Lawrence Krauss: Congress Is Trying To Defund Scientists At Energy Department

Lasrick writes Physicist Lawrence Krauss blasts Congress for their passage of the 2015 Energy and Water Appropriations bill that cut funding for renewable energy, sustainable transportation, and energy efficiency, and even worse, had amendments that targeted scientists at the Department of Energy: He writes that this action from the US Congress is worse even than the Australian government's move to cancel their carbon tax, because the action of Congress is far more insidious: "Each (amendment) would, in its own way, specifically prohibit scientists at the Energy Department from doing precisely what Congress should mandate them to do—namely perform the best possible scientific research to illuminate, for policymakers, the likelihood and possible consequences of climate change." Although the bill isn't likely to become law, Krauss is fed up with Congress burying its head in the sand: The fact that those amendments "...could pass a house of Congress, should concern everyone interested in the appropriate support of scientific research as a basis for sound public policy."

Re:Price of using scientists as political pawns

[jythie]

Not thriving? The energy industry in the US is insanely profitable. Profitable enough that they do not want to risk new technologies and the companies that support them taking off, so they push this crap you are spewing.

Status quo vs The Future

[MrKaos]

I watched Krauss on Q&A and WOW, what a great scientist he is. I thought to myself, this is one of the reasons people look up to America, because they have all these great thinkers that we can learn from.

Unfortunately Australia sometimes takes the lead in being backwards thinking and it's no secret here that many of our accomplished leaders in creating solar energy are now in America. Now it seems American politician are looking to Australia for methods to embed the status quo. This looks a lot like the Australian government scrapping the independent Climate Commission (made up of scientists), but legislating to avoid, what happened here, a relaunched Commission funded by the public as citizens instead of as taxpayers,.

And like a dying animal the status quo tries to kill the future. This is not a generational issue because some of the older generation know what the issues are and trying to make things better to minimize the consequences and costs the younger generations that will experience. However, the people controlling energy and its future, now, will be dead by the time the effects are here, so for them why wouldn't they have all the benefits of cheap power when they will never experience the downside of it.

They struggle for 50's thinking to be relevant in the 21st century, but have compunction imposing it and since the science is so convincing the only thing left to do is muzzle the scientists. It's madness.

Re:Someone has an agenda to push

[Anonymous Coward]

"It was a horribly broken system that didn't work."
Quite the contrary. It worked quite well - emissions dropped 12% since it came into effect.

Re:Let's get one thing straight:

[statemachine]

Your link says:

218 Republicans voted for, 159 Democrats voted against.

So a few Democrats and Republicans breaking ranks does not make this bipartisan. Clearly this is a deeply partisan issue.

You also forget to mention that not one single bill can be voted on unless the Speaker of the House, Republican John Boehner, says it can be voted on.

So, how is this bipartisan again? It was a Republican bill, passed with a Republican majority. Welcome to politics.

Re:Price of using scientists as political pawns

[geekoid]

This administration has never tried to kill fracking.

You are a fucking liar.
"The EPA and similar organizations have been trying to stop and forbid fracking for years."
false.

"The DoE was used as a tool to hurt people."
nonsense.

It's a political fight becasue the pubs made it one. The DoE funding wasn't political.

You should actual learn history and mission of the DoE, you fucking limp wristed cum stain.

Re:Good

[oursland]

From the last time we had this discussion: http://i.imgur.com/sjH5r.jpg [imgur.com]

Re:Congress has its (collective) head buried...

[erikkemperman]

Thats's cute and all, but not actually correct.

Con, as in "pros and cons" comes from "contra", meaning against.

But "con" in congress means basically the opposite, which is to say "with", "together". As in "concert", "consistent", "consonant", "contract" and so on.

But you know, it's still pretty funny.

In French I've heard it say that
on parle == they talk
on ment == they lie

But etymologically that is equally broken I guess.