Scientists to March on Washington?

[newjerseyrunner]

I think in the next few years, science educators will come to the rescue. Scientists tend to not do very well when addressing members of the public. It takes a knack to clearly communicate complex ideas and have the scientific credibility to back it up.

Oh Anderson Cooper says climate change is man made, he's not a scientist. Or some actual scientist said this, but I've never heard of the guy, so who's to say his credentials?

It doesn't have the same impact as if it came from Carl Sagan, everyone knew him, he worked on Voyager and made a television series about science. People like Bill Nye and Neil DeGrass Tyson may become extremely important figureheads in the next few years.

 

[Astronuc]

computer systems wiped of data, media blackouts for scientific organizations.

This is what concerns me the most. Destroying scientific data/measurements or preventing scientific publication is unconscionable.

 

[Student100]

That's fine as long as Trump doesn't cut your funding for research and/or make your employment conditional on you not talking to the press.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...l-media-grants-contracts-latest-a7544276.html

President Donald Trump has instituted a media blackout at the Environmental Protection Agency, barring officials from posting updates to social media and speaking to reporters.

Hardly seems like a scientific apocalypse. Let's not forget the EPA is primarily a bureaucratic organization, not a research organization. You can browse publications here: https://nepis.epa.gov/EPA/html/pubs/pubtitle.html

 

[Student100]

This is what concerns me the most. Destroying scientific data/measurements or preventing scientific publication is unconscionable.

I think the "destroying it" is/was an overreaction, from what I can gather they just removed things from the white house website. EPA's climate change webpage seems intact: https://www.epa.gov/climatechange. Any data that exists on government servers is probably still there, and any meaningful data probably also exists on private servers/in scientific publications.

 

[Astronuc]

from what I can gather they just removed things from the white house website.

I'm not referring to removing files/links from the White House website, which the administration is entitled to do.

 

[Student100]

I'm not referring to removing files/links from the White House website, which the administration is entitled to do.

Was there another instance, or was the post just hypothetical?

 

[Astronuc]

Was there another instance, or was the post just hypothetical?

I was responding to a particular comment. I have no reason to believe, scientific data is being destroyed. On the other hand, until this week, I wouldn't have had any such expectation.

 

[Evo]

I was responding to a particular comment. I have no reason to believe, scientific data is being destroyed. On the other hand, until this week, I wouldn't have had any such expectation.

There are always "first steps". First you do this, no one worries, then a bit more, no one worries, then more... Let's make sure it never get's past this. We should be up in arms that THIS has happened. Why "ARE" we accepting it?

The Trump administration has instituted a media blackout at the Environmental Protection Agency and barred staff from awarding any new contracts or grants, part of a broader communications clampdown within the executive branch.

Emails sent to EPA staff since President Donald Trump’s inauguration Friday and reviewed by The Associated Press detailed specific prohibitions banning press releases, blog updates or posts to the agency’s social media accounts.

The Trump administration has also ordered what it called a temporary suspension of all new business activities at the department, including issuing task orders or work assignments to EPA contractors. The orders were expected to have a significant and immediate impact on EPA activities nationwide. EPA contracts with outside vendors for a wide array of services, from engineering and research science to janitorial supplies.

Similar orders barring external communications have been issued in recent days by the Trump administration at other federal agencies, including the Agriculture and Interior departments.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/trump-issues-epa-media-blackout-suspends-agencys-grants/

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

There are always "first steps". First you do this, no one worries, then a bit more, no one worries, then more...

Negotiation 101. Trump knows this.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

This is related so I don't think a new thread is required

@RogueNASA: America's scientists are launching unofficial Twitter accounts to defy trump
http://www.businessinsider.com/nasa-scientists-are-launch-rogue-twitter-account-to-defy-trump-2017-1

 

[fresh_42]

Moderator's note: The election is over, so please keep concentrated on the topic.

 

[gleem]

There is current thread Are Americans anti science in the general discussion section which seems to overlap this thread in particular how should scientists approach the issues of the apparent anti science attitude of the administration. Marching is not the answer. Its not a question of science it is a question of economics, politics and personal bias. Unless we can show alternative methods of addressing climate change the administration policies will prevail. Unless we can sway a significant percentage of the population to our views to provide political pressure our views will not be recognized. Defiance will not help the cause.
.
The first amendment is protected for government employees but legal methods are available to effectively control its use.

I believe the gaging of the various federal agencies should be addressed by a broader coalition of interested organizations.

Protect data that is held by the government? Yes. But wouldn't such data be available through the Freedom of Information Act.

 

[fresh_42]

There are two events in history that come to mind:
The discussion (mainly afterwards) about the Manhattan project and not so long ago under Berlusconi's administration in Italy, as they sued scientists for not predicting an earthquake. So in my opinion it is not a good idea not to openly discuss the impact of political decisions and strategies on science in general, and on the right to publish in this special case (of what I heard). There is more at stake than some websites. In former times they burned books, nowadays the methods have changed, but apparently not the purposes. Whether a march is better or an open letter signed by as many scientists as possible published in the NYT and/or the Post is a matter of taste. Here it are usually open letters, in the US the symbol of MLK plays a much bigger role, so I may not be able to judge it.

 

[russ_watters]

We should be up in arms that THIS has happened. Why "ARE" we accepting it?

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/trump-issues-epa-media-blackout-suspends-agencys-grants/

No, we absolutely should *not* be up an arms about these actions. They are standard operating procedures in a transition between administrations (caveat: there was no twitter 8 years ago). The new administration has different policies than the old one and the transition goes like this:
Step 1: Remove the old policies from public view and put a hold on actions based on old policies that may be changed.
Step 2: Change the policies.
Step 3: Remove the hold on policy execution and update the websites to show the new policies.

*Every* administration does some variation of this. Broader, so does basically every new boss of every organization of any kind. It's an inherrent part of what a "transition" is.

 

[russ_watters]

@RogueNASA: America's scientists are launching unofficial Twitter accounts to defy trump
http://www.businessinsider.com/nasa-scientists-are-launch-rogue-twitter-account-to-defy-trump-2017-1

They need to be careful with such actions. Since they are government employees, certain aspects of the 1st Amendment apply (whereas they wouldn't apply to me if I created a rogue twitter account to complain about my company), and whistle-blower protections may also apply. But they don't offer full protection. Trump is still their boss and if they do things that interfere with his definition of their jobs, he can fire them. A Secret Service agent found that out yesterday.

 

[russ_watters]

Unless we can show alternative methods of addressing climate change the administration policies will prevail.

That's going to be an interesting subject over the next few years. Obama had policies that helped combat climate change (pushing solar, CAFE standards) and policies that hurt it (opposing fracking and nuclear power). Ironically, the thing that most reduced our carbon output was something democrats worked hard to oppose (fracking).

Under Trump we may see faster expansion of fracked natural gas replacing coal and a nuclear resurgence, which ironically could reduce our carbon output far more than Obama was able to.

 

[StatGuy2000]

That's going to be an interesting subject over the next few years. Obama had policies that helped combat climate change (pushing solar, CAFE standards) and policies that hurt it (opposing fracking and nuclear power). Ironically, the thing that most reduced our carbon output was something democrats worked hard to oppose (fracking).

Under Trump we may see faster expansion of fracked natural gas replacing coal and a nuclear resurgence, which ironically could reduce our carbon output far more than Obama was able to.

The opposition to fracking was based on suspicions that the activity may contaminate groundwater in areas where fracking has been known to take place. According to the following Scientific American article, a former EPA scientist has reportedly demonstrated that fracking could indeed do so in a peer-reviewed journal.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fracking-can-contaminate-drinking-water/

So even though you claim that fracking contributed the most to reducing carbon output (which may or may not be true -- I would need a source indicating such evidence), fracking has considerable environmental issues of its own.

[As an aside: Given who Trump has appointed into the position of leadership within the EPA, one wonders how seriously the Trump administration will take this report -- it's likely that the administration will ignore this and proceed with fracking.]

As far as a nuclear resurgence is concerned (leaving aside for the moment issues like nuclear waste disposal), among the major obstacles in expanding nuclear power is the high initial capital costs in building the plant and long project cycles. Many nuclear power plants have relied on government subsidies for them to be built, and it is an open question whether the Trump administration would come up with the funds to provide such subsidies.

 

[russ_watters]

The opposition to fracking was based on...

Different environmentalists have different concerns, but that's really neither here nor there. It doesn't alter the irony and it wouldn't take away from the potential accomplishment of Trump's any more than it takes away from Obama's accomplishment. The fact of the matter is that the USA is the world leader in CO2 emission reduction (at least for the past couple of years) and that's a positive thing, regardless of if it happened by accident or on purpose.

So even though you claim that fracking contributed the most to reducing carbon output (which may or may not be true -- I would need a source indicating such evidence)...

Here:

After increasing in 2013 and in 2014, energy-related carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions fell in 2015. In 2015, U.S. energy-related carbon dioxide emissions were 12% below the 2005 levels, mostly because of changes in the electric power sector.

Energy-related CO2 emissions can be reduced by consuming less petroleum, coal, and natural gas, or by switching from more carbon-intensive fuels to less carbon-intensive fuels. Many of the changes in energy-related CO2 emissions in recent history have occurred in the electric power sector because of the decreased use of coal and the increased use of natural gas for electricity generation.

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=26152

As far as a nuclear resurgence is concerned (leaving aside for the moment issues like nuclear waste disposal), among the major obstacles in expanding nuclear power is the high initial capital costs in building the plant and long project cycles. Many nuclear power plants have relied on government subsidies for them to be built, and it is an open question whether the Trump administration would come up with the funds to provide such subsidies.

Trump hasn't said much about nuclear power in general, so both are open questions. But the waste issue is very relevant to the cost and long-term prospects of nuclear power.

For example, an unintended consequence of Obama's illegal shuttering of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste facility was that nuclear power got cheaper. The courts ruled in 2014 that due to the violation of the law, the government could no longer claim justification for collecting a surcharge on nuclear power, which was supposed to be spent on collecting and storing nuclear waste. If the Yucca mountain facility comes back, the surcharge almost certianly will too, but either way the utilities currently have to worry about whether they have sufficienct on-site storage for nuclear waste the government is failing to collect. That uncertainty and cost affects decision-making on new nuclear plants.

Source:
https://www.nei.org/News-Media/News/News-Archives/What-NARUC-Sees-on-the-Nuclear-Waste-Fee-Suspensio

 

[Dr Transport]

They need to be careful with such actions. Since they are government employees, certain aspects of the 1st Amendment apply (whereas they wouldn't apply to me if I created a rogue twitter account to complain about my company), and whistle-blower protections may also apply. But they don't offer full protection. Trump is still their boss and if they do things that interfere with his definition of their jobs, he can fire them. A Secret Service agent found that out yesterday.

Whistle blowers doesn't apply if they use social media to bring out illegal behavior, it only applies when they bring it to the authorities. There was a Boeing case a few years ago where the individuals went to the press and not law enforcement, they sued for whistle blowers status because they were fired, they lost.

 

[russ_watters]

Whistle blowers doesn't apply if they use social media to bring out illegal behavior, it only applies when they bring it to the authorities. There was a Boeing case a few years ago where the individuals went to the press and not law enforcement, they sued for whistle blowers status because they were fired, they lost.

Good to know, thanks. I said "may" because the article I read took a case that wasn't exactly on point and applied it speculatively to the issue. I wasn't convinced either way.

The history though is that at one time (late 1800s) this was a clear-cut issue; that the 1st Amendment didn't apply to government workers as pertained to their jobs. But over time, the interpretation has grown more liberal.

 

[StatGuy2000]

Here:

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=26152

Thanks for the source. Interesting reading.

Trump hasn't said much about nuclear power in general, so both are open questions. But the waste issue is very relevant to the cost and long-term prospects of nuclear power.

For example, an unintended consequence of Obama's illegal shuttering of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste facility was that nuclear power got cheaper. The courts ruled in 2014 that due to the violation of the law, the government could no longer claim justification for collecting a surcharge on nuclear power, which was supposed to be spent on collecting and storing nuclear waste. If the Yucca mountain facility comes back, the surcharge almost certianly will too, but either way the utilities currently have to worry about whether they have sufficienct on-site storage for nuclear waste the government is failing to collect. That uncertainty and cost affects decision-making on new nuclear plants.

Source:
https://www.nei.org/News-Media/News/News-Archives/What-NARUC-Sees-on-the-Nuclear-Waste-Fee-Suspensio

Interesting. So my reading from the above is that, in a sense, the shuttering of the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste facility made nuclear power more price competitive, at least to a limited extent, in comparison to other sources of power. On the other hand, as you point out, the utilities are essentially on hook for maintaining on-site storage of the nuclear waste that is not being collected, which of course costs the utilities in terms of expense. I would have thought that the cost of on-site nuclear waste storage will either balance out or outweigh whatever savings results from not collecting to the surcharge on nuclear power.

We'll also have to see if there is in fact renewed interest from the Trump administration to revive the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste facility. My reading on this is that the politics don't split so evenly on party lines on this front, although I could be wrong (or outdated) on this point.

 

[russ_watters]

I would have thought that the cost of on-site nuclear waste storage will either balance out or outweigh whatever savings results from not collecting to the surcharge on nuclear power.

For the short term, on-site storage is a necessity anyway, so over-using it a little is basically free.

It's just that for the long term, the cost of storing the waste on-site forever certainly wasn't budgeted for in the cost of the plant. Either way you slice it, eventually the government is going to have to do something about the waste and the more they delay and kick the football around, the more expensive it (and nuclear power as a result) gets. And the more nuclear plant owners have to worry about it.

We'll also have to see if there is in fact renewed interest from the Trump administration to revive the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste facility.

Agreed. I don't know where he personally stands -- it also matters how much he cares, not just what his position is*. But the two main barriers to the facility are gone:

My reading on this is that the politics don't split so evenly on party lines on this front, although I could be wrong (or outdated) on this point.

Nuclear power is a heavily partisan issue in the USA, and if anything that has decreased, not increased over time. But it varies from one country to another, so you may not be up on the history for the US: it was heavily and successfully opposed for its perceived relationship with nuclear weapons. Current stats:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/182180/support-nuclear-energy.aspx
47% of Republicans vs 24% of Democrats say "more emphasis" should be placed on nuclear power than is currently placed. But changing public support isn't what killed the Yucca Mountain facility: the facility was killed by the collaboration of Obama and senior Senator from Nevada, Harry Reid. Reid is a Democrat, but his opposition to Yucca was probably at least as much about NIMBYism. He also left office earlier this month.

[edit] *I say it matters how much he cares, but it may not matter a lot. Obama/Reid's actions in opposition to the Yucca Mountain facility were illegal and their policies/actions were largely reversed by court order. There may be some practical hurdles still in the way, but primarily what is needed next is funding. But at least on a balance sheet, the fund that all those surcharges went to exists, so about all they have to do is send it to the NRC to use as the law requires them to. The current next step, as I understand it, is to review and approve the application for opening the facility.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I would have thought that the cost of on-site nuclear waste storage will either balance out or outweigh whatever savings results from not collecting to the surcharge on nuclear power.

The government took money for a service and then didn't provide the service. Now they are still not providing that service, but they are no longer taking money for it. That's why it's a net gain for the operators. Even though it is certainly not the whole story.

 

[mheslep]

and a nuclear resurgence

Hopefully. In my view, new nuclear is the only US policy change that can have a large impact with respect to global carbon emissions.

 

[mheslep]

...claim that fracking contributed the most to reducing carbon output

 

[XZ923]

It's obviously a fairly frivolous example, but I'm reminded of the scene at the start of one of the Indiana Jones movies where Harrison Ford says "Archaeology is the search for fact, not truth. If you want truth the philosophy class is right down the hall".

IMO scientists should speak up when anyone advocates for a policy that can be factually disproved. However, getting involved with direct political advocacy seems like a real short hop to agenda-driven research. Conclusion is the final step of the Scientific Method, not the first. In fact, I would go so far as to say that in the contemporary hyper-charged political atmosphere, scientists have an obligation to set an example of careful analysis and factual conclusions removed from emotional appeal. We have more than enough emotional appeal groups right now.

 

[Gardenman]

I think we've seen too much of a mixing of politics and science over the last few decades. There are scientists who claim that solar and wind power will save the world. In reality, due to the need for spinning reserve, all of the solar and wind installations to date have had minimal impact on carbon emissions. Spinning reserve is power that a power company must have available on short notice. Some laws say the spinning reserve must be available in ten minutes, but most companies want it available immediately to prevent brownouts and blackouts.

Conventional power plants, be they coal fired, gas fired, oil fired, or nuclear, generate power the same way. They heat massive quantities of water in a pressure vessel to convert it to steam that then drives a turbine that then spins a generator creating power. Since a conventional power plant must be used for spinning reserve those plants must be kept up and running, just as if they were generating the power. You can't get a cold plant up and generating power in a short period of time, so the plants are kept up and running, burning the fuel of whatever type to heat the water so when a cloud passes over the solar panels or the wind stops blowing, the power stays on. The best analogy is it's like you buy an electric powered car to save the planet, but then because you don't trust the reliability of the electric car, you have someone follow you everywhere in a gas powered car. The net gain is nothing.

Now there's talk of building massive lithium ion battery warehouses to serve as spinning reserve and companies like Tesla are making home batteries (their Powerwall) to try and help with these issues, but to date, all of the billions that have been spent on solar and wind installations have achieved little or nothing due to spinning reserve. All the power that they're generating is being backed up by conventional power plants churning away in the background, burning the fuel just as though they were actually generating the power in case they're needed. You just can't turn massive quantities of water to steam instantly, so the plants have to be kept up and running to be ready when needed.

Conventional power plants typically have the spinning reserve built capabilities built into the plant in the form of additional turbines or generators that can be activated as needed, so there's no offset provided by the solar or wind power. The reality is that given the need for spinning reserve, solar and wind power are nothing more than a placebo. They look impressive, politicians and scientists can say, "Look we're doing something!" But they're achieving nothing, other than wasting billions of dollars.

At this moment the only real answer to reducing carbon emissions is nuclear power. If you don't mind some carbon emissions then small, natural gas powered generators forming mini-grids in neighborhoods might be a good long term solution. The reality is that everyone, scientists, politicians, and lay people fall in love with a concept and assume it to be true. Solar and wind power as the savior of the world is a concept that many have fallen in love with. A closer look reveals that's not true due to spinning reserve.

Oddly enough, the old passive solar systems in wider use in the seventies/eighties to help heat homes do more good to reduce carbon emissions than the photovoltaic panels that are the current trend. The heat captured in a passive solar system directly offsets the fuel that would be needed to burn to generate that heat. There is no spinning reserve needed for a home heating system. If the sun isn't shining your home heater works as normal. If the sun is shining the heat from the passive solar design is free and the heater isn't needed saving the fuel and carbon emissions that would be created. When was the last time you saw a scientist or politician actively pushing for more use of passive solar designs in new home construction? Homes designed to take advantage of passive solar gain would be many times more effective in reducing carbon emissions than photovoltaic or wind power. Unfortunately there's not a big passive solar energy industry out there making billions of dollars, so that's largely ignored these days.

If scientists want politicians to take them seriously, then they have to be open to re-examining their own beliefs and views. Screaming politicians don't care about the environment because they won't spend more money to build more solar and wind installations when solar and wind installations achieve nothing, doesn't help the cause. Push for nuclear power, cleaner burning natural gas, more use of passive solar, or other truly effective solutions, and politicians might just listen more. It would take a very bold scientific community to rise up and tell the world that solar (photovoltaic) and wind power have been a waste of money and that we should look for other options. Such boldness might just impress the politicians however.

 

[TheQuietOne]

I am disappointed in all of yall who want to protest. It seems like no one can have an opinion without getting torn to pieces from everyone else. I am a scientist, but I am a respectful scientist. There is no need for any kind of march. There shouldn't have been one in the first place. Don't put a bad reputation on yourselves which will go on to other scientists who might not feel the same way.

 

[rude man]

I think science (and scientists themselves) should remain fairly distant from any sort of political protesting. Report the research, and let them do what they may. To do otherwise just sends the wrong kind of signals about the objectivity of science itself.

If I told you what I think of that you wouldn't like it so I won't tell you.

 

[Evo]

Temporarily closed for moderation. The topic is whether scientists should form a march. We're off topic and no sources are being provided to back up "facts".