Video: President Barack Obama says the US is in a peaceful competition to develop clean technologies
President Barack Obama championed US leadership on clean energy on Friday, as international deadlines for climate change mitigation loom and a growing number of Americans is questioning the science of global warming.
At a speech at MIT, Obama said the US faces stiff competition from other countries to develop clean technologies that will power the 21st century (see video clip). "The nation that wins this competition will be the nation that leads the global economy ... and I want America to be that nation," Obama said.
He said the $787 billion stimulus bill enacted in February "makes the largest investment in clean energy in history", spurring the development of new battery technologies for hybrid vehicles and "doubling our capacity to generate renewable electricity".
But though the stimulus sets a new US record, a report (pdf) from the bank HSBC earlier this year noted that the US's $112 billion investment in clean energy was only half China's $221 billion stimulus investment in greenhouse-gas-reducing technologies.
The US is also facing challenges at home. On Thursday, the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press reported that only 57 per cent of Americans believe there is solid scientific evidence for global warming, down from 77 per cent in 2007.
And the cap-and-trade legislation that is now making its way through the US Senate is unlikely to be voted on before the UN climate change conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, begins on 7 December.
But speculation continues that Obama may sign bilateral agreements with China, now the world's largest greenhouse gas emitter, and India on climate change mitigation before the conference begins. He will meet with Chinese president Hu Jintao on 16 and 17 November and Indian prime minister Manmohan Singh on 24 November.
If you would like to reuse any content from New Scientist, either in print or online, please contact the syndication department first for permission. New Scientist does not own rights to photos, but there are a variety of licensing options available for use of articles and graphics we own the copyright to.
Have your say
"On Thursday, the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press reported that only 57 per cent of Americans believe there is solid scientific evidence for global warming, down from 77 per cent in 2007."
This explains so much.
I apologize for my country.
Yep. Gas prices went down in that time period, so now global warming doesn't exist, or something like that.
Also everyone got so focused on elections, the economy, etc, that everyone just forgot about global wa....oooh a shiny ball!
The amount of Venture Capital pouring into clean tech is HUGE!
We didn't get out of the stone age because we ran out of stones. Don't wait for fossil fuel to run out - we are running away from that dirty crud fast.
Well it is difficult to believe in continued 'global *warming*' when warming has stopped for the last 8 years despite so called green-house-gases increasing. None of the IPCC models show such a period of level if not dropping temperatures. The Ocean Heat Content has also not risen as Hansen predicted it would.
It is difficult to maintain the level of panic that was built up by Gore when things are not happening as predicted. Indeed the only safe prediction is that governments will continue to raise revenue from the 'Climate Change' bills and 'Cap and Trade' etc. Despite NONE of these having any effect on 'carbon footprint' - Kyoto has been a spectacular failure. If emitting carbon dioxide was going to lead to the demise of the human race - it wouldn't be taxed - it would be banned (don't hold your breath!).
So people see that the world is not getting hotter, politicians are making tax out of it, out to grass politicians are making personal fortunes out of it, researchers are getting huge grants from it. It does not look at all like a real threat but more like a money making scam.
Add to this a continued falsification of areas of the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis often by experiments set up to prove it (ERBE, ARGO), and it is unsurprising that there is considerable doubt in the hypothesis and in many cases, doubt in the motives of some of its proponents.
That Will Be China Then. . .
Sat Oct 24 03:03:31 BST 2009 by Dirk Bruere
http://www.neopax.com
The US establishment is committed to oil and will do everything in its power to make sure that the US does not "lead" in this area. True, the US scientists and engineers might come up with the winning technology, but it will not be manufactured or installed in the US.
As an unemployed US-American research chemist who would also like to contribute towards the effort to develop non-carbogenic energy production, such "politican" speak makes me only sigh. Obama appearing at an elitist university and throwing money at the folks there while ignoring the potential contribution of the remaining American scientists does not win my confidence.
But if you got into one of these Ivy League places you could have all the funds to do your research. People would think you are good and give you money. What's the problem?
All comments should respect the New Scientist House Rules. If you think a particular comment breaks these rules then please use the "Report" link in that comment to report it to us.
If you are having a technical problem posting a comment, please contact technical support.
PRINT
SEND
