Image: Matt Collins
Note: This article, to be published in the October 2008 issue of Scientific American, was originally printed with the title, "Questions for Would-Be Presidents."
Add your own questions for McCain and Obama in our comments section below.
No one has ever complained that U.S. presidential candidates talk too much about science, and this year has been no exception. Nevertheless, science-related issues such as energy and health care, once viewed as sideshows, have taken center stage in this election. The candidates’ positions are often vague, but they are an improvement on past campaigns. Here are some follow-up questions that they invite.
Energy
Both John McCain and Barack Obama have called for a cap-and-trade system to cut carbon emissions, although Obama’s proposed reduction (80 percent from 1990 levels by 2050) is larger than McCain’s (65 percent). Both candidates, however, need to answer a crucial question: Why cap-and-trade when so many policy experts, seeing the troubles with carbon trading in Europe, now recommend a simpler carbon tax?
Both candidates oppose Yucca Mountain, the controversial proposed nuclear waste dump. McCain has advocated an “international repository” instead. What is the difference? Where does Obama propose to put the waste? The U.S. has spent 30 years studying Yucca; switching sites will restart the clock. What will nuclear plants do with all their spent fuel in the meantime?
Beyond these generalities, the candidates diverge. McCain would subsidize the construction of 45 new nuclear reactors, costing upward of $270 billion and taking 20 years to complete. Why invest that much public money in nuclear rather than solar or wind power, which could start pumping out watts much sooner? How would offshore oil drilling, which McCain has urged, help wean the nation off fossil fuels?
Obama has spelled out intermediate milestones for emissions reductions and specific targets for biofuels and other renewables. How would these goals be enforced? He has promised $150 billion over 10 years for energy research and development as well as a $10-billion-a-year venture capital fund. What would stop that money, as in so many past efforts, from being allocated by lobbyists rather than engineers? Does the energy industry really need more venture capital? Oddly, he has promised to “fight the efforts of big oil and big agribusiness to undermine” corn-based ethanol. How has agribusiness sought to undermine corn ethanol? If anything, it seems rather the opposite. And why sustain support for corn ethanol when it is the most ungreen of all biofuels?
Embryonic stem cells
Both McCain and Obama support harvesting stem cells from embryos left over from in vitro fertilization. McCain would ban scientists from using donor eggs to create disease-specific stem cell lines or chimeric animals to see how human stem cells behave during development. How, then, would his policy be substantially different from the current highly restrictive one, and how would it encourage the discovery of lifesaving treatments? As for Obama, what alternative sources of embryonic cells would he permit? What federal oversight should embryonic stem cell research have that other forms of biomedical research, including those involving human subjects, do not already have?
Space
Both candidates support President George W. Bush’s plan to send astronauts to the moon and then to Mars. Are McCain and Obama willing to increase NASA’s budget commensurately, or would they beggar the space science programs?
Other topics
Obama, more than McCain, has taken positions on many other science issues. He has promised to double federal funding for basic research. Over what period? And does that figure include his promised energy investment? He has said he would appoint a chief technology officer to protect citizens’ electronic privacy, but could that person really overrule federal agencies with their own prerogatives? How precisely would Obama make good on his vow to reform the troubled copyright and patent system? Both candidates clearly need to flesh out their ideas if those ideas are to rise above throwaway campaign pledges and become real policy.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
See what we're tweeting about
58 Comments
Add CommentHow about a sales tax on carbon fuels, per unit fossil carbon? Simplest possible way to do it?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisplease see http://www.piausa.org/ for a different/opposing view on patent reform
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBell Labs just recently closed. This is a sad situation and it is unfortunate that many companies nowadays do not have such heavy basic research programs which gave us the transistor. Most basic research is now conducted by universities with public moneys but this is often plagued by bureaucracy and collegiate politics. Many graduate students feel pressure to pursue very closely to the research that their adviser pursued and often feel pressure to be less daring. A) How do we get the private sector take another look at basic research and B) How can we make university research more efficient and willing to take rise?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBell Labs just recently closed. This is a sad situation and it is unfortunate that many companies nowadays do not have such heavy basic research programs which gave us the transistor. Most basic research is now conducted by universities with public moneys but this is often plagued by bureaucracy and collegiate politics. Many graduate students feel pressure to pursue very closely to the research that their adviser pursued and often feel pressure to be less daring. A) How do we get the private sector take another look at basic research and B) How can we make university research more efficient and willing to take rise?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBell Labs just recently closed. This is a sad situation and it is unfortunate that many companies nowadays do not have such heavy basic research programs which gave us the transistor. Most basic research is now conducted by universities with public moneys but this is often plagued by bureaucracy and collegiate politics. Many graduate students feel pressure to pursue very closely to the research that their adviser pursued and often feel pressure to be less daring. A) How do we get the private sector take another look at basic research and B) How can we make university research more efficient and willing to take rise?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDivisible by 10.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWill either of the change candidates use the bully pulpit to promote the metric system?
What financial and professional incentives would you offer the American "brain trust" to encourage research that: 1) extends our understanding of earth and energy science, 2) develops metrics to inventory Earth's resources, diagnose Earth's health, quantify trends, and make predictions more reliable, and 3) suggests methods for restoring natural balance and for harvesting energy and other resources conservatively and renewably?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow do we separate religion from science in the classroom, and produce a generation of critical thinkers and problem solvers?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would Like to know where both candidates stand on the subject of evolution.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat I would like to know, is who gave the president any power what so ever to decide any of these issues. I was taught that the power came from the people to the governing body not the other way around. We are suppose to be a Self-governing nation with no power to any one individual. When did it change? And why? There was a time when the president was mostly an ambassador.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUS Manufacturing sector delievers highest contribution to US GDP (almost 12%) and it produces nearly 1/4th of world manufacturing output. To do that manufacturing sector consumes almost 33% of total energy consumed in USA. Almost 70% of the energy consumed in the manufacturing sector gets imported from other nations. Hence through national energy security point of view "Industrial Energy Efficiency" is very crucial. Not only that, industrial energy efficiency is the most cost-effective carbon reduction option. I would like to know where both candidates stand on this matter. What they think about "Industrial Energy Efficiency"?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAll stem-cell research must be supported..Esc's and adult...Neither can claim priority...I am troubled by the term "basic" research...It is the late stage ph 3 trials that are the most financially challenging Too many life-saving therapies have been halted or delayed strictly because it is too costly to continue....Assistance is needed here as well...Current patent laws need to be extended..so that a company can foresee a recoupment of their expenses at a reasonable price over a long term....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSupporting near term stem therapy is a sound investment. not a hand-out............Healthy citizens are tax-payers....Healthy citizens do not require disability payments...insurance payments....medicare/medicaid payments....long term care payments.....It is a growth industry that will strengthen the economy...
Why doesn't anyone in the media ask John McCain why he keeps voting against clean energy? He has about 25 voters against solar,wind and geothermal power, and not one time has he voted in favor of clean energy. Yet the media acts as if he is about the same as Obama who votes like he talks: pro clean energy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere is one list with links to the senate rollcall votes of all McCains votes against clean energy.
http://www.americanprogressaction.org/issues/2008/mccain_gw_record.html
My question is, why lie about this? If you think people want clean energy, why not vote as you speak? It seems like it is the worst of both worlds. He alienates both clean energy advocates by not voting for it, and alienates his dirty energy advocates by talking like a damn Democrat.
- Actually, Obama supports specifically a cap-and-trade with 100% auction - that last bit is important - but anyway:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWould you veto a cap-and-trade system, and if so, why? Would you veto for any such system or any carbon tax? Or would you veto a cap-and-trade system in favor of a carbon tax? If so, would that be because you expect a carbon tax would never ever ever be passed by congress, or would you hope and work for such a thing to be passed? Would you veto a cap-and-trade system from lack of ~ 100% auction in favor of ~ 100% auction? Would you veto either a cap-and-trade or carbon tax system out of concerns of poor design in favor of a better design?
Would you actively use our progress in clean energy and clean energy policy as example to, leverage with, and help for other reluctant and/or developing nations - particularly China, India, and in Africa - for example, exporting our solar cells and other green tech at a price that would add incentive to halt any more coal power plants.
Should we be concerned with a 'reverse oil shock' - what might happen in Russia, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, and Iran, for example, if our effects drive oil back down to ~ $60/barrel. How might we use that to our advantage while mitigating dangerous political instability? Will we export solar cells to these countries - 'solar diplomacy'? Will we export solar-powered desalination technology - 'water diplomacy'?
When and where do you find a McCain proposal for and "nternational Nuclear waste site"? This is another bloggers creation. McCain has proposed to create a waste reproessing facility to extract the useable Uranium in the millions of spent fuel rods sitting in unsecure storage now.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis will not only greatly reduce the volume of waste to be stored in Yucca Mountain, but recover the 80% of useable fuel for future reactor use. This is exactly what the French are doing now and perhaps this is the international solution you really wish to refer to.
Not only is this the most energy efficient way to solve the problem, but because of the value of reuseable fuel this can also be a private free market opportunity if the DOE and the Federal Government can get out of the way and let private industry work.
I am a college student taking a break from orgo and physics to write in response to this truly appalling article. How can we truly know that mr. obama will create ANY "change," in science or otherwise? How can we expect anything promised by someone who has not been capable of making up his mind for 130 VOTES in JUST A FEW YEARS in the senate? In addition, science will be put on the back burner of any government agenda if responsible spending at all levels of government does not occur. According to the obama economic plan (tax hikes and overspending, which at the most basic level of ecomonics spells out TROUBLE), our nation will crash and burn. Let's remember that in order for scientific progress to occur, we must protect our economy first, and that means reducing taxes and spending responsibly. Politicians are not scientists. Let's get someone in office we can TRUST will do his+her job, someone who, when necessary, will seek good advisors who are specialists in their field.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI too want to know how each candidate stands on evolution. I e-mailed each in this regard and got standardized, greatly generalized answers that did not even address the question. Certainly would not want to offend anyone that might vote!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI second the idea of asking about evolution, and would add the human connection to global warming. It's just barely possible that a president loudly coming down on the side of good science might begin to nudge things in the direction of a bit more critical and rational thinking. I live in Colorado Springs, so I'm aware of the reality, but I can dream, can't I?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo be honest, I really couldn't care much less about their scientific policies. You see, I'm unemployed in an area suffering from high unemployment and the resultant foreclosures on mortgages. What do I care how they feel about abortion or evolution?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy do we need Carbon Caps and Trading or a simple Carbon tax at all? Even many of the scientists who are named on the international report which is supposed to have "ended the debate" have debunked that same report. The pacific ocean is cooler now than it was in 1977. Global warming is NOT man made or even influenced. Back in the early 1800's the polar ice melted enough to open the north passage and they were fishing off the coast of Siberia. A single Volcano puts out more carbon that the US does in a decade. And lets not forget the sun just ended an extremely active cycle. Any idiot who says the sun has no impact on global warming should have his credentials stripped. I'm all for getting away from foriegn oil and oil in general, but my reasons have nothing to do with "saving the planet". What I want to know is what the canidates are going to do about funding more basic research that gives rise to applied sciences.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA candidate who rejects the reality of evolution or global warming is either poorly educated, greatly misinformed, or a fundamentalist in the worst sense of the word. We all vote pocketbook issues........but not if it means embracing extremism right or left. There is no substitute for critical thinking.........remember, Hitler was elected!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWith a perplexed look, Obama scratches his head and replys: "Issues with life? Why would stem cells have life issues? I shouldn't have to answer this! This is above my payscale! I just can't comprehend... I just can't think.... This is worse than being asked why I can't pledge allegiance to the U S flag!! Quick, Joe, help me out of this!"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTelrunya - that's mostly wrong. Of course the sun affects climate, but it's a question of how much. The sun's variations are not that big. Volcanic CO2 emissions are much much smaller than anthropogenic emissions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI want to know
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCutting taxes has done the exact opposite of encouraging corporate research. Most advanced bio-research is done in Europe and Asia, not in United States, where companies have decided to use tax cuts to bolster their Executive bonus pools.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPretty disingenuous of you,considering even conservative politicians and religious scholars cant agree on when a dividing embryonic cell becomes human life.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI said it once and I'll say it again. Chemicals are what primative societies use to alter their consciousness. We're supposed to live in a high tech society. We have the technology to do this stuff. It's about time we started acting like it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisName any legitmate sources for your claims. It sounds like you've been reading that CO2 science site. They are insane.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnyway...
Agreed on the "funding more basic research that gives rise to applied sciences"
Patrick 027 Mostly wrong? Are you saying that in the early 1800's the north passage wasn't open? Long before any anthropogenic emissions began in any true fashion? What would you say caused that melt aside for the sun and natural emmisions (IE Volcanos and other such phenomina)? Why was that melt any differant than the current one? Mostly wrong? Are you saying the Pacific ocean isn't cooler than it has been since 1977? Data says I'm mostly if not entirely right. Dr. Chris Landsea and many others resigned from the IPCC because it wasn't objective and was trying to force the MMCC theory. If it happened before man made emmisions, and the geological record shows that it has many many times at the same pace even as the current trends, then why is this warming trend any differant? Eco-fascists couldn't make the Global cooling scare take hold in the 1970's because the warming trend had begun. They aren't going to make the Global warming scare tactic work now that the global warming trend is ending.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. Are you willing to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution (specifically Amendment 1) and ensure that no law is made establishing a religion,which is implicit in certain religious demands for laws which deny women liberties which are the purpose of establishing the U.S. Constitution? Yes or No?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this2. Are you willing to protect and defend the U.S. Constitution (specifically Amendment 1) and ensure that no law is made establishing a religion, which is implicit in certain demands that religious myths be taught in science classes as equivalent to theories which have been developed using the rigor of the scientific method? For the sake of this question, please assume that we have stipulated that provision of Federal funds to schools which include a specific curriculum would be the equivalent of establishing a law establishing that curriculum, therefore, making creationism or some other religious myth a required part of the science curriculum would be equivalent to establishing that religion. Yes or No?
3. As President of the United States, would you protect and defend the Constitution. Specifically will you ensure that no laws are enacted that establish any religion as the law of the land? By this I mean that the First Amendment will be fully enforced, and that people will be allowed to practice their religions without persecution, but that the state will not adopt the religious views of any one or several groups nor impose their rules upon either a minority or majority of the people.
4. Will you use taxes on fossil fuel companies that have enjoyed windfall profits to fund scientific research into maximizing efficiencies and cost effectiveness of clean energy and renewable energy resources?
5. Will you push for local and community clean energy generation so that reliance on the mega grid is diminished and the likelihood of regional blackouts is reduced?
6 Will you establish controls on energy pricing establish regulations to the point of nationalizing energy if necessary in order to ensure that we are not held hostage? As it stands today, the Chinese could buy out the oil, electric, and natural gas utilities and charge whatever they wanted to, and without an alternative source of solar or wind power in my backyard or community, I would be at their mercy. Without a national science effort, energy independence is not likely to happen.
The current administration has proposed an ambitious program to reprocess spent fuel from nuclear reactors rather than to dispose of it directly in a geological repository. The National Academy of Sciences has criticized the Department of Energys reprocessing demonstration plans as being premature in view of the present state of the technology. Do you think the U.S. should rapidly implement reprocessing?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSusanne E. Vandenbosch
Robert Vandenbosch
Senator McCain:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am voting for you regardless, but am disappointed that you have been fooled by the "teach the (evolution) controversy" scam - especially since you admitted accepting evolution. I realize that you have many pressing issues, but will you please reconsider that you are advocating an approach rejected by nearly all biologists, and ruled by a conservative Christian judge to be a religious view inappropriate for public school? You are an intelligent and reasonable person, so I have no doubt that you would change your position if you learned how this approach would grossly mislead students and jeopardize US scientific competitiveness. Note that no one objects to students learning anti-evolution pseudoscience on their own time, where they can also learn how the anti-evolution arguments have been thoroughly debunked. That's not likely to happen in a "captive audience" with a teacher whose goal is to promote unreasonable doubt.
Deatailed for scientists, people who do not understand science want to see solar panels, and wind power, they are not interested in the details.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe problem with having "the people" decide is hat it would go to the congress, which means lobbyists and other special interests.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat is needed, in my opinion is a special commission appointed by the President, with the cosnent of the congress, made up of several academic scientists, several idustiral rechnologists and a few economists.
The hope of establishing a "direction" for science must not be so defined that it negates the efforts of individual scientists working their own projects. Mention was made of Bell Labs, a remarkable institution, which was driven by the need to improve electrical communication. It served the Company and the nation well
Senator McCain supports nuclear energy and Senator Obama has not included nuclear energy as an alternative energy resource in his energy plan. What if the new green technology can be used to recycle nuclear wastes and at the same time to recover uranium from the nuclear ash, would both the presidential teams consider nuclear energy as part of the national energy plan for the future? Here are some of the recent news releases and web links to articles about this new environmental friendly clean technology to treat nuclear wastes:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.yournuclearnews.com/news_item.php?newsID=9370
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/080821213606.htm
http://www.uiargonaut.com/content/view/6369/48/
http://www.technologytransfertactics.com/content/2008/08/27/innovation-of-the-week-decaf-coffee-inspires-uranium-recycling-technology/
http://www.areva.com/servlet/vdg_dd_02_09_2008-c-AroundUs-cid-1220354745744-fr.html
Regarding corn based biofuels. There are studies and books published and at least one person speaking out on public radio, Ira Plato's, Science Friday show, that say Corn based ethanol takes one gallon of petroleum to make the fertilizer needed to grow the amount of corn needed to produce one gallon of ethanol. That's a revelation it seems nobody wants to hear.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd what about the guy in Australia, John Christie who claims to have invented a small electric generator that produces ten times more energy than it uses. He shows one on YouTube the size of a 20 gallon barrel that would power a house with air conditioning. If this isn't a hoax, I want one.
He says it will run 24/7 for several years without maintenance.
I am a student of evolutionary biology, and I am concerned that the recent emphasis on cutting government spending may cause the next president to dismiss science funding as unnecessary pork. Everyone agrees that spending in Washington needs to be restructured, but science funding can seem like an easy scapegoat since it often brings delayed rather than immediate rewards. Would you place a priority on funding science research, and do you feel that certain types of science are more deserving of government money than others?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe executive branch disperses funds, manages national programs, provide services, and enforce regulations and laws. Further, it establishes rules that have the force of law behind them. It also sets the direction of major goals like that of going to the moon.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGiven the central importance of science and technology to every aspect of modern welfare, progress, and national security, the criterion for selecting American presidents should expand from knowlege and experience in law, business, and military, to that of basic scientific training and demonstrable understanding of critical scientific issues.
At the moment, faith in God wins a candidate far more votes than evidence-based thinking rooted in the scientific method. But our phyical and economic survival depends now on a heightened respect for science. Future presidents must meet this challenge
The future of this country as a leader in developing the technologies needed to solve many of the problems outlined above depends of training our young people in math, science, and engineering. How, would the candidates encourage students to enter these fields?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe future of this country as a leader in the technologies needed to solve many of the problems outlined above depends on educating our young people in math, science, and engineering. How, would the candidates encourage students to enter these fields?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJohn Mc Cain wants to spend upwards of $270 billion for just 45 new nuclear plants. Will you, as president, fund just 1/10th of that amount instead for the Solar Power Tower concept? SPT's can provide virtually unlimited electricity since they can store thermal energy for later use.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a technical recruiter for the past 27 years, i continue to question the rationale between government and university research. Why do we continue to educate the best and brightest in the world and then subject them to a form of indentured servitude by limiting their citizenship? Do you support the notion that anyone completing a technical Ph.D in a US University should be granted permanent residency or citizenship? Conversely, what do you propose to encourage US Citizens to complete advance degrees in science and math?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishistorically folks, listen up. Great civilizations have disappeared, some for reasons unexplained, by modern "technology", but rest assured when all you folks of such great intelligence have nothing to eat or drink and are incapable of self determination in matters relating to core survival, beware the beast ! What evolutionary gene in you will come to life for survival? All the most advanced scientific political platforms cannot grow one blade of grass. Learn from history, realize for once that sustainable agriculture is more important than ANYTHING money or power can buy. Mankind cannot survive without some intervention into sustainable global agriculture and clean potable water resources, forsake the stewards of the earth (farmers) and all will be lost.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy question to the candidates is: Tell me what you know about the unintended consequences of palladium catalytic converters? (i.e. 100 times more particles in post catalytic exhaust) and, What are you willing to do to eliminate them?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisClosed minds stop the scientific process, if evolution is the only way for biological progress then why study the work Gregor Mendel did in a monastery from 1863 to 1865 and published in 1866 establishing genetics. Since, intelligent beings might then selectively cause biological change in opposition to the scientific investigation of Charles Darwin proving "natural selection". Should the scientists of the time, including Darwin, have criticized Mendel and ignored his work for 35 years? If the majority of Scientists were right in 1900 what should they have done between 1905 and 1921 with Albert Einstein? Maybe they should have burned his papers instead of studying and debating them?
Science is an open Debate based on observable verifiable data. I want to believe that man dose not know everything yet because I would like to find something new myself, and if I do I will say the same thing Einstein did. "Simple ideas come from God." I am supporting John McCain because he supports freedom of speech. He accepts evolution, genetics, and maybe something new that has not been discovered yet. Like many people over 60 I have experienced many unintended consequences in my life. I worry about the unintended consequences of, too quick a scientific advance, that makes me conservative, but willing to listen, test, try to improve, and go onward.
Religion should be taught under History, philosophy or culture- as a set of ideas and values based on belief, while science- including biological and cosmic evolution - should be taught as a Provisional Truth built upon centuries of observation and measurement.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScience and religion ( cf Buddhism, Hinduism, Baha'ism) need not exclude each other, but Science is provisional, and deals only with ideas which can be tested- while Religion is a set of cultural beliefs.
Oil and water do not mix.
The world has many religions, between which disagreements are often settled by Inquisition and murder. In science, an Idea is only as valid as its experimental basis, and is essentially self- correcting without anything worse than a mild loss of face. No-one, as far as I know, has been killed for his/her interpretation of Quantm Theory!
Science is the ONLY system of truth-seeking which has this inbuilt self correction and is the most important contribution to human civilisation.
If we lose it, we lose the future, quite possibly for our species itself, in due time. Religions, on the other hand, are two a penny...
Needless to say, both candidates are unfitted to be a leader for the nation! this is due to they do not have appropriate capabilty and visionary and intellgence to lead the nation and to use their mind to make valuable contributions to the nation! And due to they were not trained to be a real valuable leader!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf one of these folk will hop into the Whitehouse then the nation and people will pay for the costly and unneccessary prices that will last for 4 more years!
So!
A third candidate who must be much better than these folks must show up to fill the sadness of the year 2008!
The choosing of a poor and valueless national leader is the very terrible mistake to all people of a nation! Due to the mistake will last for 4 years of misery and full with sorrow!
So the choices are in your own hands and minds! and pls use them with careful decision!
In this USA nation, so many smart and experienced folks can be the national leader! why in the year 2008, this nation brings two folks to try to be the national leader while these folks have no valuable capability and expertises and backgrounds to be a leader!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is very wrong as seen that is responsible to the both democatic party and liberal party to pull out of their parties the folks that should never ever to be able to become a national leader!
This USA nation should find a wisest, brightest, most experienced, most creative, most dedicated individual to show up for Americans citizens to vote! all citizens have been driven into a nasty situation to choose a leader while none of them deserve to be and to be given national fate to him to care for!
This world we are living in is the brutal and very violent world a right president or commander-in-chief must be a most intellgent and most visionary person to handle he job!
It is really hopeless in term of hoping in the bright future for the nation in the year 2008 if this situation still exist!
It is really nasty situation as the smart folks in the nation are seeing the amateuristic leader to swing his wan to create unknown outcomes for the nation in complying with his poor mind and poor experience and qualifications as will show up soon folks!
In essence, this USA nation must not have an "amateur leader" who "amateurizes" the national strategies, goals, etc., and fixing the national and world problematic activities/troubles and planning the national plans/progresses, and protecting the nation, etc., at all!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWHERE ARE THE RIGHT MEN OF THE NATION FOR SHOWING UP FOR HANDLING THE PRESIDENTIAL DUTY? AT LEAST THE NATION MUST HAVE AT LEAST ONE RIGHT MAN! AND WHERE HE IS????
Telrunya at 04:55 PM on 09/05/08
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPatrick 027 Mostly wrong? Are you saying that ..
No. He is clearly stating that the cause for warming is predominantly GHG increases. You are clearly claiming that he is denying the many points that show warming. This is disingenuous or possibly mendacious of you.
Patrick 027, on you question of a carbon sales tax, the tax is much easier and fairer if levied at the import or production point.
Telrunya at 04:55 PM on 09/05/08
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPatrick 027 Mostly wrong? Are you saying that ..
No. He is clearly stating that the cause for warming is predominantly GHG increases. You are clearly claiming that he is denying the many points that show warming. This is disingenuous or possibly mendacious of you.
Patrick 027, on you question of a carbon sales tax, the tax is much easier and fairer if levied at the import or production point.
I, for one, will never, for the rest of my life, ever vote for someone who supports teaching Creationism (ID or otherwise) in public schools. First, support of Intelligent Design betrays a deep lack of critical thinking skills and lack of understanding about the basics of science. Second, it shows a level of disregard for the First Amendment establishment clause that I feel makes one unqualified to hold public office.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's regretful time to see the nation where citizens have been forced to choose a leader among the two folks! None of them has qualified foundation and intelligence and experience and visionary to be a leader at all!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThese folks are trying to disqualify each other or to discredit each other in order to gain personal gain to hop into the Whitehouse!
It is unfair to all Americans to have none valuable candidate to vote for and this problem is related to both Democratic party and Republic party that noe of these parties have brought into light a valuable candidate!
Now the nationmay look into the third candidate if he is a valuable one to choose! and this is the last opportunity to choose a right man for the job!
Who on earth wants to choose a valueless leader? to wander around to experiment his amateur expertise and to make mistakes for the citizens of the nation to see and to feel totally lost of hope and trust again?
In summary, believe it or not! to find a right leader for the 4-year job is quite important to all!
This USA nation has encounted and faced worst problems at home and abroad! Therefore, this nation must have a extremely bright and well-trained and experienced and visionary leader to solve and deal with all sorts of difficulties! In otherwords, the USA must have a best president in the worst time! Both presidential candidates have no such qualifications of a best leader!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBelieve it or not! the entire nation citizens must use their "flashlights" to look in the darkness to find a most valuable leader for the nation!
No word on water. On hydrogen neither. Why?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGiven the vulnerability of so many of our voting systems (due, in major part, to a slapdash application of the ill-conceived Help America Vote Act and the fallout begotten thereby), how will we be certain exactly which candidate has actually won election to office? When we base so many of our votes on typing blindly into black boxes, the software of which we do not know, cannot verify, and have no reason to trust, how can any candidate ever be certain whether s/he has won or lost?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA true leader need only show a goal, direct a course, and incite folks to action. Bolstered by the proper input from any and all experts, that leader becomes the embodiment of the composite of all the talent and knowledge and ability available - whatever s/he can absorb, filter, and direct (and use or cast aside).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAny boss is only as good as his/her workforce, and a good boss finds employees who can do the job much better than the boss can.
Who is the author of this article? They obviously haven't done any research if they suggest that money be invested into solar and wind panels. We would have to cover an area the size of Colorado with solar panels to be able to power the United States. Wind farms would take up more room than that because as you get more together they interfere with each other and have to be spaced farther apart. Both of these would be EXTREMELY expensive in comparison to the long term production capabilities of nuclear power plants.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe political system is designed to prevent any particular party from dominating the decision making process. This is the system of checks and balances: the legislative branch (congress) makes laws, debates and then votes on the proposed legislation, executive branch (the president) can veto this legislation which requires the congress to get a 2/3rds vote in both houses to pass a bill and a judicial branch. This is all part of our basic civic education. Although this system prevents any one person from gaining too much power, something the framers of the constitution greatly feared (see: king George and the revolution), it also prevents lawmakers from make cohesive and appropriate decisions. With 535 voting members of congress, it is hard to house all the members in one room let alone shape a bill that satisfies the needs of such a diverse community of states.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is the main reason carbon reduction initiatives have failed to gain the support needed to make them law. States that are greener by default, meaning they do not rely heavily on carbon intensive industry, are more likely to be in favor of legislating regulation carbon emission, such as a cap and trade system. However, the less green industrial states, that usually have more landmass and thus more population and more house representatives are likely to oppose any legislation that may reek havoc of an economy that relies heavily on polluting industry. These states quash any type of green legislation.
This type of quashing is apparent in the houses refusal to support fuel economy changes from the current average of 26 miles per gallon to 35 mpg by 2020 (Scientific American). Although this would affect a small proportion of businesses in the USbasically only automakers--the fact that such a requirement may cripple US automakers ability to compete against other foreign automakers, who already have a head start on making fuel efficient cars in other international markets, makes a fuel economy standard increase wildly unpopular. Not to mention that automakers have money, money that can and may be used to lobby congress, in effect preventing these types of bills from ever reaching the presidents desk.
A rowboat has a tough time travelling straight when one of the crew is paddling sideways and backward, just as the US has a tough time instituting effective green house gas abatement policy while some members of congress drag their feet. Until the government can reach a collective consensus or public outrage boils over, the political landscape is likely to continue in gridlock into the foreseeable future or the next election.