As we all know by now, when U.S voters enter the voting booth today to cast a ballot for President, they are faced with two choices. There are some very clear differences between the two Senators whose names appear on the ballot. Their opinions on the war in Iraq, their solutions for the failing U.S. and global economies, their prescriptions for dealing with other world leaders and their plans to address the climate crisis, including the designation of CO2 as a pollutant that can be regulated by the EPA, all paint stark differences between the two. So much so that last week, Senator Obama received some important endorsements. Not just from Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Former Bush Administration Secretary of State Colin Powell, but from the likes of 76 Nobel Laureates:
In an open letter to the American people released Tuesday, 76 American Nobel Laureates in science endorsed Democratic Senator Barack Obama of Illinois for president of the United States. This is the largest number of Nobel prize winners ever to endorse a candidate for office. - Environmental News Service
The letter, written by Laureates in chemistry, medicine and physics, states the obvious importance of this presidential election and the need for "a visionary leader who can ensure the future of our traditional strengths in science and technology and who can harness those strengths to address many of our greatest problems: energy, disease, climate change, security, and economic competitiveness."
Beyond endorsing Senator Obama, the Nobel Laureates go on to warn of the damage that Senator McCain could cause to federally funded scientific research, which has already been gutted over the last 8 years, with his threatened funding freezes. They are in good company as many economists believe that a federal funding freeze is the opposite response needed to get out of a recession. In fact, federal investment in science, technology and infrastructure is crucial if we are to overcome what is looking more and more like a recession.
They also take exception to the derisive comments of both Senator McCain and his running mate, Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska, on issues ranging from protection of grizzly bears to funding planetariums. They were also critical of the current resident of the White House and the consistent politicization of science over the last 8 years, stating "We have lost time critical for the development of new ways to provide energy, treat disease, reverse climate change, strengthen our security, and improve our economy."
Obama has consistently emphasized the importance of science and technology during the course of the campaign. And during his 30 minute infomercial on the major next works (or as some of us like to call it, the Obamamercial), he talked about the importance of efficiency to deal with our energy needs. Here is the exact passage from Obama:
All across America I've seen entrepreneurs and innovators who point the way to a better future, starting with energy independence. Recently, I visited the McKinstry Company, in Seattle. They're retrofitting schools and office buildings to make them energy efficient, creating jobs, saving their customers money, reducing carbon emissions, and helping to end our dependence on Middle Eastern oil. As president, I'll use companies like McKinstry as a model for the nation. I'll invest $15 billion a year in energy efficiency and renewable sources of energy, like wind, solar, and biofuels, creating five million clean energy jobs over the next decade -- jobs that pay well and can never be outsourced.
As Dave Roberts writes in Grist, "notice he didn't choose an energy supply company, renewable, nuclear, or otherwise. He chose one that reduces energy demand. That's his model for the nation." This is exciting news on the environmental front as efficiency is the lowest hanging fruit for reducing energy consumption.
This is consistent with what the Nobel Laureates - which included 3 of the 4 American laureates for 2008 - had to say about Obama on science:
"In particular, we support the measures he plans to take - through new initiatives in education and training, expanded research funding, an unbiased process for obtaining scientific advice, and an appropriate balance of basic and applied research - to meet the nation's and the world's most urgent needs."
And then, last Thursday, the journal Nature made a bold move. For the first time since anyone at the magazine can remember, they endorsed a candidate for president, Barack Obama, stating "The values of scientific enquiry, rather than any particular policy positions on science, suggest a preference for one US presidential candidate over the other." The editorial board at Nature did not find this to be a clear cut case, and had some praise for John McCain and some criticism (particularly on ethanol subsidies) for Barack Obama. In the end, though, it came down to thought and science. "On a range of topics, science included, Obama has surrounded himself with a wider and more able cadre of advisers than McCain." And according to Nature's endorsement, Obama seems to understand that "the core values of science are those of open debate within a free society that have come down to us from the Enlightenment", the need for a diversity of opinion and for scientific inquiry free from politicization. At the same time, McCain's choice of Governor Palin for running mate gave them great concern.
The endorsement concludes "This journal does not have a vote, and does not claim any particular standing from which to instruct those who do. But if it did, it would cast its vote for Barack Obama."
In an odd choice, the McCain campaign even put out a video to enhance his climate change fighting creds which features, quite prominently, the praise of Senator Obama for McCain's efforts on curbing global warming.
It was a strange choice which only reinforced that when it comes to science and climate change, there is only one candidate that has the widespread trust of the American people - Senator Barack Obama. As of late tonight, we will know if that is enough to elect him President. In the meantime, do your part for science. Vote.
Further Reading:
