MindFull

By Matthew Barr, SPUSA Summer Intern

Last Friday, Manik Roy, Director of Congressional Affairs of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, spoke to SPUSA students about climate change and opportunities for cutting carbon emissions in the new administration. He explained the enormous threat posed by climate change and then discussed the potential solutions.

First, Dr. Roy pointed out that climate change is happening, in spite of the opinions of a large number of Americans. Though there may be a couple of remaining scientists who believe that climate change is not caused by human activity, the vast majority of scientists and almost all peer-reviewed scientific literature assume that climate change is occurring.  He noted that this degree of consensus in the scientific community is rare, even with some apparently obvious issues.  He then briefly discussed some of the potential consequences of climate change, including heat waves and flooding, which could be disastrous, especially in impoverished areas of the globe.  Unfortunately, the high point of U.S. response to climate change was back in 1992 when the United States signed and ratified the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change.  Since then, the United States has not ratified any treaties or passed domestic legislation requiring reductions in carbon emissions.

However, Dr. Roy thinks we may be close to a legislative tipping point.  To support this he cited previous major environmental legislation, which has started with recognition of the problem in the scientific community, followed by increasing public awareness of the issue until finally a major event, such as toxic chemicals in the Love Canal, catalyses Congressional action.  Though, of course, nobody wishes for a crisis, Dr. Roy thinks that it may be possible that a critical climate change event could happen soon, perhaps with the potential thaw of the North Pole this summer.

Even now, there is significant political-will to take mandatory action to stem climate change emissions.  The recent Lieberman-Warner Bill, though unsuccessful, demonstrated that there is a majority in the Senate favoring a cap-and-trade system.  Forty-eight senators voted for the bill, and an additional six said they would have voted for it had they been present.  Roy explained the benefits of a cap-and-trade system similar to that proposed by the Lieberman-Warner Bill, noting that it sets a mandatory limit on the amount of carbon-emissions that can be produced, but leaves it to the market to determine which companies can afford to pay for the right to emit carbon, and which companies cannot.  This system would provide a strong incentive for innovation since by creating cleaner technologies, companies could save money by producing less carbon, either because they would have to buy fewer carbon “permits” or because they could sell their excess carbon “permits” to other companies.

While Roy admitted that there is no silver bullet to solve climate change, technologies like carbon sequestration, low carbon fuels, and nuclear energy could all help to limit carbon emissions.  Advances in these and other clean technologies encouraged by an effective cap-and-trade system might just stem the tide of climate change.

Questions: How can we encourage profit-driven companies to reduce emissions when reducing emissions could be very costly to these companies? What are the advantages and disadvantages of a cap-and-trade system compared to a carbon tax? Since climate change is an international problem, what can we do to ensure that emissions are reduced not just in the United States but across the world?

Written by Katherin Santoro, SPUSA summer intern

Last week, Scientists and Engineers for America (SEA) released the results of its nation-wide poll on how science and technology issues might impact voting in the upcoming presidential and congressional elections. The aim of the poll was to see if (and how much) American voters care about science, and the results were overwhelmingly positive.

It found that the majority of voters, in nearly all demographic groups and across party-lines, would be more likely to vote for a candidate that is committed to making advancements in science and technology policy issues, such as health care, global climate change, and science education programs. The poll, which was conducted in mid-June and reached over 1,000 voters, is a part of SEA’s broader campaign (along with18 other science organizations) to highlight science issues in the 2008 elections.

According to SEA’s findings, ensuring that students receive a solid education in the sciences is the most important science/tech issue for voters. An overwhelming 86% of those polled indicated that they would be more likely to vote for a candidate that “is committed to preparing students with the skills they need for the 21st Century through public investments in science and technology education.” Furthermore, more than half stated they would be “much more likely” to support such a candidate.

Investing in healthcare proved to be another very important issue for voters. Eighty-four percent of those polled indicated that they would be more likely to vote for a candidate who is “committed to investing in science and technology to help reduce the cost and increase the quality of healthcare.”

On the issues of energy and global climate change, SEA found that “nearly eight in 10 voters say they would be more likely to vote for a candidate who is committed to meeting the demand for energy through public investments in science and technology and 70% say they would be more likely to support a candidate who is committed to addressing global climate change through investments in science and technology.”

Based on the results of this poll, it is clear that Americans take science and tech policy issues very seriously and that candidates must take these issues into consideration if they want to triumph in the upcoming elections.

Visit Student Pugwash USA’s 2008 Science & Technology Election Guide to learn more about where the candidates stand on these issues!

By Matthew Barr, Summer SPUSA Intern

Much has been said in the protracted debate about the merits of using corn-based ethanol for fuel in our country.  Ethanol’s proponents argue that ethanol is a clean, renewable, domestic alternative to oil.  Corn ethanol’s opponents argue that ethanol is inefficient, over-subsidized, and detrimental to food supply.  However, as the New York Times pointed out in a recent article, recent events have added a new element to this debate: Weather.

The recent storms in the Midwest have caused widespread devastation to the nation’s agricultural heartland.  Though current estimates are preliminary, Iowa, the nation’s largest corn producer may have lost as much as 10 percent of its corn crop.  Of course, since ethanol is made from corn, the supply of ethanol has been affected by these developments.  Since the storms, the price of ethanol has jumped 19 percent in a month.  By comparison, a 19 percent jump in the price of gas would increase prices by about 80 cents a gallon, or about $25 per barrel of oil.  Though agricultural disasters like this have been rare recently, since climate change may lead to unpredictable weather, we may see events like this increase in frequency in the future.

Even though ethanol is produced domestically, the supply of corn-ethanol may not be as stable as its supporters often assume.  Uncontrollable events like flood and drought can have as significant an impact on supply and prices as uncontrollable events in unstable foreign countries.  Of course, oil is also subject to weather-related instability; note the dramatic rise in gas prices following Hurricane Katrina.  However, alternative sources of ethanol exist.  Switchgrass, for example, can be used to produce ethanol, is resistant to drought and flooding, and has the additional benefit of being easier to cultivate than corn.  Sugarcane is another potential source of ethanol that could be used to diversify our energy supply so that a single event (natural or otherwise) would have minimal impact on the price of fuel.

The fact is that supplying if our energy needs continue to rise at current rates, providing a stable supply of such a vast amount of energy will be difficult.  Any attempt to create an additional supply source like ethanol or new oil fields will likely have to be part of a broader plan to curb the nation’s demand for energy, either through efficiency or conservation.

Questions:

How can we best deal with the inevitable instability in supply of both oil and ethanol?

How can we best balance our need for food and our need for energy when corn supplies for ethanol or food are limited?

Even taking into account the risk of natural disaster, is corn ethanol a more secure energy source than oil?

Written by Matthew Barr and Katherin Santoro, SPUSA summer interns

On Friday, Howard Straker, professor in the Department of Health Care Sciences and Director of Community Medicine at the George Washington University Physician Assistant Program and Cara James, Senior Policy Analyst for the Race, Ethnicity and Health Care group at the Kaiser Family Foundation, discussed socio-economic and racial disparities in health and healthcare.    The speakers suggested solutions to the health care gap from two different perspectives; Professor Straker focused on the healthcare practice, and Dr. James on the healthcare policy.

First, Professor Straker talked about health and health care disparities from a medical perspective.  Professor Straker emphasized the importance of social determinants of health.  According to him, factors like housing, education, social interaction, and stress play an important role in maintaining good health.  He then pointed out that most of these factors correlate to wealth, especially in the United States.  Thus, there are large disparities in life expectancy, infant mortality rates, and other measures of health between socioeconomic groups in the country.  These differences are startlingly large.  In Louisville, the difference in life expectancy between residents of a neighborhood with an average annual income of $25,000 and residents of a neighborhood with an average income of $75,000 is about 10 years.  For infant mortality rates, the gap is even more striking; the poorer neighborhood’s infant mortality rate is 10 times higher than the richer neighborhood.

However, disparities also exist along racial and ethnic lines, even between people of the same socioeconomic status.  These disparities stem in large part from differences in the quality of treatment that minorities receive.  Professor Straker pointed to three key sources of these inequalities: patient choice, operations of the legal and healthcare system, and racial bias within the medical profession.  These disparities in care are widespread and affect how patients are treated for illnesses ranging from cancer, to diabetes, to heart disease.  Straker concluded by discussing how these disparities can be addressed, noting that some depend on broad societal changes and others can be fixed by changes within the medical profession.

Following Prof. Straker’s assessment, Dr. James began her presentation by explaining the urgency of addressing health care disparities in government now, as they will only continue to grow. According to James, it is predicted that by 2050 ethnic and racial “minorities” will comprise more than more than half of the U.S. population and that states such as California, Texas, and Hawaii have already crossed this threshold

With this is mind, Dr. James discussed the importance of adopting a national health insurance program with universal coverage.  She noted that state-by-state programs that guarantee universal health insurance, such as the program in Massachusetts, while praiseworthy, will have minimal effect because the states that have enacted or are looking to enact them have small minority populations.  However, the states with the largest minority populations are not considering providing universal health care. As such, according to Dr. James, “state-by-state is not the way to go.”

Another huge barrier to more comprehensive and better health care is communication difficulties in LEP (Limited English Proficiency) patients.  The United States is a melting pot, and there is not just a demand for Spanish translators, but also translators of Chinese, Russian, and many other languages.  Communication, James notes is “critically important” for what she calls “culturally competent care.”  Language barriers make it incredibly difficult for patients to make appointments, communicate with doctors, and get the right prescriptions.  While Medicaid patients are legally entitled to a translator, they are often unaware of this right, and health care providers are reluctant to provide translator services.  Furthermore, James notes, legal immigrants are not entitled to receive Medicaid benefits for the first five years they are in the country.  Ironically, it is these patients who need translator services the most.

Cara James closed her speech by asking a question: “Are social policies more important than pills?”  She concluded that social policies are probably more important that pills because they have a preventative effect.  Health care coverage, continuity of medical services and regular doctor visits have the ability to keep patients out of the hospital in the first place.

To learn more about the health care disparities, check out the PBS documentary, Unnatural Causes. To find out more about our upcoming Policy Portal lectures for interns, check out our events page! To learn more about the Barack Obama and John McCain’s views on health care disparities and other science and tech issues check out our 2008 Science and Technology Policy Guide!

Written by Katherin Santoro, SPUSA summer intern

Last Monday, Honda began the mass production of its FCX Clarity, the first car to run entirely on hydrogen-powered fuel cells, according to the New York Times.  The new Honda has the potential to revolutionize the auto industry, as it does not emit any environment-harming pollutants.  Honda describes its new car as a “breakthrough zero emissions vehicle” in Monday’s press release.  Not only could the mass distribution of this car decrease the amount of CO₂ emitted into the atmosphere and help slow climate change, but it could also help stabilize the economy, which is being shaken up by rising gas prices, and decrease our dependence on foreign oil.

Fuel cell technology works by generating a chemical reaction between hydrogen and oxygen in the air, which produces water and electricity.  The electricity is used to power the car’s motor, and the water is emitted from the vehicle in the form of steam.

In comparison with electric cars and hybrids, the advantage of hydrogen fuel cell cars is that they don’t have to recharge for hours and don’t run on electricity, making them more environmentally friendly.  The electricity that electric and hybrid vehicles run on is often produced in coal factories, which emit CO₂ into the atmosphere. With regard to fuel efficiency, there is no comparison: “[The Honda] gets higher fuel efficiency than a gasoline car or hybrid, the equivalent of 74 miles a gallon of gas, according to the company,” says the New York Times.

Don’t get too excited about hydrogen cars yet.  The Japanese automaker only plans to produce 200 cars in the first 3 years, and they cost several hundred thousands of dollars each to manufacture.  Honda, according to its website, says that it will further increase production when the number of hydrogen filling stations increases.  The need for hydrogen filling stations is the biggest issue facing these cars, as there are currently only a few stations scattered around the L.A. area.  In order for hydrogen cars to become mainstream, a huge investment would have to be made in the installation of hydrogen refueling stations throughout the country, especially given that Honda’s FCX Clarity can only drive 280 miles on a tank.

Despite these challenges, John Mendel, executive vice president of American Honda, thinks the prospects are good. “Our customers and dealers share in our vision for a cleaner and more sustainable transportation future, and share in our challenge to embrace a new generation of automotive technology that we think will carry the auto industry and its customers into the future,” said Mendel in the press release.

At a time when gas is over $4 a gallon, U.S.-Middle East relations are strained, and global climate change is making daily headlines, this new technology seems more and more attractive.

Question: Does it make sense to spend millions of dollars to prepare our infrastructure for hydrogen cars (by creating refueling stations, etc.) when we can invest in hybrid/electric cars instead?

Written by Matthew Barr and Katherin Santoro, SPUSA summer interns

Last Friday, Student Pugwash USA hosted its second Policy Portal event of the summer, on the topic “Nuclear Energy: Fight the Power?” Speakers Marvin Fertel, Executive Vice President of the Nuclear Energy Institute and Sharon Squassoni, Senior Associate of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace debated the merits of nuclear power as a solution to the nation’s energy crisis and global climate change.

First, Mr. Fertel showed that nuclear energy currently produces about 20% of the United States’ electricity and about 75% of the nation’s carbon-free energy. He then argued that in order to confront climate change by reducing emissions, we must conserve energy, develop renewable energy, and build more nuclear power plants, especially since there is currently a growing demand for electricity. In addition to the reductions in climate change emissions that would result from a significant expansion in nuclear energy, he noted several other advantages of nuclear power, including the fact that, unlike other types of power plants, nuclear plants produce electricity constantly and do not emit harmful particulates or oxides of sulfur and nitrogen.

However, Mr. Fertel did acknowledge several serious common criticisms of nuclear power, including concerns about safety, proliferation, and waste. In his opinion, the nuclear industry in this country is thoroughly regulated, especially following the Three Mile Island incident. He also discussed nuclear waste, which, though extremely toxic, can be stored at least for the immediate future on-site or in an underground repository. He concluded by saying that though there is no single solution to climate change and the growing demand for energy, nuclear power can be a step in the right direction.

Next, Ms. Squassoni discussed the security and proliferation risks of nuclear power. She began by asking the audience whether John McCain’s proposal to introduce 45 new nuclear reactors in the United States was a proliferation threat. She then explained that these reactors would pose no proliferation threat because they are going to be built in the United States, not abroad, and emphasized that “this is not a pro/anti [nuclear energy] discussion.”

The nuclear energy debate, she noted, has been brought to the forefront again because many countries are seeking to either start or expand their nuclear energy programs. After the Three-Mile Island and Chernobyl incidents, several countries suspended their programs; however, with a growing demand for energy, there is now renewed interest, especially given the United States’ drive to find carbon-free energy sources.

The issue is that much of the technology, material and knowledge that is used in peaceful nuclear energy programs is dual-use, meaning it could also be used to develop a nuclear weapon. Under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), states are permitted to develop peaceful nuclear energy programs; however, only relatively minor advances need to be made to move from civilian nuclear power to nuclear weapons.

Ms. Squassoni also pointed out the immediacy of the Iran’s interest in nuclear power: “If you don’t solve Iran now, you will have increasing problems saying “no” to other countries in the future.” The central issue is that under the NPT, Iran, like the other signatories, has the right to develop a civil nuclear program and enrich uranium; however, there is fear that it is using this technology to clandestinely develop nuclear weapons. She suggested an innovative answer to the Iran problem, proposing a “global solution” to nuclear energy. Instead of allowing states to develop their own nuclear energy facilities, multinational facilities would be developed. This, she explained, would help to “level the playing field” and take away the “prestige” from acquiring nuclear energy. From a security standpoint, it would allow countries to benefit from nuclear energy without the proliferation risk.

To find out more about our upcoming Policy Portal lectures for interns, check out our events page! To learn more about the candidates’ views on nuclear power and other science and tech issues check out our 2008 Science and Technology Policy Guide!

By Matthew Barr, Summer SPUSA Intern

Currently in the United States, virtually any doctor can prescribe medication to a patient and safely assume that he or she will be able to go to a pharmacy and purchase the medication.  However, a story in the Washington Post highlighted the fact that some pharmacies are pushing for a more active role in determining which medications and products to provide.  The most contentious issue is whether pharmacies should provide, or should be required to provide, products related to birth control, which some pharmacists find morally objectionable.

Some pharmacists assert that they have the right to sell only those products that they wish to sell.  Indeed, it seems unlikely that anybody would argue that drug stores should be required to carry cigarettes, alcohol, pornography or any other potentially harmful or morally suspect products.  Some pharmacists feel that it follows that they should not be required to provide birth control or Plan B emergency contraception, which some believe to be unhealthy and strongly morally objectionable.

However, patients’ rights advocates are concerned about the potential effect such pharmacies could have on health, particularly women’s health.  In their view, health care decisions, including decisions involving prescription contraceptives, ought to be made mainly, if not entirely, by patients and their doctors.  They assert that pharmacists are bound as health-care professionals to provide medications ordered by doctors and requested by patients and that it is not the role of the pharmacist to make moral judgments about certain treatments for the patient.  This issue becomes particularly acute in rural areas, where women may not be able to travel to alternative pharmacies willing to fill prescriptions for contraceptives.

State governments are beginning to step in to require that pharmacists fill prescriptions, even controversial ones.  Currently, four states have laws on the books requiring that pharmacists fill prescriptions or at least provide information to patients on where they can go to have the prescriptions filled.  An additional ten states are currently considering similar legislation.  However, many of these laws contain significant loopholes.

This debate reveals and helps to explain a deeper patients’ rights issue.  Throughout the medical profession, there has been increasing reluctance to participate in procedures that individuals believe to be morally wrong, even if ordered to by a doctor or higher authority.  Ambulance drivers have refused to transport patients for abortions and fertility doctors have refused to work with same-sex couples.  The deeper issue here is whether the medical profession has a duty to support the decision of doctors and patients in spite of their own opinions.  If they do not, then it may become much more difficult for patients to obtain a wide variety of controversial but legal treatments and procedures.  Additionally, the fundamental assumption that doctors and their patients ought to have the final say in treatment is called into question.  However, if states coerce pharmacists, ambulance drivers, and other members of the medical profession into actions that could be seen as morally wrong, the individual rights of those employees fall into serious jeopardy.

Pharmacists are required by the Pharmacists’ Code of Ethics to respect personal and cultural differences among their patients and to respect their autonomy.  In the Pharmacists’ oath, pharmacists swear to uphold the highest moral conduct.  These are core principles that extend beyond pharmacists, into the entire healthcare system.  Choosing between personal morals and respect for the decisions of others when the two conflict is extremely difficult, especially in an area where moral beliefs are strongly held.

Co-written by Matthew Barr and Katherin Santoro, SPUSA summer interns

Last Thursday, Student Pugwash USA held the first of its summer lectures for interns as a part of its Policy Portal Series, which aims to address the importance of science and technology policy issues in the upcoming elections. The lecture, Science, Technology, and the 2008 Elections, which was co-hosted with Scientists and Engineers for America, addressed topics ranging from the lack of integration between the science and policy worlds, to the shortage of young researchers in the National Institutes of Health and the difficulty in transitioning from a career in science to a career in science policy.

Henry Kelly, the president of the Federation of American Scientists and former Assistant Director for Technology in the Office of Science and Technology under President Bill Clinton, was the first to speak. Kelly, who earned his Ph.D. from Harvard University in Physics, began by explaining how he got into science policy and some of the difficulties in transitioning from a job in science to a job in science policy. He explained that it was largely chance that brought him to work on the Hill, and he advised interns interested in science policy to just “jump in the pool.” The dilemma, according to Kelly, is that there aren’t enough good science policy programs at the university level. To work in science policy, he explains, not only do you need the capacity to understand the technical basis of all the issues, but you also need to understand the legal and political framework of the system. “You need to know how to speak about [technical issues] in a clear way to the press or policy people.”

Kelly continued by addressing several of the important science issues that will be faced by the next president. According to Kelly, it is almost “impossible to find a major public issue without a connection to science or technology.” The role of the U.S. economy in global markets is dominated by innovation, he explained, and if the United States does not continue to lead in scientific innovation, it will not lead the world economically. He also cited the importance of science policy in national security issues, including the need for technical superiority in intelligence, defense, and health care. However, Kelly put the most emphasis on the reform of U.S. energy and environmental policy. He applauded both presidential candidates for their calls to reduce CO₂ emissions and called for an energy revolution that would be on par with “the industrial revolution.” This type of change, he noted, “will not happen without technological innovation.”

Kelly ended his speech by emphasizing the importance of the upcoming elections, which he described as being the most “crucial” in a long time. It is an opportunity for America to “reclaim technological innovation,” increase the funding of federal research programs, and bring back integrity to science.

Congressman Rush Holt followed Dr. Kelly’s appeal for better science policy with an appeal for closer links between scientists and policymakers. Throughout his career in Congress, Rep. Holt has been a champion of science, making the case for better government funding for scientific research and better scientific education in America. He has also worked to reestablish the Office of Technological Assessment, which, as he noted, performed important evaluations and research that continue to be relevant to this day.

Rep. Holt, also a Ph.D. physicist, expressed concern with the general lack of scientific knowledge among his colleagues, noting that there are, at most, 15 trained scientists in Congress, as opposed to much larger numbers of lawyers, economists, and other specialists. Compounding this problem, Rep. Holt argued, is a lack of good science advice to Congress, stemming in part from the defunding of the Office of Technology Assessment in 1995. Rep. Holt also noted a general reluctance in Congress to discuss the scientific side of important issues ranging from energy, to healthcare, to the economy, demonstrated by a lack of scientific testimony at many hearings. Without an understanding of the scientific components of these issues, effective policymaking will prove difficult.

In short, both Rep. Holt and Dr. Kelly made compelling cases for increasing attention to science policy. Hopefully their appeals will be heeded, both in the 2008 campaign and beyond.

To find out more about our upcoming Policy Portal lectures for interns, check out our events page! To learn more about science issues and the upcoming elections, check out our 2008 Science and Technology Policy Guide!

Written by Katherin Santoro, SPUSA summer intern

While most policy discussion on global climate change is dominated by its impact on terrestrial environments, a recent article in Science Magazine explains that marine environments may be even more at risk. A whopping 99% of marine environments studied in the Nobel prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel Climate Change (IPCC) Report were affected by climate change, suggesting that aquatic systems may be “extremely vulnerable” to global climatic disruption.

Despite the fact that ocean temperatures are changing at a slower rate than air temperatures, new evidence suggests that marine organisms may be impacted more quickly by temperature changes compared to terrestrial organisms, making the situation even more urgent. In fact, in just the last few decades, there have been shifts of hundreds of kilometers in the habitats of zooplankton, phytoplankton, and fish. Additionally, changes in life-cycle events have been observed in phyto-and zooplankton and breeding in sea turtles and seabirds, with “an advance in seasonal timing by more than 8 days per decade.” These changes have led some to theorize that climate change might have an even more drastic affect on marine organisms. This quicker response can be attributed to the “shorter life cycles of oceanic primary producers (days to weeks) compared with land plants (months to years).”

Not only may marine environments be at extremely high risk to global climate changes, but they are also incredibly under-researched. Of the 28,671 significant biological changes noted in the IPCC report, only 85 occurred in marine and freshwater systems (while the remaining 28,586 occurred in terrestrial systems). This enormous research gap is consistent with the traditional “distribution in global science funding.” In other words, aquatic research is under-resourced, compared to research of other ecosystems. According to Richardson and Poloczanska “this bias arises in part because investigating the ocean realm is generally difficult, resource-intensive, and expensive.” Furthermore, because humans are removed from oceanic environments, our capacity to observe changes is diminished.

Despite the fact that these changes are occurring so quickly in marine environments, scientists say that because of certain ocean dynamics, they may be practically irreversible, taking tens of thousands of years of years to re-equilibrate.

Questions: Should the funding of aquatic research programs be increased? What if that means decreasing research on the effects of global climate change on terrestrial environments?

By Matthew Barr, Summer SPUSA Intern

According to the Los Angeles Times, the federal government applied for a license Tuesday to build a dump for the nation’s growing stock of nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.  The proposed dump, which would hold 70,000 metric tons of hazardous radioactive waste, has been the subject of bitter contention between proponents of nuclear energy who argue that a safe site is needed to store waste from the growing number of nuclear reactors and opponents of the site, who argue that transportation of nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain and storage at the site itself present unacceptable environmental and security risks.

The essential problem arises from the fact that radioactive waste from nuclear weapons and nuclear power plants is extremely hazardous to human health and can remain so for tens of thousands of years.  Currently, radioactive waste is stored at more than 120 locations across the country, often near the reactors at which it was produced.  These locations are designed to be temporary facilities for containing nuclear waste, and, according to the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, will not withstand natural forces for the thousands of years that the waste remains hazardous.  However, critics of the proposed Yucca Mountain facility argue that the waste could escape in the event of an earthquake or if water reached the repository.

If no suitable solution to the problem of nuclear waste can be found, these problems will only grow worse.  As global warming becomes an increasing problem, demand for carbon-free energy sources like nuclear power will increase, especially if renewable energy sources like wind and solar cannot be developed quickly enough to satisfy the growing global demand for electricity.  Currently, plans exist for fifteen new nuclear reactors and both major presidential candidates believe that nuclear energy should continue to be part of America’s energy mix, though John McCain is much more explicitly pro-nuclear than Barack Obama.  There are undoubtedly benefits to nuclear energy, but before we embrace it as the solution to America’s energy problem, we should ask whether we are willing to take responsibility and accept the costs, both financial and otherwise, of dealing with radioactive waste.

Questions:
Most forms of energy production pose some sort of environmental risk.  Are the risks posed by nuclear energy more or less acceptable than coal power plants?  Wind turbines? Hydroelectric dams?

Should we be more willing to accept long-term risks (like eventual leakage of nuclear waste over thousands of years) than short-term risks (like air and water pollution)?

Is the creation of a radioactive waste dump anywhere in the country politically feasible if nearby residents are understandably strongly opposed to a nearby radioactive waste facility?