The Natural Patriot

In the last few months we have learned a lot about John McCain’s heroic service and travails as a prisoner of war, about Barack Obama’s history on the streets of Chicago, and we are beginning to learn — with some apprehension — about what’s under Sarah Palin’s carpet. We’ve been titillated with various political skullduggery and shootouts. We’ve seen endless loops of the the American flag flying majestically in slo-mo in the background.

But there remains the question: what will these people actually do if elected President? And, of special interest, both because it is critically important in the emerging age of technology and global transformation, as well as because we have not yet heard jack about it in the swirling 24/7 media blitz: where do the two Presidential candidates stand on the role of science in America? As organizers of an event at the Franklin Institute earlier this year emphasized:

“Every Nobel laureate we’ve spoken to has said the same thing: the next four to eight years are critical and the next president has the potential to determine the future health of all life on earth.

On March 11, Bill Gates testified before Congress saying that on the economic front, America “is at a crossroads” and will almost certainly become a second-rate economy without massive attention to science & engineering in schools and changes in government policies toward innovation.”

You might be forgiven, considering the tenor that political debates tend to take in this country, for being pessimistic about the prospects of this issue getting a hearing above the background noise. Yet, against the odds, a dedicated team has been persistent enough to get through to the candidates and score some answers, which were posted three days ago at ScienceDebate2008.

Recognizing both the growing scientific complexity of the challenges that we face, and no doubt also the abysmal record of the current administration in dealing with that reality, the architects of this effort started from the following premise:

“Given the many urgent scientific and technological challenges facing America and the rest of the world, the increasing need for accurate scientific information in political decision making, and the vital role scientific innovation plays in spurring economic growth and competitiveness, we call for a public debate in which the U.S. presidential candidates share their views on the issues.”

Then they posed 14 questions to the candidates and let them speak for themselves. You can read the answers in entirety here. On reading these I was struck forcefully by the sense that the issues being discussed here are not “just” scientific issues, they are the fundamental issues of our time and of this election. This is a wake-up call about the centrality of science and technology to modern global civilization, what is at stake, and how far the USA has fallen behind as a result of the Bush administration’s war on science. The good news is that — if these answers are an indication — both candidates seem to “get it”, and both will be miles ahead of the current administration (which, admittedly, is not saying much). They will surely have different approaches to addressing the challenges but, for example, both recognize the urgency of man-made climate change and support substantive measures to curb warming.

Will this make a difference? Do American voters actually care about science? At least in a generic sense, it appears that they do. According to a poll by Lake Research Partners conducted for Scientists and Engineers for America:

There’s a little food for thought that crossed my radar screen recently.

Our beloved television and cable media seem to have bit hook, line, and sinker on the GOP bait to make this election a high-school homecoming contest between the democratic candidate for President and the Republican candidate for Vice-President.

Hey, she’s colorful! She’s cute! And, as her would-be boss is fond of telling adoring audiences, her husband — are you ready — won a really long snowmobile race! If you don’t think that qualifies her to be leader of the free world, you must be one of those eastern elitists that reads newspapers instead of listening to talk radio. And heck, we’ve never before had a “moose-hunting creationist in go-go boots” (as the BBC recently called her, really) for Vice President. What a hoot that would be!

You do have to give her credit for reading her talking points (over, and over, and over . . .) with relish. She’s pretty lively on the stump. But there is the little complication of the content of her speeches. We’ve heard the claim that Sarah Palin is a reformer that sailed into Alaska with both guns blaring and cleaned the place out, right? She’s a new breed of anti-corruption type, right?

Um, no.

Once you look under the lipstick (sorry, couldn’t resist) you see something alarmingly familiar. First, there is the line from her convention speech, repeated endlessly at campaign appearances elsewhere, about saying “thanks but no thanks” to the notorious Bridge to Nowhere. As critics quickly noted, she was “for it before she was against it“, and then after it became clear that the thing was a loser politically, she jumped ship and abandoned the bridge, but kept the pork money! Can you say, “no new taxes”? But here’s the kicker: she’s still saying it! This is what, if the other side were making the claim, conservatives would call “bearing false witness against your neighbor”.

Perhaps that particular family value is no longer convenient in the Republican machine. You can certainly understand their willingness to let it slip given how enormously successful bald-faced lies turned out to be during the swift boat campaign in 2004 (and the same sleazeball who engineered that one is counting on a reprise with his latest shotgun-blast-in-the-back, “Obama-Nation“).

The problem with this effective but highly unsavory strategy is that John McCain has staked his entire reputation on being different, and on modeling an integrity that has been all too scarce among the Karl Roves and Scooter Libbys and Jack Abramoffs and Tom DeLays and Duke Cunninghams and Larry Craigs of his party in recent years. I had a lot of respect for John McCain in 2004 and actually would have considered voting for him. Alas, it appears that the “straight talk express” has jumped the tracks and crashed, mortally injuring all on board, and is likely to take the rest of us down with it.

As Tom Friedman recently wrote of the McCain campaign:

“It’s a campaign now built on turning everything possible into a cultural wedge issue — including even energy policy, no matter how stupid it makes the voters and no matter how much it might weaken America.

I respected McCain’s willingness to support the troop surge in Iraq, even if it was going to cost him the Republican nomination. Now the same guy, who would not sell his soul to win his party’s nomination, is ready to sell every piece of his soul to win the presidency.”

Then there is the reformer claim. As the NY Times reports:

“Interviews show that Ms. Palin runs an administration that puts a premium on loyalty and secrecy. The governor and her top officials sometimes use personal e-mail accounts for state business; dozens of e-mail messages obtained by The New York Times show that her staff members studied whether that could allow them to circumvent subpoenas seeking public records.

Rick Steiner, a University of Alaska professor, sought the e-mail messages of state scientists who had examined the effect of global warming on polar bears. (Ms. Palin said the scientists had found no ill effects, and she has sued the federal government to block the listing of the bears as endangered.) An administration official told Mr. Steiner that his request would cost $468,784 to process.

When Mr. Steiner finally obtained the e-mail messages — through a federal records request — he discovered that state scientists had in fact agreed that the bears were in danger, records show.

“Their secrecy is off the charts,” Mr. Steiner said.”

Is it just me or does this sound exactly like the people that have dominated both the White House and Congress for most of the last eight years? This is what the Republican party is trying to pass off as “change”?

As Harry Truman memorably said, “I wonder how many times you have to be hit on the head before you find out who’s hitting you? It’s about time that the people of America realized what the Republicans have been doing to them.”

Seems to me this country could use a community organizer in its top ranks. I’ve pretty much had it with Governors.

Among the thorniest problems of transforming global society into a sustainable one is that of transportation. For general power needs of homes and industry, the technology already exists to generate electricity from renewable sources like wind and solar, albeit not on the scale currently possible from fossil fuels. The challenge involves scaling this technology up, distributing the power, and aggressively enhancing efficiency to bring energy consumption down enough that a diverse, large-scale renewable energy industry can satisfy it.

But what about planes, trains, and automobiles? OK, mainly planes and automobiles, since many trains can run on electricity. How will we power the zillions of cars on the road when a giant electric battery can only get you 40 miles or so?

There is a way to get to this Better Place and it is indeed based on battery-powered electric vehicles. The key to making it work is establishing a comprehensive national infrastructure that involves electricity generation from renewable sources, optimization of an efficient battery and electric car designs, and a network of charging stations and battery exchange stations. Shai Agassi and colleagues at Better Place are on it.  Here’s the dope:

“In addition to widely deployed charge spots, the Better Place network will provide fully-automated battery exchange stations. These swap stations are designed to extend the driver’s journey beyond the 100 mile range of a fully-charged battery. Because most of today’s driving is within 40 miles of the home, a visit to one of these facilities will be infrequent when compared to the number of times we currently have to pull into a gas station.

These Better Place battery exchange stations are even more efficient and convenient than conventional gas stations. Each is roughly the size of your average living room. Like the charging spots, they are fully automated. A driver pulls in, puts the car in the neutral gear, and sits back. The battery exchange station does all the work. The depleted battery is removed, and a fully-charged replacement is installed. In under three minutes, the car is back on the road. It’s just like an automatic car wash—a quick, effortless, drive-through experience.”

But that’s could never work economically, right? There’s a precedent:

“The Better Place business model is one most of us already experience every day—with our mobile phones. Think of it like this: we pay mobile providers for minute-by-minute access to cell towers connected together in cellular networks. Truth is, we pay comparatively little—or next to nothing—for the phones themselves. After all, what you’re really buying is air time, not a box with buttons. The same model works for transportation. Just replace the phone with an electric car, replace the cell towers with battery recharge stations, and replace the cellular networks with an electric recharge grid. Now you’re buying miles, not minutes.

Better Place’s model means consumers subscribe to transportation as a service, much like they do today with mobile phones. Auto companies make the electric cars that plug in to the Better Place electric recharge network of charging stations and battery swap stations. Energy companies provide the network’s power through growing renewable energy projects. And Better Place provides the batteries to make owning an electric car affordable and convenient.”

Seem like pie in the sky? Ford doesn’t think so. Toyota has plans for plug-in hybrids soon and all-electric vehicles within a decade. And in China, they’re developing cars that use solar energy. Even ol’ Texas oilman T. Boone Pickens is on the bandwagon.

Which raises a question: What was that frenzied mob screaming “Drill, baby drill!” at the Republican National Convention thinking?