• Scientists give a big thumbs up to Obama’s environmental plan.

• A handy list of all the biggest “global cooling” hacks, now in bar graph form.

• Poor Tesla. The bad news just keeps on comin’.

• A universal flu vaccine nears completion—but will we have the cash to distribute it?

• Finally, some sliding profits news to be happy about. Oh no wait, never mind.

• Senate decides (thank goodness) that children and health insurance are two things that should really continue to go together.

• But first, bye bye absurd abortion laws!

• The Inauguration killed the Internets! No mere series of tubes can withstand the pressure of this seminal moment in history.

• “BarackBerry,” “ObamaBerry”—call it what you will, we still can’t get over the fact that he’s the first president ever to use e-mail while in office.

• An economist explains why all those hospital procedures cost what they do.

• The trees are dying! The trees are dying!

• OMG! We’re in the White House! Blogging, presidential style.

• No, Virginia, there’s no such thing as truly clean coal.

Physicists, rejoice! (Even more!)

Science magazine is reporting that Obama has chosen to nominate physicist John Holdren as his science adviser. The well-credentialed and -bearded Holdren is currently a professor of environmental policy at Harvard’s Kennedy School, as well as the director of the Science, Technology and Public Policy Program at the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. A top adviser to Obama’s campaign and world renowned expert on climate change, energy policy, and nuclear proliferation, Holdren is the second physicist to join the president-elect’s team, following Nobel Laureate Stephen Chu’s appointment as Secretary of Energy.

Related:
Cosmic Variance: Steven Chu Nominated to be Secretary of Energy

Image: AAAS

Mother Jones has jumped on Obama for what may be the first “reneged promise” of his campaign: assigning a windfall tax to the profits raked in by Big Oil. According to MJ blogger Nick Baumann, a transition team staffer:

The President-elect’s transition team hasn’t explicitly announced it will drop the windfall tax plan, but a transition aide, commenting on the condition he not be identified, backed off the promise in an email. “President-elect Obama announced the [windfall profits tax] policy during the campaign because oil prices were above $80 per barrel,” he said. “They are currently below that now and expected to stay below that.”

Advocacy groups like the American Small Business League—which noticed almost immediately when the discussion of windfall taxes was removed from Obama’s Web site—are bemoaning the fallen tax as a disappointment, while economists (and common sense) note that it now seems far less necessary given that it would bring in substantially less money today than four months ago.

Still, the fact that this debate has arisen at all, before Obama has even taken office, is a testament to the dangers (or maybe just necessary consequences) of using technology for increased government transparency.

Watchdog groups can now police the Internet for early indications of a policy change, and leap on something as (seemingly) small as a single proposal to publicize a decision from the administration. Of course, the fact that Obama’s people are promptly removing now-dead proposals from the site in the first place is a pretty reassuring testament to the operation’s integrity as a whole.

Ever since global warming awareness rose to the international level, there’s been quiet but persistent tittering among experts over whether climate change might actually be good for some regions. Given that the biggest of these regions has always been Russia, it’s not a huge shock that Russia Today jumped on the recent U.S. intelligence report “Global Trends 2025: A Transformed World.” In particular, the Russian press loved the report’s claim that within the next 17 years, Russia’s profit from climate change will be the biggest in the world.

From the article:

One of the reasons is the expected lengthening of the sowing term, but the key factor would be an easier access to oil and gas fields in Siberia and in the North, including the Arctic shelf. This will be a great success for the Russian economy, according to the NSC report, and the Arctic waterway would also open huge prospects for Russia.

However, the authors of the study warn of the possible threats: the infrastructure of Russia’s Arctic territories may be destroyed, and also new technologies may be needed to exploit fuel fields in the area.

Yeah, there’s always that downside…

Related:
RB: 20 Years Later, Andy Revkin Responds to Groundbreaking Global Warming Story
RB: Global Warming Denial in the Senate: The Latest Chapter

Now that the worldwide euphoria over Obama’s victory is abating, it’s time to look at some dismal facts: The air is still thick with pollution, the globe is still warming, and the science community is in a frenzy over who the president-elect will choose to head up the battered, broken EPA.

The short and distinguished list of candidates includes include former Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection head Kathleen McGinty; California Air Resources Board chairwoman Mary Nichols; Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection head Ian Bowles; Kansas governor Kathleen Sibelius; New Jersey environmental commissioner Lisa Jackson; and, finally, environmental lawyer, activist, and prolific blogger Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

While all are talented and have the potential to breathe life into the foundering agency, the one receiving the biggest pounding is Kennedy. Across the Internet, science writers have lambasted the longtime environmentalist for his alleged “anti-science” views—in particular, his public criticism of vaccines.

There’s no question that Kennedy has been vocal in his campaign against the CDC, particularly regarding its stance on Thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative. In 2005, he published a controversial piece in Salon charging that the government had concealed data showing that Thimerosal-containing vaccines were harmful. Critics excoriated the article, and Kennedy has since been labeled a traitor to science and affixed with the anti-vaxer label.

Still, the reality isn’t quite so simple. While Kennedy has indeed pointed accusatory fingers at certain vaccine practices—and has fallen victim to the “hand-picked studies” effect on at least one occasion—the charges that he’s a full-on anti-vaxer are incorrect and arguably irrelevant.

The distinction is this: Kennedy’s focus has been on making vaccines “safe” (i.e. Thimerosal-free), not eliminating them. This position is in contrast to that of many anti-vaxers, who dangerously assert that the MMR vaccine causes autism and other health problems, despite the lack of valid scientific evidence for their theory. While he charges the CDC with making poor choices, he has repeatedly stated that he remains pro-vaccine.

On the environmental side (the one that’s most germane to his ability to run the EPA), Kennedy has a 25-year career that includes some impressive achievements, including founding the Waterkeeper Alliance, winning nearly $200 million in damages against DuPont for waste-dumping, and cleaning up the Hudson River. His resume also includes advances in cleantech, alternative energy, and emissions reductions.

Is he the right man for the job? Perhaps not. The jury is still out—and may never reach a consensus—on whether he’s been right about a single Thimerosal claim, and the fact remains that Kennedy and his campaign against Thimerosal have been used as ammunition in the larger, pointless fight against vaccines—a fact he’s no doubt aware of. Still, when we’re debating an issue as crucial as this one, it’s worth scrutinizing the details before jumping on any bandwagons.

The Democrats have retaken the White House for the first time in nearly a decade—and the happy afterglow is already fading. Gristmill reports that punches are being thrown between John Dingell (D-Mich.) and Henry Waxman (D-Calif.). The grand prize for this heavyweight bout is chairmanship of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

Dingell, the current chairman, tossed out a few left hooks at Waxman, his challenger, on the radio last week, calling Waxman an “anti-manufacturing left-wing Democrat” with a “serious lack of understanding of people in the auto industry and manufacturing generally.” Meanwhile, both men claim to have enough votes for the post.

This would all be yet another amusing example of political infighting, except that the committee at stake has principal responsibility for legislative oversight of things like public health, air quality, the environment, and the nation’s energy supply. Dingell, who is 82 and has been in Congress since 1955 (we won’t even get started on how different a place it was back then) is known for being significantly more moderate than Waxman, and for garnering the support of leaders in industries like autos and mining. Whether that’s a reason to support him or not remains to be seen.

None too soon, the experts have begun weighing in on what President-Elect Obama should do regarding climate and energy policy. Even better, Obama’s transition team has put together a list of around 200 Bush policies to be kicked to the curb ASAP. They include gems like reversing the limit on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research, and ditching a rule that stops U.S. aid-receiving family planning groups from informing women about the availability of abortion.

The biggest slashes, so far anyway, have been saved for Bush’s environmental policies. As the Washington Post reports, Obama has announced his intention to “quickly reverse the Bush administration’s decision last December to deny California the authority to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from automobiles.” There’s also the undoing of the executive order that opens public lands to oil drilling, as well as social/economic moves like closing Guantanamo and tossing a life preserver to GM (though whether that’s a good idea remains to be seen).

Related:
RB: Obama & McCain Answer DISCOVER’s Questions on the Environment
RB: What Must the Next President Do to Save Science? DISCOVER’s Science Policy Project 2008

The new president-elect promises to usher in a “new era of scientific innovation” (of course, exactly how much funding that will entail/receive remains to be seen).

Alternative-energy industries, shrug off your wounds—there may yet be hope on the horizon.

Stem cell researchers, re-start your engines.

Another huge winner last night: The Internet.

Also consider it a huge win for academia: The president-elect, his vice president, and both their spouses have all worked in higher education.

The Senate and the House didn’t do so badly either.

And we hate to do this, but here’s the bad news.

For the past few weeks, we’ve been posting thoughts from some of the biggest names in science regarding what the next U.S. president needs to do to promote/engender/rescue science in this country. And luckily, we’re not the only ones hammering away at this issue. Last week, scientists, business leaders, and policymakers gathered in Minnesota to discuss the future of science at the Innovation 2008 Conference. Here’s a report on what went down, from guest blogger and conference participant Darlene Cavalier.

“Everybody supports science, motherhood and apple pie, but when it comes to funding, it’s a different story,” IEEE-USA President Russ Lefevre told a national audience last week at Innovation 2008: Renewing America through Smarter Science & Technology Policy.

The event was co-hosted by Science Debate 2008 and the Center for Science, Technology and Public Policy at the University of Minnesota’s Humphrey Institute. It presented public sessions on critical issues facing the next United States president, including: Innovation and Competitiveness; Renewing Science, Technology, Engineering and Math Education; Health Science Policy; Integrating Science and Technology in America’s Artistic and Civic Culture; and Energy Security and Sustainability.

“Energy and broadband are two critical fields where more attention is warranted,” Lefevre stressed. So what’s the sharpest thorn in these areas? Access.

The first step, the experts agreed, is to create Smart Grid technologies that can help manage the delivery of electricity better, and a national transmission grid to help open access to wind and solar resources.

Efforts are already underway to increase access to broadband. The recent market bailout bill authorized funds for the first-ever census of the gaps in U.S. broadband coverage. The U.S. has dropped from fourth place in broadband adoption to 15th among 30 developed nations, and we pay twice as much for broadband service that’s six times slower than Japan’s.

Several participants suggested that one of the top priorities of the new presidential administration should be to fully fund the America Competes Act, which calls for doubling the budgets of the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy’s Office of Science, the National Institutes of Standards and Technology, and other federal research departments.

Greatly increased funding for research is unlikely, however, as “the broader budget choices policymakers make will constrain future investments in R&D,” said Kei Koizumi from the American Association for the Advancement of Science. “FY 2009 has started, but only three of nine federal departments [Dept. of Defense, Dept. of Homeland Security, and the Veterans Administration] have their final 2009 budgets.” To see more trends in federal funding, click here.

All this funding is even less likely to happen without public support. Science writer Chris Mooney moderated a panel discussion on Science and Culture, in which panelists (including this blogger) presented creative approaches to engaging the public in science. The list included: Blending science with the arts, encouraging average citizens to participate in research projects, and creating mechanisms for scientists to communicate directly with the public.

Related:
RB: Discover’s Science Policy Project

Image: Sophia Ginis [Left to Right: Panel participants Darlene Cavalier, Shawn Lawrence Otto, Matthew Chapman, Lawrence Krauss, Chris Mooney, Erik Beeler, Sheril Kirshenbaum]

There’s a lot of talk about “green jobs” in this election. But for all the questions raised by the phrase—just how many jobs will be generated, where will they come from, how fast will they get here—so far we’ve had few definite answers.

Which is why it’s helpful to have at least one state paving the way as an example of how to incorporate energy efficiency and “greening” into the economic scheme, and save money and create jobs in the process. The state in question is California, and according to a new study out of U.C. Berkeley, its planned investments in fighting global warming and improving energy efficiency will create as many as 403,000 jobs and jack up household incomes by $48 billion in the next 12 years. These results are a big jump even from the state’s own estimates, which were around 100,000 new jobs and $14 billion in personal income.

The key to the mystical “green job,” according to the Berkeley study, is reallocation: When people use less energy, they spend less on energy bills, and thus have more cash to spend on other things, like consumer products. Cue economic growth and job creation.

So by “green jobs,” under this definition, we’re talking not only about jobs created by boosting the state’s renewable power and alternative fuel companies, but also jobs in other sectors that spring forth because of increased wealth created by lower energy use.

The effects of lower energy consumption will be so great, study author David Roland-Holst argues, that they’ll happen even if California’s planned cap and trade system (a system that’s also supported by both presidential candidates) causes electricity prices to rise.

Of course, this is all prediction: How things actually go down remains to be seen. But in the midst of all the economic gloom and doom for the green tech sector, it’s nice to have a little good news once in a while.

Related:

RB: Obama & McCain Answer DISCOVER’s Questions on the Environment
80Beats: What Does the Economic Crisis Mean for the Green Tech Sector?

Image: iStockPhoto

So we’ve been driving a lot less, which is good. We’ve also been shifting attitudes about oil as a resource and adjusting our lives to consume less of it, which is even better. And we’ve been lavishing more time and attention (and money) on alternative energy, which is best of all.

But now oil prices are plummeting as fast as they rose, and analysts are worried that all those silver linings will be ripped out and tossed aside. As the economy grinds to a halt and the government doles out $700 billion checks, Time’s Bryan Walsh wonders if alternative fuel initiatives—and, for that matter, any climate change legislation—might be shoved to the back of the line behind our bubbling economic woes.

Even if the gas price dip is temporary and/or U.S. consumption habits remain changed, the credit and spending slashes that are already underway could put the kibosh on funding for many alt-energy projects, as Walsh points out. Plus there’s the matter of gas prices as a source of political leverage: The Warner-Lieberman bill, Congress’ first real attempt to pass cap-and-trade legislation, was defeated when Republicans throttled it with the charge that carbon caps would lead to even higher oil prices.

Granted, when world markets are bouncing up and down like bungee jumpers and phrases like “global economic meltdown” are standard fare in the headlines, there’s no guarantee that the price of oil (or the price of anything) will stay where it is. And it’s too soon to write off Americans as “entitled saps” who’ll toss the Prius they bought when prices hit $4 a gallon and buy a Hummer as soon as the number is back down to $2.50. But as with just about everything in the modern world, we really have no clue how the oil mess is going to pan out. So we may as well do the best we can—and “greening the bailout” is as good a place as any to start.

For all those climate change activists celebrating (rightfully, in our view) the steep gas price increase as a means of forcing U.S. drivers to stop guzzling fossil fuels, here’s more good news: As the Climate Progress blog notes, Americans drove 9.6 billion fewer miles, or 3.6 percent less, in July 2008 than July 2007, putting 2008 on track to hit the largest dip in vehicle-driven miles since 1983. Which, from a glass-half-full perspective, means that all those potential fuel emissions are staying out of the air … or, from a glass-half-empty view, that we’re careening towards the end of civilization as we know it. Which in and of itself would probably be good for the Earth—if not so good for us.

Image: iStockphoto 

EcoGeek’s Hank Green notes that while nothing could touch the 500 mph freefall of bank stocks last week, the stocks that took a surprising second-worst hit were solar. Green’s reasoning for this, which we agree with, is that the solar industry was a victim of seriously bad timing: Just as renewable energy tax credits—which have been floundering in political quicksand for months—were finally passed in the Senate, a host of mega-banks decombusted, leaving the House with the small task of saving the American economy from collapse.

With elections coming up, the session nearing a close, and words like “Great Depression” in the daily headlines, members of Congress were suddenly far less likely to turn their attention to a bill that won’t lower gas prices or save the markets from implosion.

Still, there’s good news in every disaster: In a flash of redemption, yesterday the Senate added the renewable energy credits to the latest incarnation of the bailout, which passed in the Senate last night and will “almost certainly” pass in the House, as Clusterstock’s John Carney told DISCOVER. So maybe it’s not wise to unload those solar stocks (or any other stocks, for that matter) just yet.

While there’s little doubt the economy will be the defining issue in this election, the candidates’ positions on environmental issues can’t be downplayed (after all, what good are $700 billion bailouts if our coastlines are underwater). With the goal of keeping the environment front and center during this election season, best-selling author and DISCOVER contributor Thomas Kostigen put five questions to the two candidates, on topics including climate change, the dwindling water supply, hazardous waste, alt-energy investments, and the private sector’s role in contributing to the clean-up.

As you may recall, both Obama and McCain recently answered 14 questions on science policy from ScienceDebate 2008. While the Obama camp’s answers concerning climate change and alt-energy investments are largely consistent with what ScienceDebate received, this time he includes more detail, including his plans for allocation of the revenue generated by cap-and-trade auctions as well as his proposal to create a $10 billion venture capital fund to bolster clean technology development.

Similarly, McCain’s responses on energy and global warming echo what he told ScienceDebate, including his pledge to instate permanent alt-energy tax breaks (a promise that Obama makes as well) and a vow to “lead by example” in the “greening of the federal government.”

Questions to Barack Obama

TK: Ensuring an adequate water supply is a huge issue, arguably a bigger challenge than energy. Recent estimates say we are going to have to increase our supply of freshwater by 20 percent in the next 20 years to meet world demand. Two-thirds of the world’s population will experience water shortages by 2025. Meanwhile, the Clean Water Act hasn’t been updated since 1972. What plans do you have for addressing the freshwater issue?

BO: Water quality and availability are critical issues for America and the world. An Obama administration will put water issues—both quantity and quality—at the top of our environmental agenda.

My family and I have lived near one of the world’s most precious freshwater treasures, Lake Michigan, for nearly 20 years. I understand how clean water can make a difference in people’s lives and a community’s economic health. I have seen beaches close because of pollution. As a result, I worked to understand and address the root causes of beach closings, including polluted runoff and sewage overflows that limit the time families can spend along some of our most treasured coasts.

It’s time to revitalize the Clean Water Act. I am troubled by recent court rulings that have confused rather than clarified federal jurisdiction over “waters of the United States,” including environmentally sensitive wetlands critical to maintaining supplies of clean freshwater. I will support efforts to ensure that federal protection of the nation’s waters is strengthened, not weakened. As president, I will also work to restore funding to the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) and other programs aimed at improving the quality of our nation’s lakes, rivers, and drinking water.

TK: While the number of landfills in the United States has shrunk over the past 20 years from 8,000 to 1,700, we now create twice as much waste. Do you have any plans to create incentives for manufacturers to develop environmentally friendly products? And how should we deal with the growth of hazardous consumer waste, including electronics and compact fluorescent light bulbs?

BO: Waste—household and hazardous—represents an ongoing challenge to the United States. I believe we need incentives to minimize waste production and promote much more recycling. We can do this by more aggressively using the federal laws that regulate waste disposal and product manufacture so that we use fewer toxic chemicals, generate less manufacturing waste, and reduce packaging materials. We can also challenge manufacturers of computers, printers, and other electronic equipment to more effectively take back these products when they are discarded so that their components can be reused rather than shipped to landfills.

TK: What are your plans for alternative-energy investments and research, as well as for the tactical implementation of different power sources?

BO: I have committed to a broad array of incentives that would engage the private sector in developing alternative energy. Moving toward a clean-energy future will require galvanizing the American people and harnessing our spirit of innovation. I will invest $150 billion over 10 years to advance the next generation of biofuels and fuel infrastructure, accelerate the commercialization of plug-in hybrids, promote development of commercial-scale renewable energy, invest in low-emissions coal plants, and begin the transition to a new digital electricity grid. A principal focus of this fund will be ensuring that technologies that are developed in the United States are rapidly commercialized here and deployed around the globe. I will double science and research funding for clean-energy projects, including those that make use of our biomass, solar, and wind resources. I will establish a federal investment program to help manufacturing centers modernize and help Americans learn the new skills they need to produce green products. I will create a Clean Technologies Venture Capital Fund to fill a critical gap in U.S. technology development, and I will invest $10 billion per year into this fund for five years. The fund will partner with existing investment funds and our National Laboratories to ensure that promising technologies move beyond the lab and are commercialized in the United States.

TK: During World War II Franklin Delano Roosevelt called upon the automakers in Detroit to do their part for the war and repurpose their facilities to make military equipment. The automakers complied, but it took tough talk and convincing. Do the private sector and the public today need a similar call to arms? If so, what is it?

BO: America does need a new spirit of commitment to a clean-energy future and a cleaner environment. Progress in these key areas depends on strong political leadership, which has been entirely lacking in Washington for too long. In addition, it is critical that we create incentives to guide the private sector toward the innovation required to address our pressing energy and environmental challenges. A good example is the automobile industry, where I would push our manufacturers to make more-efficient vehicles using advanced technologies like plug-in hybrids and would provide tax incentives for consumers to purchase these vehicles and financial assistance to help the industry retool our existing plants to build them.

TK: What is the most imminent danger brought on by climate change, and what are you going to do about it?

BO: The dangers posed by climate change are varied and complex. As a result of climate change, sea levels are rising, storms are becoming more intense, regions are experiencing extended drought, ocean food chains are at risk, and habitat and agricultural patterns around the globe are changing. These serious impacts are under way today. However, the greatest risk to our planet is the prospect of reaching a so-called tipping point in the climate system—like the release of methane in permafrost regions or a shift in the Gulf Stream—that would result in runaway climate change impacts we cannot control or respond to.

I support implementation of an economy-wide cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions by the amount science says is necessary to avoid catastrophic climate change: 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. My proposed cap-and-trade system will require 100 percent auction of credits. Some of the revenue generated by the auction will be used to support the development of clean energy, to invest in energy-efficiency improvements, and to address transition costs, including helping American workers affected by this economic transition. I will also develop domestic incentives that reward forest owners, farmers, and ranchers when they plant trees, restore grasslands, or undertake farming practices that capture carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

Questions to John McCain

TK: Ensuring an adequate water supply is a huge issue, arguably a bigger challenge than energy. Recent estimates say we are going to have to increase our supply of freshwater by 20 percent in the next 20 years to meet world demand. Two-thirds of the world’s population will experience water shortages by 2025. Meanwhile, the Clean Water Act hasn’t been updated since 1972. What plans do you have for addressing the freshwater issue?

JM: As a westerner, I understand the vital role that water plays in the development of western economies and in maintaining a high quality of life. Water is truly our lifeblood. I believe that we must develop, manage, and use our limited water supplies wisely and with a conservation ethic to ensure that we have sufficient supplies to meet municipal, tribal, industrial, agricultural, recreational, and environmental needs. I believe that water rights must be respected, and that disputes are better resolved not in the courts but through negotiations that build consensus. I understand the importance of state law and local prerogatives in the allocation of water resources, and that all levels of government must work together with stakeholders to ensure that our lifeblood is protected, managed, and utilized in a wise, just, and sustainable manner.

The Clean Water Act is one of our most successful environmental laws. As president I will work to develop policies that provide necessary protection of our aquatic resources, build strong and lasting partnerships, and respect local conditions and needs.

D: While the number of landfills in the United States has shrunk over the past 20 years from 8,000 to 1,700, we now create twice as much waste. Do you have any plans to create incentives for manufacturers to develop environmentally friendly products? And how should we deal with the growth of hazardous consumer waste, including electronics and compact fluorescent light bulbs?

JM: I am proud of my long-standing commitment to conserving America’s natural resources and promoting environmental stewardship. I know we face immense environmental challenges that will impact the quality of life we leave our children and future generations. Essential to this commitment is promoting an ethos of conservation across our nation. I will lead by example and will make greening the federal government a priority of my administration. The federal government is the largest electricity consumer on earth and occupies 3.3 billion square feet of space worldwide. It provides an enormous opportunity to lead by example. By applying a higher efficiency standard to new buildings leased or purchased or retrofitting existing buildings, we can save taxpayers money in energy costs and move the construction market in the direction of green technology to reduce waste and consumption.

TK: What are your plans for alternative energy investments and research, as well as for the tactical implementation of different power sources?

JM: I will encourage the market for alternative, low-carbon energy sources as well as wind, hydro, and solar power. According to the Department of Energy, wind could provide as much as one-fifth of our electricity by 2030. The U.S. solar energy industry continued its double-digit annual growth rate in 2006. Also, across the country, water is currently the leading renewable-energy source used by electric utilities to generate electric power. Developing these and other sources of renewable energy will require that we rationalize the current patchwork of temporary tax credits that provide commercial feasibility. I voted against the patchwork of tax credits for renewable power in the past because they were temporary and reflected special interests, not what was the best policy. Because of the urgent need to reform our energy portfolio, I will put in place real support for these sources of energy in the form of permanent credits that are fair, level, and rational, letting the market decide which ideas can move us toward clean and renewable energy.

TK: During World War II Franklin Delano Roosevelt called upon the automakers in Detroit to do their part for the war and repurpose their facilities to make military equipment. The automakers complied, but it took tough talk and convincing. Do the private sector and the public today need a similar call to arms? If so, what is it?

JM: Climate change is the single greatest environmental challenge of our time. The facts of global warming demand our urgent attention, especially in Washington. Not only does our dependence on foreign oil bring about sizable national security risks, but the preponderance of scientific evidence points to the warming of our climate from the burning of fossil fuels. We can no longer deny our responsibility to lead the world in reducing our carbon emissions.

A cap-and-trade system harnesses human ingenuity in the pursuit of alternatives to carbon-based fuels. Market participants are allotted total permits equal to the cap on greenhouse-gas emissions. If they can invent, improve, or acquire a way to reduce their emissions, they can sell their extra permits for cash. The profit motive will coordinate the efforts of venture capitalists, corporate planners, entrepreneurs, and environmentalists on the common motive of reducing emissions.

TK: What is the most imminent danger brought on by climate change, and what are you going to do about it?

JM: The burning of oil and other fossil fuels is contributing to the dangerous accumulation of greenhouse gases in the earth’s atmosphere, altering our climate with the potential for major social, economic, and political upheaval. The world is already feeling the powerful effects of global warming, and far more dire consequences are predicted if we let the growing deluge of greenhouse-gas emissions continue and wreak havoc with God’s creation. A group of senior retired military officers recently warned about the potential upheaval caused by conflicts over water, arable land, and other natural resources under strain from a warming planet.

As president, I will submit to Congress a cap-and-trade system to set clear limits on all greenhouse-gas emissions, while also allowing the sale of rights to excess emissions. We will cap emissions according to specific goals, measuring progress by reference to past carbon emissions. By the year 2012 we will seek a return to 2005 levels of emission; by 2020, a return to 1990 levels; and so on until we have achieved a reduction of at least 60 percent below 1990 levels by the year 2050. In the course of time, it may be that new ideas and technologies will come along that we can hardly imagine today, allowing all industries to change with a speed that will surprise us. More likely, however, there will be some companies that need extra emissions rights, and they will be able to buy them. The system to meet these targets and timetables will give these companies extra time to adapt—and that is good economic policy. The cap-and-trade system will create jobs, improve livelihoods, and strengthen futures across our country.