Today's Article
Thirty-four US Nobel
Laureates have
called on Obama to
fight for his $150
billion Clean Energy
Technology Fund
proposal.
Laureates have
called on Obama to
fight for his $150
billion Clean Energy
Technology Fund
proposal.
The American Spark
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
House Climate Bill Cuts Needed Development, Say Scientists
By Cliff Montgomery - July 20th, 2009
A climate bill which the House of Representatives passed in June will fail to achieve its goals without a sharp
increase in research and development funds, a group of U.S. Nobel Laureates told President Obama in a
memo sent to the White House on July 16th.
The thirty-four laureates specifically called on Obama to fight for his $150 billion Clean Energy Technology
Fund proposal, which the laureates hope will be included in the final climate legislation.
“The stable support this Fund would provide is essential to pay for the research and development needed if
the U.S., as well as the developing world, are to achieve their goals in reducing greenhouse gases at an
affordable cost,” wrote the laureates.
“This stable R&D spending is not a luxury,” they continued. “[I]t is in fact necessary because rapid scientific
and technical progress is crucial to achieving” affordable reductions in both global warming and energy use.
The short letter points out that the House climate bill “provides less than one fifteenth of the amount”
proposed by the president “for federal energy research, development, and demonstration programs.”
The Senate may begin debate on its version of the bill in the next few weeks.
The White House wants to use cap-and-trade system funds to bankroll a Clean Energy Technology Fund, at
an annual cost of $15 billion over the next decade. Obama's Fiscal Year 2010 budget would use the fund to
implement energy technologies and increase research and development--the core of his much-needed “green
jobs” initiative.
By contrast, the House bill “provides no stable, specific funding for sustained research in the Department of
Energy's (DOE) Office of Science, or for the energy research and associated technology development
programs of DOE (at the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Electricity Deliverability, Fossil, and
Nuclear offices),” according to the laureates.
The House legislation would create tech utilization programs for such well-connected but aging industries as oil
refineries, coal and autos, but would only provide 1.5 percent of its funds for energy research and
development. The bill also fails to provide any support for Obama’s proposed Fund.
“This is a dangerous omission,” wrote Burton Richter, Nobel Prize in Physics winner and leader of the
distinguished group of laureates.
“Much can be done with the current generation of technologies. However, study after study has confirmed
that to combine growing prosperity worldwide with sharply reduced production of greenhouse gases will require
technological advances that are possible only through research,” he added.
Like what you're reading so far? Then why not order a full year (52 issues) of the The American Spark e-
newsletter for only $15? A major article covering an story not being told in the Corporate Press will be
delivered to your email every Monday morning for a full year, for less than 30 cents an issue. Order Now!
By Cliff Montgomery - July 20th, 2009
A climate bill which the House of Representatives passed in June will fail to achieve its goals without a sharp
increase in research and development funds, a group of U.S. Nobel Laureates told President Obama in a
memo sent to the White House on July 16th.
The thirty-four laureates specifically called on Obama to fight for his $150 billion Clean Energy Technology
Fund proposal, which the laureates hope will be included in the final climate legislation.
“The stable support this Fund would provide is essential to pay for the research and development needed if
the U.S., as well as the developing world, are to achieve their goals in reducing greenhouse gases at an
affordable cost,” wrote the laureates.
“This stable R&D spending is not a luxury,” they continued. “[I]t is in fact necessary because rapid scientific
and technical progress is crucial to achieving” affordable reductions in both global warming and energy use.
The short letter points out that the House climate bill “provides less than one fifteenth of the amount”
proposed by the president “for federal energy research, development, and demonstration programs.”
The Senate may begin debate on its version of the bill in the next few weeks.
The White House wants to use cap-and-trade system funds to bankroll a Clean Energy Technology Fund, at
an annual cost of $15 billion over the next decade. Obama's Fiscal Year 2010 budget would use the fund to
implement energy technologies and increase research and development--the core of his much-needed “green
jobs” initiative.
By contrast, the House bill “provides no stable, specific funding for sustained research in the Department of
Energy's (DOE) Office of Science, or for the energy research and associated technology development
programs of DOE (at the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Electricity Deliverability, Fossil, and
Nuclear offices),” according to the laureates.
The House legislation would create tech utilization programs for such well-connected but aging industries as oil
refineries, coal and autos, but would only provide 1.5 percent of its funds for energy research and
development. The bill also fails to provide any support for Obama’s proposed Fund.
“This is a dangerous omission,” wrote Burton Richter, Nobel Prize in Physics winner and leader of the
distinguished group of laureates.
“Much can be done with the current generation of technologies. However, study after study has confirmed
that to combine growing prosperity worldwide with sharply reduced production of greenhouse gases will require
technological advances that are possible only through research,” he added.
Like what you're reading so far? Then why not order a full year (52 issues) of the The American Spark e-
newsletter for only $15? A major article covering an story not being told in the Corporate Press will be
delivered to your email every Monday morning for a full year, for less than 30 cents an issue. Order Now!
Wait, why does an
independent news source
run advertisements? The
Spark answers in its
advertising policy.
independent news source
run advertisements? The
Spark answers in its
advertising policy.
* Please check out our ads--they
help keep this news site running.
Thanks!
help keep this news site running.
Thanks!