Daily Kos

Candidates' stands on Scientific Issues

Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 01:50:19 PM PDT

In today's issue of Nature, there is a very helpful summary of where the various candidates stand on issues that are important to the scientific community.

Although they tend to group into Democrat (more logical, practical, scientifically sound, and supportive of research), vs. Republican (supportive of corporate interests, and end-of-world mythology), there are some interesting differences. See below the flipside.

You can read the original here:

http://www.nature.com/...

Here are some interesting highlights, though:

  1. All Democrats mentioned (Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Richardson, Biden, Kucinich) support reducing carbon emissions by 80% of 1990 levels by 2050.

None of the republicans do. The only one who supports reducing emissions at all seems to be McCain (60%).

  1. Of the methods to reduce carbon emissions, there are interesting variations, only Kucinich proposes a carbon tax.
  1. For those that think Ron Paul is the most reasonable of the Republicans, here's the money quote:

PAUL "Neither party in Washington can fathom that millions and millions of Americans simply don’t want their tax dollars spent on government research of any kind."

Here is a box summary from the article, but not the whole article.
_____________________________________
Box: Leading candidates' stances

From the article:
Iowa and after

------ CLIMATE/ENERGY ------

HILLARY CLINTON (Democrat) Senator from New York, former first lady : Calls for reducing emissions by 80% from 1990 levels by 2050 via a cap-and-trade system. Does not support a carbon tax but argues for standards on efficiency, mileage, and renewable energy to meet that goal. Says she is "agnostic" about nuclear power.

BARACK OBAMA (Democrat) Senator from Illinois : Calls for reducing emissions by 80% from 1990 levels by 2050 via a cap-and-trade system. Wants to invest $150 billion over 10 years in alternative energy sources. Supports coal liquefaction, but only if it emits 20% less carbon than conventional fuels.

JOHN EDWARDS (Democrat) Former senator from North Carolina : Calls for reducing emissions by 80% from 1990 levels by 2050 via a cap-and-trade system. Wants to push for a climate change treaty that has binding elements for all countries, including those in the developing world. Opposes nuclear power — says it’s too costly to build new plants and too unsafe to dispose of waste.

BILL RICHARDSON (Democrat) Governor of New Mexico, former energy secretary : Calls for reducing emissions by 90% from 1990 levels by 2050 via a cap-and-trade system. Proposes increasing mileage standards to 50 miles per gallon by 2020, and setting a renewable-energy target of 50% by 2040.

JOE BIDEN (Democrat) Senator from Delaware : Calls for reducing emissions by 80% from 1990 levels by 2050. Wants every US car sold to be equipped with flex-fuel technology, and half of all major gas stations to offer biofuels by 2017. Supports ethanol from corn as a transitional solution for energy woes, but says it is not sustainable in the long term and pushes for cellulosic sources.

DENNIS KUCINICH (Democrat) Representative from Ohio : Calls for reducing emissions by 80% from 1990 levels by 2050, potentially via a carbon tax. Proposes a Works Green Administration that would retrofit buildings with wind and solar power. Wants to halt all mining and logging on public land.

RUDY GIULIANI (Republican) Former Mayor of New York City : Supports expanding nuclear power and ethanol subsidies. Does not support increasing mileage standards or mandatory caps on emissions.

MITT ROMNEY (Republican) Former Governor of Massachusetts : In 2004 launched a plan to address global warming, though at the time he questioned if it was happening. Pulled out of a New England emission plan (implemented by his successor). Favours tariff protection for the corn-ethanol industry. "We should not exchange dependence on oil from other countries for dependence on sugar cane from Brazil."

MIKE HUCKABEE (Republican) Former Governor of Arkansas : Supports expanding nuclear power and raising mileage standards. "It’s a sin against future generations for me to act as if there are no future generations that should enjoy the world as I do."

JOHN MCCAIN (Republican) Senator from Arizona : Has been a leader in the Senate on global-warming legislation. Introduced a bill with Joseph Lieberman (Ind, Connecticut) to cut emissions by roughly 60% from 1990 levels by 2050. Does not support a carbon tax. Once criticized ethanol as an alternative fuel, but now supports it, citing the rising cost of oil.

FRED THOMPSON (Republican) Television actor and former senator from Tennessee : Says there is no scientific consensus about the cause of global warming, but that it makes sense to take "reasonable steps" to reduce emissions without harming the economy. Voted against ethanol subsidies but now says he supports them. Voted against raising mileage standards and for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

RON PAUL (Republican) Representative from Texas : On global warming: says there are "reputable scientists on both sides of that argument". Opposes major government regulations to control emissions. Does not support a carbon tax, which he calls "simply an acknowledgement that you can pollute with government permission". Supports expanding nuclear energy. Opposes tariffs on ethanol from corn.
------ BIOMEDICAL/STEM CELLS ------

CLINTON Supports federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research. Proposed increasing National Institutes of Health budget by 50% over five years, and doubling it over ten years.

OBAMA Supports federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research.

EDWARDS Supports federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research.

RICHARDSON Supports federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research. Proposed a state-funded embryonic stem-cell research centre at the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque.

BIDEN Supports federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research.

KUCINICH Supports federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research. "There are so many different things that stem-cell research can teach us."

GIULIANI Supports federal funding for embryonic stem-cell research from surplus embryos from fertilization clinics: "As long as we’re not creating life in order to destroy it, as long as we’re not having human cloning, and we limit it to that ... there is plenty of opportunity to then use federal funds in those situations where you have limitations."

ROMNEY Calls for a ban on creating embryos for research purposes, but does not oppose the use of surplus embryos from in vitro fertilization clinics. Does not support federal funding for the research.

HUCKABEE Opposes federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research, and points to work on adult stem cells instead.

MCCAIN Supports embryonic stem-cell research. "I believe that we need to fund this. This is a tough issue for those of us in the pro-life community. I would remind you that these stem cells are either going to be discarded or perpetually frozen. We need to do what we can to relieve human suffering."

THOMPSON Opposes stem-cell research that requires the destruction of human embryos. Says that embryonic research hasn’t had a breakthrough, and cites a disputed list of 73 ‘breakthroughs’ that use adult stem cells.

PAUL Says individual states and citizens should decide whether to permit, ban or fund embryonic stem-cell research. "I strongly object to forcing those Americans who believe embryonic stem-cell research is immoral to subsidize such research with their tax dollars."
------ SPACE ------

CLINTON Supports human exploration of space, including completing the International Space Station and replacing the space shuttle with a new generation of launch vehicles.

OBAMA Would delay NASA’s Constellation programme to build new rockets and crew vehicles for five years, instead putting that money toward an $18-billion education plan.

EDWARDS Supports human exploration of space, and says other countries should also be involved.

RICHARDSON Sees space as a "bona fide area of economic growth and opportunity". Pushed for a sales tax to support the building of a spaceport in New Mexico.

BIDEN Wants to make China a full partner in space exploration rather than a "frustrated new entrant" that has to catch up with the United States.

KUCINICH Wants NASA to focus "more on earthly projects" such as producing green energy. Says innovations will "eventually" be turned into space exploration.

GIULIANI Says he will continue to aggressively support space exploration. In response to a child’s question, said he would be prepared to defend against an alien attack.

ROMNEY Supports the space programme as a way to drive investment in technology and innovation. Says he has no reason to change Bush’s plan for NASA.

HUCKABEE Broadly supports space exploration as a trigger for technology development. "Now whether we need to send somebody to Mars, I don’t know. But I’ll tell you what: If we do, I’ve got a few suggestions, and maybe Hillary could be on the first rocket to Mars."

MCCAIN Showed some scepticism after Bush’s initial announcement, but now calls it "not only visionary, but doable."

THOMPSON Has said little except... (see comments under ‘notable quote’)

PAUL Says he is "absolutely committed to human space exploration".
------ NOTABLE QUOTE ------

CLINTON "My 5th grade teacher Mrs Kraus came into our classroom and said we had to study math and science because the President said so. I was convinced that President Eisenhower had called up Mrs Kraus and told her, ‘You tell those children — and particularly that Hillary, who doesn’t really like math — that her country needs her.’"

OBAMA "We’re not going to have the engineers and scientists to continue space exploration if we don’t have kids who are able to read, write and compute."

EDWARDS "Colleges are the places where we ensure that America is competitive. Yet we’ve taken away funding for the NIH and our research universities. That’s just a mistake."

RICHARDSON "I myself have been told that I have a lot of energy. The secret is that I use renewable resources. Some days I’m solar powered. Some days I’m wind powered. And some days my critics just think I’m full of compressed air."

BIDEN "For too long we have abdicated the responsibility to reduce our own emissions."

KUCINICH On reports that he had seen a UFO: "More people in this country have seen UFOs than I think approve of George Bush’s presidency."

GIULIANI "Nuclear power is dangerous. So is every form of power. But no one’s died from nuclear power in the United States. So our commitment here is to expand it, make sure it’s safe."

ROMNEY "I believe that God designed the Universe and created the Universe. I believe he used the process of evolution to create the human body."

HUCKABEE "If you want to believe that you and your family came from apes, I’ll accept that."

MCCAIN On the push for global-warming legislation: "Inaction could be disastrous."

THOMPSON "[Reports of rising temperatures on other planets have] led some people, not necessarily scientists, to wonder if Mars and Jupiter, non-signatories to the Kyoto Treaty, are actually inhabited by alien SUV-driving industrialists who run their air conditioning at 60 degrees and refuse to recycle."

PAUL "Neither party in Washington can fathom that millions and millions of Americans simply don’t want their tax dollars spent on government research of any kind."

Information gathered from questionnaires sent to candidates’ campaigns, from their published platforms and from media reports.

Tags: Presidential Elections, scientific policy, issues, candidates, luddite republicans, Rescued (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 51 comments

  •  Thanks... (8+ / 0-)

    These are really importatnt issues. They don't evoke the passion of Iraq or other hot-button issues, but where a candidate stands says a lot.

    And yes, Ron Paul is nuts.

  •  It's too bad (6+ / 0-)

    That people don't pay that much attention to science and science policy issues.  In this day and age, they are pretty important.  I know many people find it hard to understand many of the issues that are important to scientists.  There are places on the web to go to get info without a lot of the technical jargon.  I recommend ScienceBlogs as a start.

    ScienceBlogs

  •  This concerns me (8+ / 0-)

    OBAMA Would delay NASA’s Constellation programme to build new rockets and crew vehicles for five years, instead putting that money toward an $18-billion education plan.

    If put into practice, that would be devastating to the United States' human spaceflight program.  There would essentially be no manned space launches for (at least) five years -- which would lead to losing most of our astronaut corps and most of our aerospace engineers.  You cannot expect people trying to make careers to sit on their hands for 5 years, and if you want to save money, obviously you start by firing a lot of them.  The end result is that you have vastly diminished capacity at the end of the 5 years, and you cannot simply pick up and start from where you left off.

    •  As an Obama supporter (3+ / 0-)

      it concerns me, too.  I need to look more into it, but I hope he could be dissuaded from shutting human spaceflight down completely.

      What the individual can do is to give a fine example, and to have the courage to uphold ethical values .. in a society of cynics." - Albert Einstein

      by smijer on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 02:03:24 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I agree with you here (0+ / 0-)

      John McCain - Like W. Only Older.

      by InsultComicDog on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 02:05:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  that's the best thing I heard about Obama (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      ubertar

      Wow, I was really won over by that, that's actually original and courageous thinking that I did not expect to find after reading the other consensus positions.

      America has fallen hopelessly out of the human spaceflight race. Russia can get any load, inlcuding human, off the ground for 1/10th the cost and much more safely. Why would we reinvent the wheel at great expense instead of utilizing proven technology? And as for humans traveling to other planets, this boondoggle has been frustrating actual research for decades. We could send machines to much farther away places, even other star systems, for less than the cost of a mission to Mars by humans which would essentially be an elaborate photo op. It's time to think more practically about space, with the romantic notions and Cold War space race leftover mentaility.

      A pessimist is just a well-informed optimist.

      by Marcion on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 02:19:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Hmm (3+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        dnamj, sxwarren, ryangoesboom

          Well, if you're against manned spaceflight, then obviously you'll approve.  But let me point out a few things:

          First, Russian labor, even skilled labor, is cheaper than American labor.  But their space program is also horrendously strapped for cash, and is barely sputtering along -- that's why they engage in such farcical enterprises (by now routine!) as auctioning a Soyuz seat off to the highest bidder.  Russia manages to launch just two manned vehicles a year; America does at least three, and is capable of five or six.  Russian manned vehicles have a maximum occupancy of three persons; America's shuttle routinely lifts seven into orbit.

          Human interplanetary travel is not a "boondoggle frustrating research for decades" -- in fact, little has been done with regard to interplanetary travel other than a series of speculative papers and designs, which cost very little.  The bulk of American manned spaceflight expenditure is on the infrastructure for the Shuttle, a useful but now aging and tool which requires a lot of technological upgrading.  Many of the factors which were important in its design back in the early 1970s are now no longer relevant.

          What NASA does need is a reliable human launch vehicle and a reliable heavy-lift cargo vehicle.  This is what Constellation aims to provide.  Both of these do utilize proven technology, and do not re-invent the wheel -- indeed, some criticism of them has been that they depend too much on proven technology.

          And no, we cannot send machines to other star systems.  The closest star is over four light-years away -- and our fastest space probe would reach it in over sixty-three thousand years.  You need to know these things before you can "think practically about space", wouldn't you agree?

        •  good facts (2+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          sxwarren, ubertar

          I still don't understand why we need to create another expensive launch vehicle when we have the Soyuz rocket. Mankind should be working together, this is so much space race stuff and I think Obama caught on to that.
          As for the star system travel, that is a bit in the future, but if that is what we worked on rather than a pointless mission to Mars, I think we could get something up and out and travelling to a star system before we ever get a guy to pose on the Mars surface.
          I have spoken to many space travel theorists, and while the consensus is for continuation of manned flights, there is a growing minority pushing for the much more promising and far reaching possiblities of robotic exploration. If we invested the cost of each pointless shuttle launch in the last five years into education, like Obama suggests, we would have achieved a lot more for more poeple.  

          A pessimist is just a well-informed optimist.

          by Marcion on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 02:50:42 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Could we get Commander Codpiece and his (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            dnamj

            crew to pose on Mars??!! Without helmets??!!

            Please?!!  Pretty Please??!!  Pretty Please with Ponies??!!

            OMG, I'd consider quadrupling the NASA budget if THAT were the deal!

            Some folks prefer a map and finding their own route. Others need someone to tell them where to go.

            by sxwarren on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 04:16:14 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Another thing, the $18 billion NASA budget (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      WIds, lineatus

      represents an out-of-pocket cost to the median US wage earner of about $33.00 (out of $5000 in federal income tax paid).

      If the goal is to shift $18 billion a year in expenditures to education, we could simply suspend operations in Iraq for six weeks a year instead of cutting out NASA.  Or, better yet . . .

      We could stop spending on Iraq altogether, add $18 billion to the education budget, AND DOUBLE the funding for everything on the following list:

      NASA
      SCHIP
      CDC
      EPA
      FDA
      NIST
      UN Dues
      NSF
      LIHEAP

      and still have a couple billion left over to play with.

      Put another way, the total annual cost for everything on the above list is about $60 billion, less than half the annual cost of the Iraq Occupation.

      Put yet another way, the total "out-of-pocket" cost to the median US wage earner of that entire list is about $110.00 a year (out of about $5000/yr in federal income taxes paid).

      Sorta puts things in perspective, don't it?

      Some folks prefer a map and finding their own route. Others need someone to tell them where to go.

      by sxwarren on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 04:38:59 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Important issues (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    SloMoDem

    Thanks for keeping them on the radar!

    What the individual can do is to give a fine example, and to have the courage to uphold ethical values .. in a society of cynics." - Albert Einstein

    by smijer on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 02:01:54 PM PDT

  •  Pharma is schizophrenic, I hear. (6+ / 0-)

    They want someone who will enable stem cell research but they don't want universal health.  

    They don't know who to back.

  •  Karen Silkwood might disagree with Giuliani (4+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    dnamj, sxwarren, mommyof3, Pris from LA

    GIULIANI "Nuclear power is dangerous. So is every form of power. But no one’s died from nuclear power in the United States. So our commitment here is to expand it, make sure it’s safe."

    fact does not require fiction for balance

    by mollyd on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 02:06:11 PM PDT

    •  Well, it's pretty certain that coal kills more (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      dnamj

      people every year than have died in total from nuclear power plant accidents.  HOWEVER (before you nuke me - heh), there's no way in Disney-frakkin'-Hell that I'd want nuclear power expanded under a Ghouliani Presidency (or ANY Rethug Presidency).  OTOH - if Al Gore came up with a plan, I'd have to give it an honest look.

      Some folks prefer a map and finding their own route. Others need someone to tell them where to go.

      by sxwarren on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 04:10:10 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  So much for earth sciences. No Questions. (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    mommyof3, ryangoesboom

    It's no wonder we are wrecking the planet when we take it for granted.

    "It's the planet, stupid."

    by FishOutofWater on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 02:07:11 PM PDT

  •  I think Paul's saying (6+ / 0-)

    that tax payers don't want to fund government research but want to explore space is as off the wall as his espousing Libertarian ideals but saying the government needs to be involved in a medical decision by outlawing abortion.

    And I love Hillary's quote about her teacher!  That was really awesome!

    I have the distinction of being called a media whore by Courtney Love. -Maynard J. Keenan

    by arielle on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 02:09:01 PM PDT

  •  Double NIH budget (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    dnamj, sxwarren, swissffun

    at least HIllary is talking about it (even if it is over 10 years - the big dog doubled it over 5 years). This is very good news.

  •  Group of scientists trying to get a debate... (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    swissffun

    about science issues...

    website here...

    Our country can survive war, disease, and poverty... what it cannot do without is justice.

    by mommyof3 on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 02:58:58 PM PDT

  •  The idea of lawyers making decisions on (3+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    alizard, sxwarren, Prachar

    scientific issues at all is pretty scary to me. I have met very few lawyers who have even the vaguest knowledge about science and engineering issues. They may have some superficial knowledge, but couldn't tell you what the differences are between an oscilloscope and a spatula. Lawyers tend to live in a world of made-up rules (laws and regulations) that often have very little to do with sound science or rationality. Many think the laws of science are negotiable, like human laws.

    Frankly, I'd like to see a president who can fix his own computer and car, can frame a house, operate an arc-welder, understands how the devices around him work, and has a degree in biology. Fat chance of that happening, though.

    -6.38/-3.79::'A man is incapable of comprehending any argument that interferes with his revenues.' Descartes

    by skrymir on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 03:07:24 PM PDT

    •  A tech test for the president would be amazing. (3+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      akeitz, skrymir, alizard

      Abort, Retry, Ignore...

      You can't get away with the crunch, 'cuz the crunch always gives you away

      by dnamj on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 03:14:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You mean, someone kinda like Gore or Carter? ;-) (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      skrymir

      Some folks prefer a map and finding their own route. Others need someone to tell them where to go.

      by sxwarren on Wed Jan 02, 2008 at 04:04:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Which candidates..... (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      skrymir, alizard

      have undergraduate or post-graduate degrees in a science or engineering field?

      •  "sound of crickets chirping" n/t (0+ / 0-)

        Looking for intelligent energy policy alternatives? Try here.

        by alizard on Thu Jan 03, 2008 at 01:35:40 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Only two out of fifteen (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        dnamj

        Only Paul (BA biology and MD) and McCain (Navy Flight School) have a science or engineering background.  Most of them are lawyers (surprise, surprise).

        Joe Biden   University of Delaware, 1965;  Syracuse University College of Law, 1968

        Hillary Clinton   Wellesley College, 1969;  Yale Law School, 1973

        Chris Dodd   Providence College, 1966, BA, English literature;  Peace Corps, two years, Dominican Republic;  University of Louisville School of Law, 1972, JD

        John Edwards   Clemson University to North Carolina State University, 1974, BS, textile technology;  University of North Carolina School of Law, 1977

        Mike Gravel   US Army, 1951-1954, in West Germany as a Special Adjutant in the Communication and Intelligent Services and then as a Special Agent in the Counter Intelligence Corps;  Columbia University, 1956, BS, economics

        Dennis Kucinich   Case Western Reserve Univeristy, 1973, BA/MA, speech and communication

        Barack Obama   two years at Occidental College then transferring to Columbia University, 1983, political science;  Harvard Law School

        Bill Richardson   Tufts University, 1970, BA, French;  Tufts’ Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, 1971, MA

        Rudy Giuliani   Manhattan College, 1965, political science, minor in philosophy;  New York University School of Law, 1968, JD

        Mike Huckabee   Ouachita Baptist University, BA, religion, minor in commuications (in a little more than two years);  spent a year at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary before dropping out to work for the televangelist James Robison

        Duncan Hunter   joined US Army in 1968 during the Vietnam War, Bronze Star;  Western State University Law School (now Thomas Jefferson School of Law in San Diego), 1976, BS, law, JD

        John McCain   US Naval Academy, 1958;  US Navy pilot, 1960-1974, Silver Star, Bronze Star, the Legion of Merit, Distinguished Flying Cross, Purple Heart

        Ron Paul   Gettysburg College, 1957, BA, biology;  Duke University School of Medicine, 1961, MD;  US Air Force flight surgeon in South Korea, Iran, Ethiopia, Turkey, 1963-1965

        Mitt Romney   Stanford University then to Brigham Young University, 1971, BA;  Harvard Law School/Harvard Business School, 1975, JD/MBA

        Fred Thompson    Memphis State University, BA, 1964, philosophy, political science;  Vanderbilt University, law

Permalink | 51 comments