Science and engineering are essential for providing secure energy supplies and meeting environmental goals at an affordable cost. The risks of growing oil import dependence and the risks of future environmental problems such as climate change are not reflected in the price of energy.

As a result, consumers, businesses, and even government agencies are under-investing in research and under-investing in energy-efficient products and innovative energy resources. Federal leadership is essential to provide both support for research and to create the needed incentives to invest in technologies that produce low-cost energy services and low levels of pollution.

Fortunately, most of the innovations needed to drive US productivity and competitiveness over the coming decades can also result in highly productive use of energy, with minimal waste. Information technology and advanced sensor and control systems, strong and lightweight-materials, nano-technology, bio-technology and other innovations promise to achieve revolutionary gains in manufacturing and deliver better services more efficiently..

Taking advantage of these opportunities requires a well-designed program of research and incentives. But it also demands recognition of the urgency and magnitude of the problem. The Bush administration has minimized or ignored the risks of climate change and other problems and relied on subsidizing existing oil businesses to address our energy problems. President Bush avoided even using the word "environment" in his 2004 State of the Union address. Kerry has been a strong supporter of energy and environmental research throughout his public career and spoke at the first Earth Day conference in March 1970.

The Kerry Plan

Kerry has a detailed program to combine re-invigorated basic research with incentives that encourage US businesses to produce efficient new products and energy sources. He would support:

• Creation of a $20 billion program of incentives that will support development and production of highly efficient automobiles and trucks and a "clean fuels partnership" designed to have 20% of the US highway transportation fuels supplied by domestic resources by 2020 (now 2%).
• Research on renewable energy and tax credits aimed at achieving the goal of producing 20 percent of our electricity from renewable sources, such as wind, solar, geothermal and biomass, by 2020.
• Research on nuclear power and a pledge to base nuclear waste disposal policies on rigorous peer-reviewed science and analysis that leads to public understanding and confidence.
• Strengthening the nonproliferation treaty by making it possible for nations to use nuclear power while maintaining effective international control and inspection of the entire fuel cycle.
• Developing advanced "smart grid" control technologies to ensure the reliability of the electric grid and to enhance its resistance to terrorism.
• $10 billion over the next decade to develop efficient, low-emission power from coal using gasification and other technologies.

The Bush Record

The Bush energy plan relies heavily on subsidizing conventional methods of producing fossil fuels and waiving environmental rules in Alaska and other regions to produce comparatively small amounts of energy. Even its own Energy Information Agency estimated that the plan would have a "negligible" impact on energy production and prices. Under this administration US oil imports have grown from 58.2 percent of the oil consumed in the United States in 2000 to 61.7 percent today. - and most forecasts suggest increasing import dependency if existing programs are continued.

The Bush program highlighted on his campaign website claims credit for a number of energy efficiency tax credits and other proposals added to the energy bill, as well as a program to increase the reliability of the grid. These programs are, however, small parts of an exorbitantly expensive energy bill handing out such large subsidies to existing energy producers that the Bush administration has failed to get its own energy bill passed by the Republican controlled Congress. Attempts to separate programs such as grid reliability from the overall bill have failed because entrenched energy interests refuse to compromise and the Administration has not used its influence to allow critical programs to begin.

The central technology objective of the administration is hydrogen - a technology that has many potential liabilities and can at best can only have a major impact a generation from now. Hydrogen clearly merits support as a long- range research project (and is supported by Kerry), but only as a part of a balanced program of basic and applied research and appropriate incentives for adopting innovations.

The Administration's budget proposes to cut overall energy research by 2.3% over the next five years and plans to reduce energy efficiency research by 11.2 percent (adjusted for inflation) between 2004 and 2005. The EPA research budget is cut 12% during the same period. A 10.5% cut in NOAA funding is also planned for the next 5 years.

The Bush administration has consistently ignored the advice of the science community on Climate Change, including a report the administration commissioned from the National Academy of Sciences and a report from DoD warning that climate change could lead to serious world problems in coming decades. The administration forced EPA to drop references to the study in its 2003 State of the Environment Report. Most critically, it has blocked ratification of the international agreement attempting to constrain worldwide production of greenhouse gasses. There may be legitimate reasons to object to the Kyoto proposals, but the administration has made no counterproposal of any kind. Its entire climate plan appears to rest on voluntary actions by industry; although by last count only 14 companies had signed up.