My Letter to Hillary

Now that the Dem's contest is down to two, it turns out Obama is cool to nuclear energy (but sees it as a necessary tool to practically reduce greenhouse emissions), while Hillary is blatantly against it.

So, I wrote her campaign the following. Feel free to write her something similar! While I doubt she'll actually change her mind (appealing to the strongly anti-nuclear Democrat cross-section) I feel they're clearly in the wrong on this one.

The letter follows:

I am a scientist who is working on solving our Nation's energy crisis, and hold an advanced degree in nuclear engineering. My aim in writing this message is to strongly urge Senator Clinton to reconsider her stated position regarding the (non-)use of nuclear power.

In order to practically reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we need a consistent supply of baseload power. Currently, nuclear power is our only meaningful candidate for this necessity. Certainly, renewables and conservation can and should be employed to their fullest.

However, it is a practical necessity at this point to enable a replacement of the current baseload power provided by fossil fuel (coal and oil) burning plants with a "greener" source: nuclear power.

Transitioning the US nuclear fuel cycle to one which involves reprocessing of current waste, which is more than 98% perfectly usable fuel, would dramatically reduce the amount of material required for long-term storage while ensuring a long-lived fuel supply for the US and the world.

Similarly, investment in longer-term energy options, such as nuclear fusion (via support of the domestic US fusion program and our international commitments to ITER) will contribute to solving the problem in the long term.

We simply cannot solve the problem through renewables alone -- especially if we do what needs to be done and supplant our existing fossil fueled baseload power with a CO2-friendly replacement.

Sincerely,
Michael Bongard
University of Wisconsin-Madison

Genius, pure genius:

http://xkcd.com/371

FY08 Budget: a devastating impact for science

As a scientist working towards making nuclear fusion a reality, this year's budget (passed in a lump omnibus fashion in the wee hours before Christmas recess) contains a very bitter pill to swallow: a zeroing of the US ITER budget. (Nature PDF) This project is the future of the worldwide fusion research program -- and the US has already backed out of it once.

Unfortunately, this budget also carries a tremendous blow to science in general: the failure to come through with the bipartisan-supported authorized investments in American science and science education through the America COMPETES and the American Competitiveness Initiative earlier in 2007.

Both sides of the aisle are pointing fingers at each other. Both sides of the aisle are to blame. And right now, science doesn't deserve to be a political football. It should never be.

Below find a message on the FY08 from the American Physical Society, the world-respected association of American physicists. A second message from the ITER perspective is available here from the APS Division of Plasma Physics, representing the nation's plasma physicists and fusion researchers. I am a member of both societies.

I hope that they can help you write to your elected officials and help turn the situation around. As you can see by reading the APS messages, scientists are not identified as political enough to warrant their pleas to be acted upon.

Perhaps you can help turn the tide with your letter and phone call. Let me know what you think.

APS message:

Dear APS Members:
 
 Although several thousand APS members responded to the last alert on
 federal science funding, the communications failed to affect 
 positively what ultimately became a highly partisan appropriations 
 process.  To attempt to rectify the damage caused by the Fiscal Year 
 2008 (FY08) Omnibus Appropriations Bill, APS President Arthur 
 Bienenstock will soon be asking you to e-mail your Members of 
 Congress urging that they take emergency action early in the next 
 session.  But first, a summary of what is known and documented:
  
 Two weeks ago, almost three months into the new fiscal year, Congress 
 finally passed an FY08 budget - unfortunately, it is devastating to 
 significant programs in the physical sciences.  It represents a 
 dramatic turnabout in a time of unprecedented outspoken support for 
 science across party lines, legislative chambers and branches of 
 government.
 
 Science funding in FY08 was originally set to increase substantially.  
 Consistent with the America COMPETES Act, President Bush's American 
 Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) and the Democratic Innovation Agenda, 
 the National Science Foundation would have received a 10 percent 
 increase; the National Institute of Standards and Technology Core 
 Programs, a 17 percent increase; and the Department of Energy's Office 
 of Science, an 18 percent increase.  The increases represented the 
 beginning of a 10-year plan to double federal investment in physical 
 science and engineering research.
 
 Early in the summer, the House passed all 12 appropriations bills that 
 cover discretionary spending, totaling $955 billion.  By early 
 October, the Senate Appropriations Committee had acted on many of 
 them, but the Senate leadership did not bring any of them to the floor 
 for a vote.  President Bush had already warned that he would veto 
 appropriations bills if, in the aggregate, they exceeded his $933 
 billion ceiling.  Two weeks ago, responding to the President's veto 
 threat, Congress, having already passed the Defense appropriations 
 bill, rewrote and passed the remaining FY08 budget bills as an omnibus 
 spending package.  
 
 The Omnibus Bill is a disaster for the very sciences that our 
 political leaders have repeatedly proclaimed essential for our 
 national security, economic vitality and environmental stewardship.  
 Several reports have suggested a picture less bleak, but they do not 
 take into account the effects of either earmarks or inflation.  In 
 fact, numerous programs will have to be trimmed or canceled.
 
 Hundreds of layoffs, furloughs and project shutdowns at Fermilab, 
 SLAC, LBNL and other national laboratories and research universities 
 seem unavoidable.  U.S. funding for the International Linear Collider 
 project will be curtailed for the balance of the fiscal year, placing 
 extraordinary stress on the high-energy physics program.  FY08 funding 
 for the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) will 
 be zeroed out, abrogating our agreement with our European and Asian 
 partners.  User facilities will see reductions in operating time and 
 staff, and university research will contract.  The list is long and 
 the damage significant.
 
 How could this happen, given the strong bipartisan support for science 
 research and education?  There is much speculation that with 
 negotiations having broken down and the President adamant on the total 
 spending, Democratic leaders made the following assessment:  First, 
 that there were insufficient votes to override a presidential veto of 
 their spending plans.  Second, since the Senate had failed to act on 
 the appropriations in a timely fashion, Democrats would be blamed for 
 any government shutdown that might result from a spending stalemate. 
 Their strategy was to accede to the President's $933 billion bottom 
 line, but, to get there, "by whacking GOP priorities" as the 
 Associated Press reported on December 10.  So, with ACI carrying a 
 presidential label, much of the increases for NSF, DOE Science and 
 the NIST labs were erased to meet the budget restrictions. Since ITER 
 was seen as one of the top Administration's priorities, its entire 
 funding was zeroed with strong language to prevent reprogramming of 
 funds to save the project. House Appropriations Chairman David Obey 
 (D-WI) suggested that the $9.7 billion in earmarks be removed to allow 
 funding for other priorities, but his colleagues refused to go along.
 
 Added to this calculus is a well-known fact: Science has rarely, if 
 ever, been a factor in determining the outcome of an election.  Even 
 for scientists, funding for research and education most often is not a 
 major determinant in whom they support -- unlike members of other 
 interest groups, such as the National Rifle Association or the 
 American Medical Association, who frequently vote based on their 
 "special" interests.  Given such a history and the hard-ball politics 
 that played out this month, letters from scientists to their Members 
 of Congress, unfortunately, did not rule the day.
 
 When Congress returns later this month, Members may be more receptive 
 to listening to their science constituents.  We will be sending you 
 another alert next week, after we have determined that the landscape 
 is more favorable.  Please respond when we contact you.  Your voice 
 may well make the difference at that time.  
 
 Sincerely,
 
 Michael S. Lubell
 Director of Public Affairs
 The American Physical Society