President Barack Obama made a poignant comment about the need to address climate change, during his inauguration speech on Monday. Commentators everywhere noted how the remark stood out, and also asked what specific measures the second-term President might actually recommend. Scientific American has some answers, based on an exclusive written response that Obama’s campaign sent to us just before the November 2012 election.

Working with ScienceDebate.org, which developed the questions, Scientific American published 14 top science questions for Obama and former Gov. Mitt Romney, as well as the candidates' answers. One question was about climate change, and another was about energy supply, which Obama always seems to mention as an integral part of any effort to address climate change. The full reply by Obama to each of those questions is below. The responses by him and Romney to all 14 questions (including space exploration and Internet security) can be found at www.ScientificAmerican.com/nov2012/candidates or at www.sciencedebate.org/debate12.

Question on 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?

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.

Question on Energy. Many policymakers and scientists say energy security and sustainability are major problems facing the United States this century. What policies would you support to meet the demand for energy while ensuring an economically and environmentally sustainable future?

Barack Obama: Since taking office, I have supported an all-of-the-above energy approach that will allow us to take control of our energy future, one where we safely and responsibly develop America’s many energy resources – including natural gas, wind, solar, oil, clean coal, and biofuels – while investing in clean energy and increasing fuel efficiency standards to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. I know the country that harnesses the power of clean, renewable energy will lead the global economy in the 21st century. That’s why I have made the largest investment in clean energy and energy efficiency in American history and proposed an ambitious Clean Energy Standard to generate 80 percent of our electricity from clean energy sources like wind, solar, clean coal, and natural gas by 2035. Since taking office, electricity production from wind and solar sources has already more than doubled in the United States. We are boosting our use of cleaner fuels, including increasing the level of ethanol that can be blended into gasoline and implementing a new Renewable Fuel Standard that will save nearly 14 billion gallons of petroleum-based gasoline in 2022. America has regained its position as the world’s leading producer of natural gas. My administration is promoting the safe, responsible development of America’s near 100-year supply of natural gas that will help support more than 600,000 jobs. Because of these actions, we are positioning ourselves to have cleaner and cheaper sources of fuel that make us more energy secure and position the U.S. as a world leader in the clean energy economy.

12 Comments

1. 1. Charlie Peters 02:42 PM 1/22/13

   I'm confused, that a graph of ethanol used in our gas and the price we pay for fuel sure paints an interesting picture.
   
   
   
   An op-ed from May 1, 2002 warned the legislation requiring ethanol might create an additional 10% increase in price.
   
   
   
   An internet search indicated California fuel ethanol use was very minor and with a pump price of about $1.37 per gallon of regular CA CARB fuel.
   
   
   
   Fed EPA told CARB’s board Chair to use 5.6% and the fuel price went up.
   
   
   
   More time passed and Mary Nichols crew went for 10% and the price goes up.
   
   
   
   We now are at 10% and considering 15% and the price has went from about $1.37 to $5.--
   
   
   
   The California Government regulators say we use about 14billion gallons of fuel per year.
   
   
   
   So if the price has changed over $3.-- in a decade the ethanol laced fuel price increase may be about $40Billion per year. Is it time for Governor Brown to request a waiver from EPA? California may have enough energy supply to last a few years.
   
   
   
   Received an e-mail rumor today that US has energy supply to cover decades.
   
   
   
   Does California use 1500 gallons of water to grow corn to produce 1 gallon of GMO corn fuel ethanol? Does California water providers check for ethanol in the supply water for public consumption? Should California request a waiver of the ethanol mandate so fuel ethanol is voluntary? 510-537-1796

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. sault in reply to RDH 05:32 PM 1/22/13

   Question: The arctic ice sheet hit another record low in 2012 and shows signs of nearly disappearing by the next decade. CO2 traps heat and humans have increased its concentration in the atmosphere by 40%. For the past 50 years, each decade has been warmer than the last while there hasn't been a SINGLE month below the 20th Century average temperature since the early 80's. Climate science has eliminated natural forcings on the climate being the cause and has identified several "fingerprints" of Anthropogenic Warming, attributing anywhere from 75% to OVER 100% of the warming over the last 50 years to human activity. EVERY MAJOR scientific and technological organization around the globe (The National Academy of Sciences, the Royal Academy, etc.) have released statements on this issue agreeing with the scientific consensus that human ativity (predominantly CO2 emissions) is altering the climate.
   
   In the face of this mountain of evidence, how can any rational person deny the FACT that our CO2 emissions are altering the climate? Given what disasters have struck already and what can be expected in the future if CO2 emissions aren't drastically reduced, how can any rational person think that delaying those CO2 reductions or ignoring the problem altogether is the prudent response?

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

3. 3. eco-steve 05:41 PM 1/22/13

   The only fair solution is a 'Polluter payer' tax at every stage of ressource production and consumption.
   But more urgent is the need to get rid of endocrine perturbing insecticides. The human sperm count will reach the point where all men in developed countries will be sterile, possessing but 15% of the 1939 sperm count. This could happen within 20 to 30 years. The human species really does need to take urgent action on environmental issues.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

4. 4. cjoyce 10:46 AM 1/23/13

   Sault
   
   How about this re pesticides: The introduction of billions of pounds globally of endocrine mimics and disruptors would seem to be potentially harmful. As the endocrine systems of most (if not all) animal species appear to be very similar, it would be fairly accurate to posit that the effects of these chemicals are detrimental to the majority of these species.
   
   While I feel that the consequences of climate change will be disruptive to the status quo, worst case disastrous, at least our contribution to this problm is, at least in theory, correctable by a change in conscious actions. If the results of introduction of pesticides and other chemicals is their incorporation into the living organisms which come into contact with them in the environment, this would seem to be a more serious problem. Many of these compounds do have fairly long residencies,not to mention their resulting products upon breaking down.
   
   Of course there will be many who chalk such concerns up to “Greenie Whining,” just as with climate concerns.
   

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

5. 5. sault in reply to cjoyce 11:22 AM 1/23/13

   I agree that pesticides can have harmful effects on the environment and people. steve-o was putting down some hard numbers [womp womp :-( ] and I just wanted to se where he (I'm guessing) was getting them.
   
   As for addressing climate change, I keep saying $20 a ton carbon tax that goes to offsetting payroll taxes would be a good start. You'd have to charge it at the wellhead, mine or import terminal (for oil / gas, coal, and imported oil mostly respectively) to keep the system as simple as possible. The working poor and middle class would be mostly better off, but the unemployed poor would fel the brunt of this tax change, so you would need to divert a small percentage of the tax revenues towards counteracting this change.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

6. 6. cjoyce in reply to sault 07:39 PM 1/23/13

   sault
   
   I understood your point re specific loss of sperm levels, sometimes like to hear myself talk. But then again, that is one of the top threats to “life as we know it.” (massive self poisoning, not sperm count)
   
   Must say that is one of the most cognizant ideas to deal with carbon ever. Particularly like the part where we deal with the disenfranchised.
   
   cjoyce
   

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

7. 7. sethdayal 11:47 PM 1/23/13

   "one where we safely and responsibly develop America’s many energy resources – including natural gas, wind, solar, oil, clean coal, and biofuels –"
   
   Notice not a word about nuclear showing the white house conversion the solarian religion.
   
   Note as well the reference to gas as clean energy when it actually produces more GHG's than coal.
   
   Maybe James Hansen can hire an interpreter - somebody who can speak stupid in an effort to penetrate the thickness in the White House:
   
   "But suggesting that renewables will let us phase rapidly off fossil fuels in the United States, China, India, or the world as a whole is almost the equivalent of believing in the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy"

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

8. 8. Mark656515 in reply to Carlyle 02:27 PM 1/26/13

   
   
   It is true we know very little compared to all there is to know, as any scientist will be the first to tell you.
   
   However, most strategic thinking is cautionary; not all armies are used every year, for instance. So usually we act with some caution whenever much is at stake.
   
   I do not know if the feedback loops will lead to the full thawing of the poles (which is perfectly possible) and whether the release of all the releasable methane therein will cause sea levels to rise dozens of meters is a few decades or centuries (but this is also perfectly possible and has happened several times in geologic history). But I do know for sure the poles are melting right now, and that droughts, floods and storms have become more intense.
   
   I do not know the ideal mix of the clean energy matrix that we will optimistically have in say 50 or 100 years if all goes according to best case scenario, but I do know for sure there is only so much oil down there, even if new reserves are found here and there, and that vehicular evolution to electricity or a clean fuel portfolio usually including electricity has always been expected by mainstream economists. Resisting technological evolution is something we could expect from a superstitious peasant, but certainly not from a rational person.
   The more we resist evolution (such as the transition to clean vehicles) the more abrupt it is when stagnation is rendered untenable; we need good electric cars BEFORE the oil does start running out. And if we could save some proven oil reserves for posterity, this would be the wisest.
   
   I do not know the limits of the capacity of our planet but surely eight billion persons and rising is an unnecessarily, even unpleasantly, large population and Malthusian pressure will always pop up even with fertilizers, such as now with Warming, so another evolutional inevitability is curbing world overpopulation, which is likely to require the establishment of minimal human rights and dignity levels for every person, regardless of place of birth.
   
   Both pushing for rapid technological advancement – for more practical reasons by far than the Space Race – and the development of a clean power matrix; and the tackling of world overpopulation through the establishment of minimal human universal material rights, are good things. How exactly these things are to be done is, to be sure, a topic for fertile debate – but resisting the need for massive breakthroughs and intense technological advancement across the power industries today is akin to defending the harmlessness of tobacco.
   

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

9. 9. Carlyle in reply to Mark656515 01:21 AM 1/27/13

   I certainly support research & development. i do not support wasted research & development. Without any serious condender on the horizon for energy storage, alternative energy is doomed to costly failure. It is classic cart before the horse. We already know the theoretical limits of alternative energy even allowing for dramatic improvements. No matter what you do for example, you can not bypass the Carnot cycle. On the other hand, dramatic improvements are possible with nuclear power & even present technology is better than all the alternatives. When we know the physical limits of a technology, solar must have sunshine, why persist in building solar farms that must fail to deliver basic cheap 24 hour supply. Sure, continue lab research, particularly on cheap storage, but do not spend hundreds of millions on built in failure. It is like spending millions to increase the number of lumens you can get from a wax candle. Mathamatically you can determine what the maxim possible is, then you compare it with what else is available & cease wasting your money, unless of course you do not care & it is public money.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

10. 10. greenhome123 05:10 PM 1/28/13

    I wish the phrase "climate change" would be changed to something along the lines of "we need clean air and clean water". I believe that the consistent exponential growth of solar power will make it one of the major world energy sources in the next 20 years, along with wind, and nuclear. In the 80s solar power was over $20 per watt. Now it is less than $1 per watt. There WILL be continued advances in solar energy which will continue to drive cost down even further. It is only a matter of time before it is more cost effective to use solar or wind rather than use traditional fossil fuels.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

11. 11. Carlyle in reply to greenhome123 07:46 PM 1/28/13

    Why not the best option? Nuclear.

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

12. 12. Mark656515 07:05 PM 2/1/13

    
    A second democrat term is not something that happens every day; the moment should be seized.
    
    The MIT advocates geothermal as the best power option for the US: http://geothermal.inel.gov/publications/future_of_geothermal_energy.pdf
    
    I would complement geothermal with thorium, which is far more abundant than uranium and fossil fuels combined, is better against proliferation if used in one of its two possible cycles, and is suitable for use in mini-plants the size of a house which could be put in every neighborhood.
    
    world-nuclear.org/info/inf62.html
    
    singularityhub.com/2012/12/11/norway-begins-four-year-test-of-thorium-nuclear-reactor/
    
    

    Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this