Not A “War on Science,” Again
May 21st, 2009Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.
The New York Times editorial page takes the Obama Administration to task for not “following the science” on the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository.
The administration’s budget for the Energy Department raises a disturbing question. Is President Obama, who has pledged to restore science to its rightful place in decision making, now prepared to curtail the scientific analyses needed to determine whether a proposed nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada would be safe to build? . . .
We have no idea whether Yucca Mountain would be a suitable burial ground for nuclear wastes. But after the government has labored for more than two decades and spent almost $10 billion to get the site ready for licensing hearings, it would be foolish not to complete the process with a good-faith evaluation. Are Mr. Obama and Mr. Reid afraid of what the science might tell them?
Surely the NYT editorial writers understand presidential politics and how well the Yucca Mountain issue played in Nevada, which happened to go for Obama in the 2008 election. Are we now at a point where, whenever possible, political differences are to be instantaneously mapped onto questions of science?
May 21st, 2009 at 9:26 am
The opponents of Yucca and nuclear power in general quote very long half life of waste as a big problem. The reality is the longer the half life the less dangerous the material is. I would be much more worried about waste with a 100 year half life then waste with a 100,000 year half life.
I predict that new uses will be found for nuclear waste. They are heavy metals that are very rare. Long before the over-engineered casks start leaking the vitrified waste will probably be recycled and used in new technology that has not yet been conceived.
May 21st, 2009 at 11:35 am
I’m sure that the NYT editorial writers are well aware of the political significance of Yucca Mountain. This does not make the editorial an unfair critique. Imagine defending the Bush administration sanction of the “abortions cause breast cancer” hypothesis. Like Pres. Obama’s position on Yucca Mountain (i.e. damn the science, no repository on my watch) Pres. Bush allowed himself to be associated with a very unscientific view for political expediency. This doesn’t qualify as a Democratic war on science and I don’t think that the NYT suggests as much. Nevertheless, Obama is not honoring his commitment to restore science to its proper place, unless he thinks that the proper place for science is a matter of political expediency.
May 21st, 2009 at 11:51 am
-2-bend
I think that your characterization of Obama’s position on Yucca Mt. is half wrong:
“damn the science, no repository on my watch”
Obama has said the latter part on many occasions, can you point to where he has said anything related to the former?
Science surely plays a part in the Yucca Mountain issue, but only a part. Whether or not the site is suitable, and regardless of sunk costs, Obama’s decision to remove it from consideration is not a “scientific decision”, whatever that means, and has nothing to do with the “proper place”, wherever that is.
May 21st, 2009 at 12:12 pm
Thanks, Roger.
These are my points exactly:
“Obama’s decision to remove it from consideration is not a ’scientific decision’”
It is a political decision. Nevadans don’t want nuclear waste in their state, regardless of the opinions scientists and engineers. So Pres. Obama concurs with a politically relevant constituency regardless of the opinions of scientists and engineers (he doesn’t even want to hear the opinions, which is what the editorial is criticizing). Like William Jennings Bryan who famously said, “The people of Nebraska are for free silver so I am for free silver. I’ll look up the arguments later.” Obama is forfeiting his obligation to represent the interests of the entire country on this science related matter for the purpose of appeasing the electorate from a swing state.
“and has nothing to do with the “proper place”, wherever that is.”
“Proper place” is the administrations characterization. You are right in that the phrase and those like it, “rightful place,” are ambiguous and subjective. But what the NYT editorial suggests, to me at least, is that the president’s deffinition of the proper place for science (while different from
mine and probably most apolitical, science conscious citizens) is not functionally different from that of his predecessor.
May 21st, 2009 at 12:20 pm
I see a sentence fragment in my previous post which may cause some confusion. William Jennings Bryan did not have an obligation to represent the interests of the entire country. I attempted to use his attitude as symptomatic of a representative who made decisions according to what would make the best politics rather than the best policy.
May 21st, 2009 at 12:35 pm
-4-bend
Be careful, talk like the following will get you in trouble;-)
“the president’s deffinition of the proper place for science (while different from mine and probably most apolitical, science conscious citizens) is not functionally different from that of his predecessor”
May 21st, 2009 at 2:34 pm
“Imagine defending the Bush administration sanction of the “abortions cause breast cancer” hypothesis. Like Pres. Obama’s position on Yucca Mountain (i.e. damn the science, no repository on my watch) Pres. Bush allowed himself to be associated with a very unscientific view for political expediency.”
“Abortions cause breast cancer” is much more amenable to scientific analysis than “The casks in Yucca Mountain will not have been breached 10,000+ years from now.”
If abortions cause breast cancer, there should be enough abortions and breast cancer cases in the past decade or the coming decade to sort out a statistical connection (or lack thereof).
In contrast, even a few hundred years into the future isn’t sufficient long to know whether the casks will be breached 10,000+ years into the future (except in the unlikely event they are breached in the next few hundred years).
May 21st, 2009 at 2:49 pm
“The administration’s budget for the Energy Department raises a disturbing question. Is President Obama, who has pledged to restore science to its rightful place in decision making, now prepared to curtail the scientific analyses needed to determine whether a proposed nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada would be safe to build? . . .”
Why would the issue be framed this way: “The Admin. is prepared to curtail THE SCIENTIFIC ANALYSES….” Doesn’t that say “science be damned, we are not going any farther?” Why did they not be straightforward and honest, by saying something like “The Admin has decided that that the Yucca Mtn. Repository is not a feasible option.” Why mention science at all here?
May 21st, 2009 at 8:22 pm
“We have no idea whether Yucca Mountain would be a suitable burial ground for nuclear wastes.”
Ten billion dollars, and we have no idea? Surely we have some idea. What we know for certain is that the Nevada NIMBYs and the anti-nukes are blocking Yucca – Nevada for the obvious reason, and the anti’s in their tried and true “gum up the works to stop the machine” tactics. We certainly know to a scientific certainty that the existing waste is not safe in the long term where it is now.