E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Files / AFP - Getty Images
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama have answered 14 questions on science and technology issues.
President Barack Obama and his GOP challenger, Mitt Romney, have sent in their answers to the political campaign's highest-profile science quiz — the 14 questions on science and technology issues posed by Science Debate 2012 — and Romney's answer to the climate question is already stirring up some buzz.
The answers distill the candidates' stands on topics ranging from ocean health, to the federal support for innovative research, to the process for developing science policy, to the proper way to plan for a potential pandemic. The territory covered by the questions has shifted somewhat since 2008: For example, stem cell research appears to have become a non-issue, while Internet policy gets its own question this time around.
But it's Romney's response to the question about climate change that has drawn the most attention.
For months, Romney has been criticized for going back and forth on the issue of what to do about global warming. He generally acknowledges that greenhouse-gas emissions have had an effect on climate, but he's backed away from policy responses such as carbon cap-and-trade markets.
Starting with last week's Republican National Convention, Romney has been turning Obama's environmental policy into a punch line: "President Obama promised to begin to slow the rise of the oceans, and to heal the planet. My promise is to help you and your family." (Romney has used the "heal the planet" line at campaign stops since then.)
In his response to Science Debate's climate change question, Romney said it looked as if the world was warming, and human activity was contributing to that trend. But he opposed a cap-and-trade scheme and spoke against "economy-suppressing regulation." Instead he said he favored "robust government funding" for research into low-emission, high-efficiency industrial technologies. Here's the full question as well as the answers from Romney and Obama:
Climate change: The Earth’s climate is changing and there is concern about the potentially adverse effects of these changes on life on the planet. What is your position on cap-and-trade, carbon taxes, and other policies proposed to address global climate change — and what steps can we take to improve our ability to tackle challenges like climate change that cross national boundaries?
Mitt Romney: "I am not a scientist myself, but my best assessment of the data is that the world is getting warmer, that human activity contributes to that warming, and that policymakers should therefore consider the risk of negative consequences. However, there remains a lack of scientific consensus on the issue — on the extent of the warming, the extent of the human contribution, and the severity of the risk — and I believe we must support continued debate and investigation within the scientific community.
"Ultimately, the science is an input to the public policy decision; it does not dictate a particular policy response. President Obama has taken the view that if global warming is occurring, the American response must be to slash carbon dioxide emissions by imposing enormous costs on the U.S. economy. First he tried a massive cap-and-trade bill that would have devastated U.S. industry. When that approach was rejected by Congress, he declared his intention to pursue the same course on his own and proceeded through his EPA to impose rules that will bankrupt the coal industry.
"Nowhere along the way has the president indicated what actual results his approach would achieve — and with good reason. The reality is that the problem is called Global Warming, not America Warming. China long ago passed America as the leading emitter of greenhouse gases. Developed world emissions have leveled off while developing world emissions continue to grow rapidly, and developing nations have no interest in accepting economic constraints to change that dynamic. In this context, the primary effect of unilateral action by the U.S. to impose costs on its own emissions will be to shift industrial activity overseas to nations whose industrial processes are more emissions-intensive and less environmentally friendly. That result may make environmentalists feel better, but it will not better the environment.
"So I oppose steps like a carbon tax or a cap-and-trade system that would handicap the American economy and drive manufacturing jobs away, all without actually addressing the underlying problem. Economic growth and technological innovation, not economy-suppressing regulation, is the key to environmental protection in the long run. So I believe we should pursue what I call a 'No Regrets' policy — steps that will lead to lower emissions, but that will benefit America regardless of whether the risks of global warming materialize and regardless of whether other nations take effective action.
"For instance, I support robust government funding for research on efficient, low-emissions technologies that will maintain American leadership in emerging industries. And I believe the federal government must significantly streamline the regulatory framework for the deployment of new energy technologies, including a new wave of investment in nuclear power. These steps will strengthen American industry, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and produce the economically-attractive technologies that developing nations must have access to if they are to achieve the reductions in their own emissions that will be necessary to address what is a global issue."
Barack Obama: "Climate change is the one of the biggest issues of this generation, and we have to meet this challenge by driving smart policies that lead to greater growth in clean energy generation and result in a range of economic and social benefits. Since taking office I have established historic standards limiting greenhouse gas emissions from our vehicles for the first time in history. My administration has made unprecedented investments in clean energy, proposed the first-ever carbon pollution limits for new fossil-fuel-fired power plants and reduced carbon emissions within the federal government. Since I took office, the U.S. is importing an average of 3 million fewer barrels of oil every day, and our dependence on foreign oil is at a 20-year low. We are also showing international leadership on climate change, reaching historic agreements to set emission limits in unison with all major developed and developing nations. There is still more to be done to address this global problem. I will continue efforts to reduce our dependence on oil and lower our greenhouse gas emissions while creating an economy built to last."
Romney devotes a lot more space on his answer, but he has a more complex case to make — a case that accepts the idea that industrial activity is changing the climate, but that the right kind of industrial activity can solve the problem. "This is what I call the technology trap, where clean energy technology is used to delay action, rather than to foster action, on climate change," Joe Romm writes on the Climate Progress blog, which has been reliably critical of Romney in the past.
What do you think? Feel free to register your opinion in our admitted unscientific online poll, as well as in your comments below. And be sure to take a look at all 14 questions and answers, either on the Science Debate website or at Scientific American.
Extra credit: The other question that was close to my heart was the one on space policy: Obama sticks to his game plan for sending humans to an asteroid by 2025 and to Mars in the 2030s — that is, long after the end of his second term. Meanwhile, Romney complains that America's leadership in space is "eroding" and vows to "bring together all the stakeholders" in the space effort to develop a fresh plan to rebuild NASA. He also says "a strong and successful NASA does not require more funding, it needs clearer priorities." Reminder: NASA receives about 0.5 percent of the federal budget (less than $18 billion in 2012), and some outside observers (including astrophysicist Neil DeGrasse Tyson) say that funding level should be doubled.
Alan Boyle is NBCNews.com's science editor. Connect with the Cosmic Log community by "liking" the log's Facebook page, following @b0yle on Twitter and adding the Cosmic Log page to your Google+ presence. To keep up with Cosmic Log as well as NBCNews.com's other stories about science and space, sign up for the Tech & Science newsletter, delivered to your email in-box every weekday. You can also check out "The Case for Pluto," my book about the controversial dwarf planet and the search for new worlds.
Leave a Comment:
QUESTION?? That was no question! Rather it was a thinly veiled political pontification from the liberals. The "so called" question begins with the "statement" "The Earth’s climate is changing...". Really?? I was not aware that all scientists were in agreement on this. As a matter of fact, I suspect that it is only the "the earth is entering a new ice age" scientists of the 1970s along with their disciples who are in agreement on this dramatic swing of the pendulum from one extreme to another. What a ridiculously transparent attempt to establish political policy. Well all you silly scientists, I ain't buying what you're selling, and a whoooooole lot of other Americans are on to your shenanigans as well!
Kolchak is basically correct, it was a statement, and put on this blog to garner attention and thus sell ads....I want to know, of the two hopefuls, which knows science better. Ask them things a panel of science college profs in a third year bachelors of sciences program would ask. I posist, my fellow democrat, knows crap.
Ever noticed that the main body of scientists who deny that people are responsible for global warming are conservatives? Why do they call them conservatives anyway? What are they trying to conserve? Not the planet, thats for sure.
We have been told by the crazy liberals that the earth is warming due to man made gases. So my question to you liberal idiots is this. Yesterday we read the oceans are actually becoming saltier. So, if the ice is melting and we know it is, and the oceans are rising because of this, shouldnt the oceans be getting less salty? Since they are not, we can assume we dont not understand what the hell is going on. The oceans should be less salty, not more. Isnt it possible the earth is just in a natural warming trend and the oceans are respond completely opposite of what the brilliant scientists think should have happened? Clearly we have no clue what is really going on.
Have you also noticed the liberals solution to everything is to tax us more, and turn this nation back to an agricultural society and of course, into a second tier nation
One interesting fact that we discovered by accident since land near us has lots of wind turbines...the government has hired lots of wind turbine "bird watchers." Their job is to watch for flocks of birds near the wind turbines and to turn the turbines off when they see birds approaching. They aren't out there watching all the time, but were out there for about a week straight...2 guys, just sitting in a pick-up. The neighbors were wondering what this pickup was doing sitting on their land for a week and finally went and enquired about it and this is what the men told them.
Wind turbines kill alot of birds, but you don't hear this very often. You also don't hear that some of the new jobs that have been created are government worker "bird watchers." I thought this was pretty interesting because you never hear about this type of scenario where our taxpayer dollars are going.
Wind energy, although good to pursue, comes at a very high cost.
Obama is much closer to the mark, but is soft-pedalling the scientifically known, and proven, fact that climate change resulting from global warming is not just a side issue to be argued over, or ignored, or denied for God sake, with the excuse that acting vigorously to slow down this menace in the name of jobs is suicidal. There are millions of jobs, work to be done, to forestall as much as we can the carbon emissions and other pollutants our overly vaunted "free market economy" emits. Romney just speaks for the carbon-based industries of oil and coal, with a nod to nuclear, as do the rest of his economic policies. And "clean coal" is a myth.Try reading Lester Brown's book World On The Edge, or any of the many knowledgeable people in the field. We need a total refocus toward green energy, green thinking on all social and economic issues. Moreover, we are threatening the very biosphere of this planet, on both short and long-term scales. A recent study has indicated that even if we somehow stopped all carbon emissions today, a four-foot sea level rise is already certain for the next thousand years!! Come on politicians, consider the children, and the future generations, and all lthe living creatures on this beautiful planet. Time is not on our side.
One other thing: scientific certainty is not a prerequisite for policy decisions. (Remember the flat-earth "scientists" of old?) Reagan and his folks said the same thing about acid-rain, a harbinger of things to come, and they were dead wrong. A book called The Genesis Strategy; Climate and Global Survival, by climatologist Stephen Schneider, which was published not recently, but in 1976, makes the argument that caution is the wiser route. He cites the biblical story of the Pharoah whose advisors gave him conflicting predictions of drought and plagues of locusts, etc. versus hey, not to worry, no real problems ahead. He decides it would be best to store up food in preparation for the difficulties ahead rather than to wait until it is too late - even though they could not be certain of the kinds of perils that may be coming. This book was published 36 years ago, and since then measurable data clearly indicates drastic environmental destruction, with obviously much more to come.
the global warming idea is bs. we don't have enough long term data from which to use for the computer programs to be close to the real world. on one hand the gw. folks say man is cause of gw. then you read from the scientific posts that the earth has had many warming periods. even millions of years before man existed. we simply don't have the data to accurately predict which computer model will show correct results. the gwists did themselves no favors when the emails leakedrevealing the bible of gw. was cooked. many subsequent studies made - based their conclusions on the flawed [ even admitted per email work was never done --cooked studiy ] non peer reviewed but published work [ the leaked emails were from the eng. work -- again the basis for many other erronious works ].until verifiable work is done we don't need to bankrupt our country to comply with cap and trade. just like the kyoto deal the biggest polluters are exempt from compliance. in other words we are bound to "completly" clean up our actbut with no guarantee of making the least global difference due to other counties exemption. one study said to comply would cost the us approx. $2trillion. the follow up reg requirements would forever put the us at a completely non-competitive position for the world market.
I'm concerned about the lack of understanding on both their parts in regard to the disaster factor that will devastate the economy at some point in time, the insurance companies are already discussing the strain it will cause. Yet no one seems to be deciding what to do to protect life and homes, hospitals and water supplies, etc. They just keep talking about blame and coal credits. And some of them still claim the heat waves and deluges won't come. When the proverbial hits the fan somewhere in the next few decades, people won't really give a rat's patooty why, just that.
If the entire world would stop all burning of fossil fuels immediately, temperatures would continue to rise for a hundred years ... but humanity might survive. The debates which are going on now are like two people drowning while they argue about the cost of life vests and about whether the water is 500 feet deep or only fifty. A worldwide depression might help some by slowing the consumption of oil -- and it looks as though we could be headed in that direction.
Romney is just saying what the Republicans always say. that the solution is to keep selling oil and gasoline and use whatever solutions to filtering the auto makers come up with and also add nuclear power without sufficient safeguards including locations and earthquake protection. He also is speaking on behalf of the Koch brother especially who gave him lots of money and who stand to make additional billions of dollars after he removes the laws for taxes and decreases their taxes including removing the estate tax,
Then he additionally talks generalities that sound nice to the un interested in what he really is saying and from whom is paying him to they get a lot more back from his presidency. REMOVING the regulations for protecting the environment as well as protecting other American industries is what Romney wants to do because those who pay him want him to do that.
Just as he sounded nice to some people on the first debate he also said 28 whole or partial lies, more democratic governors and mayors and senators should stand out and speak at Romneyand Ryan's real neative for the country priorities,
charles riley just above is correct in all he says and obama should indeed speak out ore vociferously he has said what he did in small amts but his recovery and reinvestment act of feb 2009 changed the energy dept into a conservation and new technologies dept an act to save the air and planet and he definitely has a huge charater flaw in not iusiong washington to advertise what he already did and the republicans take over the press with lies on it. he needs to hire people with big ines so to speak and have them speak out and he needs to learn to be able to look a person like romney right in the eyes and tell him he is lying and ask romney to say what his specifics are. and i am an obama supporter.
it is also true that the carbon molecules in th eupper atmosphere are goint to last for decades even if we stop adding.
YES clean coal is almost a total myth in China they are building large filtration methods to try to filter their col emmisions from power plants at the same time David Koch had one of his in the pocket science people write a book for china to change power plants from coal to natural gas because china and the us have a lot more of that now and Koch owns a lot of that Billions of dollars worth. There has been a recent push on TV ads from exxon and from Shell to also put in more natural gas as the idea of alternative fiels when even school kids know that the term alternative refers to the non carbon energy production.
Clean energy is much more efficient energy. The US economy will benefit immediately and substantially as it changes from fossil fuel burning technologies to clean techs. Other countries will see this and will be quick to follow, as it is in their best interests to do so. In so doing, the US will change this world for the better, and maybe even save the lives of our children or our children's children.
Romney's "there is no scientific consensus" remark is a lie. There is strong consensus in the scientific community that climate change is the result of accumulated CO2 emissions buildup in the atmosphere over decades, even centuries. However, the Koch brothers and other oil magnates are huge Romney supporters and the Mitt has chosen their interests over popular interests. This is what he will continue do if elected president, although he will spin it differently.
The Republican philosophy is, and has always been, that this country is being dragged down by a significant percentage of the population that basically "suckles off the government teat", freeloaders that the rest of us hard-working types are subsidizing. The solution, in their eyes, is to scrape these freeloaders off by eliminating social programs, and force them to find gainful employment. Good for us, and even good for them in the long run. A "tough love" kind of thing.
Although there are certainly some (even many) who fit this stereotype, most people living off (or at least significantly benefiting from) UI benefits or other social programs are not doing so because they want to, but because they have to, and their only alternative is scut work flipping burgers or frying chickens for about the same money.
And by the way, I'm getting very tired of hearing about "jobs" as if they are all the same. Republicans believe they can reduce and all but eliminate unemployment by striking down minimum wage laws. One would surely expect that doing so would create many new jobs, but jobs that pay maybe $3-$4 an hour. I have some experience with this, freelancing on the internet, where there is no minimum wage. It's a sad world when a minimum wage job begins to sound like a high paying job, but that will be the case if minimum wages are struck down.
Republicans are fools with money and power, but their message: think like us, vote like us, and share our prosperity, unfortunately finds fertile ground in the minds of many.