US should return to 2005 emission levels, by 2020, should be at 1990 levels, and by 2050 should be 60% below 1990 levels.

The two Democratic candidates hope to achieve by 2050 emission output that is 80% below 1990 levels, which is the recommendation of many climate scientists.

McCain blamed the failure of the Kyoto Protocols on the lack of caps for developing countries such as China, which now emits more CO2 than the US. “Shared dangers mean shared duties, and global problems require global cooperation,” said McCain. “No nation should be exempted from its obligations. And least of all should we make exceptions for the very countries that are accelerating carbon emissions while the rest of us seek to reduce emissions.”

McCain proposed providing low-carbon technologies to China under an agreement similar to that in the Kyoto Protocol. He added, “If the efforts to negotiate an international solution that includes China and India do not succeed, we still have an obligation to act.”

McCain stated that he intends to apply US environmental standards to industries in China, India, and other developing countries. If they evade these standards, he would work with the European Union and others to engage those countries through such measures as diplomacy and technology transfers.

The full text of his speech is below the fold. More information can be found here.

Continue reading "McCain’s May speech on climate change" »

February 5, 2008

Where do they stand on the 2008/09 science budget?

Nearly all the remaining presidential candidates agree that the U.S. should continue to invest in energy and basic science research. Hillary Clinton provided the most detailed proposals, with Barack Obama a close second now that John Edwards is out of the race. The two main republican candidates, John McCain and Mike Huckabee, do not have specific proposals but they do support increased funding for energy research and education.

John McCain, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are still in the Senate and may vote on the 2009 science budget before the campaign is over.

The 2008 budget turned into a disaster for science, particularly for high energy physics for which funding of the international linear collider and the international thermonuclear experimental reactor were effectively zeroed out. In response, Fermilab and the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center had to curtail experiments early, cut staff and in some cases, ask their employees to take two days of unpaid furlough each month.

The cuts in the 2008 budget came about because Congress and the White House disagreed over how to pay for tax cuts and government services in an era of rising deficits.

In the 2009 budget the Office of Science at the Department of Energy, which funds Fermilab, would receive an 18% increase from $3.97 billion to $4.72 billion. The National Science Foundation would receive a 14 percent increase to $6.85 billion, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology would receive a 22 percent increase to $634 million.

Last year both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama abstained from voting on the 2008 science budget. John McCain voted against it.

If the candidates want to support increased science funding, they can support the 2009 budget or, if Congress decides to delay passing the budget, call for supplemental spending bills that increase research funds above their 2008 level.

January 27, 2008

How important is the White House science adviser?

Presidents have had science advisers in one form or another since Franklin D. Roosevelt. The position gained new importance in 1976 when Congress established the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP). The OSTP has a mandate to advise the President and others in the Executive Office of the President on the effects of science and technology on domestic and international affairs.

According to its website, the OSTP and science adviser, who until recently held the title "assistant to the president", has had some success in the past in pushing programs such as the Human Genome Project and getting support for doubling the budget of the National Institutes of Health.

As previous science advisers told Physics Today when current science adviser John Marburger was nominated in 2001, access to the president is critical. Through direct contact, the science adviser not only can discuss policy with the president, but he gains status as a true "insider," an invaluable asset when dealing with the federal bureaucracy.

Neal Lane, a former science adviser to the Clinton administration, told the New York Times for an article about the politicization of science, "Your influence depends on whether people around the president feel you have something to add."

Whether Marburger has had the access he would like in the Bush administration, remains in question, D. James Baker, the former head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, has stated that "the administration has backed away from listening to the science adviser position."

In that regard, despite the experience and long list of eminent scientists providing advice to the Clinton, Obama, Romney, and McCain candidacies, only John Edwards and Hillary Clinton have explicitly stated that they will return the science adviser position to its previous rank of "assistant to the president."

Related Links
John Edward's position on scientific investment
Hillary Clinton's postion on scientific advice

The Science Adviser, Seed magazine, 4 January 2008
Presidential Candidates Dodge Tough Science Topics, FOX News, 4 January 2008
Political Science, The New York Times, 4 September 2005
Past Science Advisers Counsel Bush Nominee, Physics Today, 1 August 2001

January 16, 2008

Ron Paul on nuclear weapons

Ron Paul has stated that he is against military activity in almost every circumstance when war isn’t declared. He states that because the US went back and offered deals to the North Koreans after they exploded a nuclear weapon, while invading Iraq, a country that did not have an atomic bomb, the US is offering an “tremendous incentive” to non-nuclear states to develop nuclear weapons. He has no other statement on the future status of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile.

Ron Paul on science investment

From the 2007 GOP Values Voter Presidential Debate Sep 17, 2007
Ron Paul stated that the government should be very small and that the government should not be expected to fund everything..

Continue reading "Ron Paul on science investment" »

Ron Paul on science education

According to Thomas.gov

On April 27, 2007, Ron Paul voted against H.R. 362, the 10,000 Teachers, 10 Million Minds Science and Math Scholarship Act.

GOP Values Voter Presidential Debate Sep 17, 2007 Ron Paul stated that he would approve of tax credits for religious schools.

Continue reading "Ron Paul on science education" »

January 15, 2008

Hillary Clinton on science education

Hillary for President: ...I’ll improve math and science education, and open up science and engineering to more of our people. And I’ll end the assault on science waged by the Bush Administration.

Hillary Clinton on energy policy

Hillary for President: Hillary has a bold and comprehensive plan to address America's energy and environmental challenges that will establish a green, efficient economy and create as many as five million new jobs.

Continue reading "Hillary Clinton on energy policy" »

Mike Huckabee on science investment

Huckabee has not outlined clear positions on the federal funding of science. He has pledge to simplify the immigration process for highly-skilled and highly-educated applicants.

Huckabee has also promised to increase funding for research into all avenues of alternative energy: nuclear, wind, solar, hydrogen, clean coal, biodiesel, and biomass.

John McCain on science education

Although having a number of educators providing advice on education policy, such as Eileen Weiser of the National Assessment Governing Board (http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/PressReleases/b501220e-3c9f-4ff7-85fd-524ce99b66c9.htm) and Phil Handy, former chairman of the Florida State Board of Education (http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/News/PressReleases/8ec58462-84b1-4f6b-88dd-80232036fc09.htm), McCain has yet to officially release an education policy.

During the 9 December 2007 republican primary debate on Univision McCain (http://www.ontheissues.org/2007_Univision_GOP.htm) stated

"Choice and competition is the key to success in education in America. That means charter schools, that means home schooling, it means vouchers, it means rewarding good teachers and finding bad teachers another line of work. It means rewarding good performing schools, and it really means in some cases putting bad performing schools out of business. I want every American parent to have a choice, a choice as to how they want their child educated, and I guarantee you the competition will dramatically increase the level of education in America."

McCain has also suggested turning education policy back to individual states and offering federal money through unrestricted block grants. He will keep most aspects of No Child Left Behind legalization in place.