ADVERTISEMENT
  About the SA Blog Network













Observations

Observations


Opinion, arguments & analyses from the editors of Scientific American
Observations HomeAboutContact

Obama Vows More Executive Action on High-Tech Manufacturing, Climate Change Mitigation and Renewal of Science

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.


Email   PrintPrint



Official White House Photo by Pete Souza

After a year buffeted by squeezes to federally funded research from a government shutdown as well as an extremely bumpy rollout of healthcare.gov, President Barack Obama’s fifth State of the Union Tuesday night struck a few hopeful notes for science and technology.

Speaking before Congress, he devoted roughly a fifth of his  speech to topics including climate change, renewable energy and investing in science and education opportunities. His prepared remarks came in at a word count of 6,778 words.

He addressed the impact of the budget cuts to research head on: “Federally-funded research helped lead to the ideas and inventions behind Google and smartphones,” he said. “That’s why Congress should undo the damage done by last year’s cuts to basic research so we can unleash the next great American discovery. There are entire industries to be built based on vaccines that stay ahead of drug-resistant bacteria, or paper-thin material that’s stronger than steel,” he said.

He launched his 65-minute speech with a nod to technology and fuel efficiency, saying that in America today, “an entrepreneur flipped on the lights in her tech startup, and did her part to add to the more than eight million new jobs our businesses have created over the past four years.  An autoworker fine-tuned some of the best, most fuel-efficient cars in the world, and did his part to help America wean itself off foreign oil.”

Obama pledged to move forward with a go-it-alone strategy for 2014, promising to use executive powers to implement and expand upon reforms for climate change mitigation, energy innovation and environmental conservation if faced with Congressional torpor. “I’ll use my authority to protect more of our pristine federal lands for future generations,” he said.  “America does not stand still—and neither will I.  So wherever and whenever I can take steps without legislation to expand opportunity for more American families, that’s what I’m going to do,” he said. “Let’s make this a year of action.” Such efforts by the White House could prove controversial in an election year in which Republicans would only have to net a half dozen seats to take hold of the Senate and scuttle Democratic policy priorities.

The President called for advances in high-tech manufacturing, speaking of the two pilot high-tech hubs his administration already launched in Raleigh, N.C., and Youngstown, Ohio, which bring companies, colleges and government together as investors for manufacturing technologies, and unveiled plans to launch six more in 2014 using his executive authority. He also called for Congress to double the number of such hubs with bipartisan bills to help him get to his 15-hub goal. “Get those bills to my desk and put more Americans back to work,” he asked.

On the topic of education, Obama highlighted how he has moved to make good on his 2013 pledge to connect 99 percent of students to high-speed broadband over the next four years. “Tonight, I can announce that with the support of the FCC and companies like Apple, Microsoft, Sprint, and Verizon, we’ve got a down payment to start connecting more than 15,000 schools and 20 million students over the next two years, without adding a dime to the deficit,” he said.

He also spoke of his all-of-the-above energy strategy. America has produced more oil at home than it has had to import for the first time in nearly 20 years, he said. He praised the potential of natural gas as a “bridge fuel that can power our economy with less of the carbon pollution that causes climate change” and pledged to cut red tape to help states build new factories that use it. He called for Congress to create jobs for people erecting fueling stations that could shift more vehicles to use natural gas extracted in the U.S. But he also underscored America’s successes with solar power. “Every four minutes, another American home or business goes solar; every panel pounded into place by a worker whose job cannot be outsourced. Let’s continue that progress with a smarter tax policy that stops giving $4 billion a year to fossil fuel industries that don’t need it, so that we can invest more in fuels of the future that do,” he said.

Even while energy reform was a focus of the President’s speech, Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz was not listening alongside other Cabinet members in the Capitol building. This year he was the cabinet official designated to miss the speech to preserve the line of succession in the event of a disaster.

Some of Obama’s road map for executive actions built upon the template he laid out last year for climate change. In his 2013 SOTU, Obama said if Congress did not take action on climate change he would move without them—a promise he fulfilled with a sweeping plan unveiled in June to slash carbon dioxide emissions and help the U.S. adapt to the impacts of climate change.  In this speech, he reaffirmed that he will move forward through regulations to increase fuel efficiency for the vehicles on the road, saying he will propose new fuel efficiency incentives for heavy-duty vehicles and propose new incentives for medium- and heavy-duty trucks to run on natural gas or other alternative fuels.

Historically, State of the Union speeches can more closely resemble a wish list than a blueprint for action. Last January, Obama’s speech highlighted the importance of basic research as the foundation for innovation.  “Today, our scientists are mapping the human brain to unlock the answers to Alzheimer’s; developing drugs to regenerate damaged organs; devising new material to make batteries 10 times more powerful,” he said last year, adding, “now is the time to reach a level of research and development not seen since the height of the Space Race.” Plans from that speech, studded with talk of new gun controls, sweeping immigration reform and reforming the tax code, failed to clear the gridlocked Congress. Hindered by his low approval ratings and the high stakes election year, it remains to be seen how much action the President can take this time around.

 

 

About the Author: Dina Fine Maron is the associate editor for health and medicine at Scientific American. Follow on Twitter @Dina_Maron.

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.





Rights & Permissions

Comments 11 Comments

Add Comment
  1. 1. jtdwyer 8:45 am 01/29/2014

    I was concerned at first that the President might use executive action to implement far-reaching geoengineering solutions that could have unpredictable consequences – then I saw he’s just referring to converting factories & such from coal to natural gas. That relieves my fears of radical geoengineering, anyway – I doubt that converting to natural gas will have all that much impact one way or another…

    Link to this
  2. 2. rkipling 12:28 pm 01/29/2014

    “There go the people. I must follow them, for I am their leader.” :)

    I wouldn’t worry to much about Obama and geoengineering. He has no money to do it. And if he did, he couldn’t make it work. (See Obamacare.)

    Unfortunately the SNL 3 a.m. phone call skit was too true.

    Phone rings. Hillary wakes up and answers.
    It’s Obama from the Oval Office, “Hillary, this job is HARD!”

    To all you Obama voters: Thanks loads.

    Link to this
  3. 3. Spironis 12:35 pm 01/29/2014

    Obamunism is the death of the future ripped from the wallets and hides of the productive. When does a bad idea finally reveal itself for not being corrected by being more vigorously applied?
    http://donsnotes.com/reference/images/pop_growth.gif

    Link to this
  4. 4. DWP2016 12:37 pm 01/29/2014

    Global warming…global cooling…Spring…Summer…Fall…winter….

    AT WHAT TEMPERATURE MUST ALL REGIONS OF THE WORLD REMAIN BEFORE THE GLOBAL WARMING/COOLING NUTS DROP THE SUBJECT?

    Answer: It doesn’t matter, it’s not about climate change. It’s all about taxation. Not about true science.

    Link to this
  5. 5. ripken1 12:38 pm 01/29/2014

    Senator Snowball fights global warming: higherrevolution.com

    Link to this
  6. 6. SciAmAdmin 1:22 pm 01/29/2014

    We encourage discussions about stories and posts on our site. The comments section can provide an opportunity for readers to ask questions about an article answered or offer an opposing viewpoint supported by peer-reviewed science.

    The comments section should not devolve into name-calling, ideological bickering, off-topic rants or anti-scientific claims. With that in mind, some community guidelines are below. If we find that commenters violate the letter or the spirit of these guidelines, we reserve the right to delete comments and/or ban users from the site.

    o Be friendly, or at least civil.
    o It’s easy to come across as rude, mean or sarcastic online, but please do not allow that tone here. When commenting or replying, please remember that sentient people with biographies, vulnerabilities and emotions read our site. Racist, sexist, homophobic, discriminatory, vulgar, profane, name-calling, ad hominem, baiting and generally offensive comments will not be tolerated.
    o Stay on topic.
    o Do not use the comments section to discuss topics unrelated to the article.
    · Be scientific.
    o Scientific American is a premier publication dedicated to scientific information. If your beliefs interfere with acceptance of the results of scientific inquiry, then please do not discuss them here.
    o Do not sell or promote anything.
    o No impersonation.
    o Do not claim to be someone you’re not, and don’t claim to speak for an entity if you’re not entitled to do so. Use of real names is encouraged.
    o Do not repeatedly post the same content.
    o Do not plagiarize.
    o Always cite your sources and properly attribute quotes.
    o Only post relevant and appropriate links.
    o Do not link to content that does not abide by these guidelines or that is irrelevant to the discussion.
    Do not use the comments for customer service inquiries
    Please send an email to the appropriate help desk if you have a question about our site or your subscription. Our contact information is found here:
    http://www.scientificamerican.com/page/contact-us/

    Link to this
  7. 7. rkipling 1:32 pm 01/29/2014

    SciAmAdmin,

    Please apply this policy to your environment blogs as well. Adherence to this policy across the comment sections would be a great improvement.

    Link to this
  8. 8. rkipling 1:41 pm 01/29/2014

    SciAmAdmin,

    I hope this is a sustained move to encourage more civility on your site. Perhaps some feedback to our individual posts would help guide future comments.

    In the case of this topic, I hope you consider criticism of the President’s ability to understand and implement policies related to the title of this article, as allowable comments. Anyway, more detailed feedback might be helpful. If you look at past environment topics, the comment sections are the wild, wild, west.

    Link to this
  9. 9. Sisko 4:13 pm 01/29/2014

    SciAmAdmin,

    Dina Fine Maron’s article seems highly biased in how history has been summarized.

    Dina writes- “After a year buffeted by squeezes to federally funded research from a government shutdown”

    My response- That comment completely ignores the real issue/problem of the US government spending almost 35% more than it generates in revenues with no plan or path to correct the unsustainable situation.

    Based on how the president seems to view the situation; it is unacceptable for other president’s administrations to spend more than they are generating in revenue but his administration makes no plan to EVER reach a balanced budget. Do the readers think that climate change is a larger threat than the budgetary imbalance of the United States? The budgetary imbalance could easily lead to a massive devaluation of US currency and massive inflation rates in less than 10 years. How is climate change going to harm the US is the next 10-20 years?

    Link to this
  10. 10. rkipling 4:31 pm 01/29/2014

    Sisko,

    A person’s view of the world is informed by their politics. While I don’t disagree with the substance of your comment, it is unrealistic to expect objectivity from all writers.

    Link to this
  11. 11. rkipling 6:33 pm 01/29/2014

    SciAmAdmin,

    Here is an example where your new policy could help.

    http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/symbiartic/2014/01/29/speaking-of-tax-dollars-do-you-like-yours-spent-on-teaching-creationism/#comment-1131

    Link to this

Add a Comment
You must sign in or register as a ScientificAmerican.com member to submit a comment.

More from Scientific American

Scientific American Dinosaurs

Get the
latest special collector's edition, Dinosaurs!

Limited Time Offer!

Purchase Now >

X

Email this Article

X