Where the Candidates Stand on Science
By: Cayman Somerville & Rafi Razzaque
On September 26, 84 million viewers tuned in for the most watched presidential debate in United States history. The second town hall style debate drew about 67 million viewers. While many tuned in for the drama, others hoped to hear about the candidates’ stances on important issues. In our two-party system, candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have many millennials feeling nervous about the state of our country. With all the arguments, press, and distractions, key issues like the candidate’s views on science and technology have gone somewhat unnoticed. To resolve this gap — both in media coverage and in presidential debates — we have broken down the views of each candidate on contemporary science topics.
Global Climate Change and Fossil Fuels
TRUMP
It’s no secret that Donald Trump does not believe the scientific evidence behind global climate change. Following President Obama’s reelection, Trump famously tweeted: “The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.” In the years following this tweet, he continued to publicly discredit global warming, calling it an “expensive hoax.” Within the first fifteen minutes of the September debate, when Clinton criticized his stance, Trump denied this position.
Yet, the Republican front-runner pledged to eliminate the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in order to balance his proposed budget, believing that “the [EPA] is killing energy companies.” Mr. Trump plans to reverse recent Executive Orders and EPA regulations, such as Obama’s Climate Action Plan, in addition to promising to bring back coal plants and tap into $50 trillion worth of fossil fuel reserves.
CLINTON
Hillary Clinton intends on maintaining the Paris Agreement, signed by President Barack Obama in early 2016, in her fight against climate change. The Paris Agreement stipulates signing countries reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent by 2030, and 80 percent by 2050. In addition, signing countries promise to help maintain global temperatures at 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, with a long-term goal to limit global temperature rise to only 1.5 degrees Celsius.
CONSENSUS
September 2016 marks the permanent passing of the 400 parts per million threshold of atmospheric carbon levels, which was set during the Paris Climate Conference to minimize global warming to 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. With this in mind, it is imperative that the next president is focused on global climate change.
Alternative Energy and Nuclear Power
TRUMP
Donald Trump has issued conflicting statements on his support of alternative energy. His statements in the first debate affirm he is “a great believer in all kinds of energy,” including wind and solar energies. By investing into energy, Trump believes “bring[ing] our energy companies back…will pay back our national debt.”
On the other hand, Trump claims he invested and “lost heavily” in solar energy, while simultaneously disapproving of the EPA’s renewable energy standards. In addition, Trump stated “the EPA is so restrictive that they are putting our energy companies out of business.”
As part of his energy initiative, Trump aims to tap into a claimed 50 billion dollars worth of shale, oil, natural gas reserves and over 100 years worth of coal reserves available in the United States. Trump has asserted Clinton wants “to put miners out of business.”
In order to stimulate the coal industry, Donald Trump must overturn several EPA measures that shut down numerous coal plants, which he claims will bring back more jobs. On the other hand, Trump has encouraged ethanol production, a biofuel that is often mixed in with gasoline.
During the primary, Trump strongly backed nuclear energy and downplayed concerns of a meltdown. He has stated: “I’m…very strongly in favor of nuclear energy….If a plane goes down people keep flying. If you get into an auto crash people keep driving.” Nonetheless, Trump’s energy plan favors natural gas development over reforming nuclear power in the United States. On the topic of natural gas — an alternative fuel, but still carbon-emitting — Trump declared his support in a 2012 tweet when he stated, “Fracking will lead to American energy independence.”
CLINTON
One of Hillary Clinton’s largest campaign commitments is her $60 billion Clean Energy Challenge, which aims to encourage states, cities and rural towns to lower emissions and to promote clean energy usage. In addition, Clinton has laid out short-term and long-term goals towards securing a green future and increasing the clean energy workforce. By the end of her first term, Clinton wants to install half a billion solar panels — enough to cover 25 million homes. Over the next decade, Clinton envisions a clean energy future with enough renewable energy generation to power every American home, with America becoming an energy “superpower” and producing more jobs. In addition, given the current level of strife in the Middle East, Clinton has suggested natural gas is a viable, local replacement to fossil fuels that can increase jobs and economic activity.
With regards to nuclear energy, the former Secretary of State has flip-flopped on energy issues as far back as her first presidential campaign. She claimed to be “agnostic about nuclear power” as far back as 2007, before suggesting in 2012 that “I think that nuclear power will remain a component of the energy supply globally, currently the United States,” noting that the US attains “20 percent of our energy from nuclear plants.” Though her current campaign has not specifically addressed nuclear energy, her campaign has noted she leans towards “advanced nuclear” energy, favoring “successful” nuclear efforts while believing in the closure of nuclear initiatives “that fail to deliver results.”
CONSENSUS
In order to maintain international agreements and mitigate global climate change effects, the next executive leader must promote clean energy innovation and investment. America’s energy independence and clean energy commitments have a global impact in addition to local impacts, both of which our next leader will need to successfully manage.
Space
TRUMP
Donald Trump has gone back and forth regarding the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and their programs. While he has stated his support for NASA and space exploration and has criticized Barack Obama’s management of NASA, last fall it appeared Trump did not plan to prioritize the program’s budget. Furthermore, he has suggested the privatization of the space program and maintained that fixing the United States economy and rebuilding infrastructure takes precedence over sending humans to Mars.
However, this past month he made claims that vastly opposed his previous statements, stating: “Observation from space and exploring beyond our own space neighborhood should be priorities.” He also highlighted that a strong space program would have a “positive, constructive impact on the pride and direction of this country.” In the future, Trump believes collaboration between space administrations and companies across the globe is a necessity as “space is not the sole property of America” and “all humankind benefits from reaching into the stars.”
CLINTON
Hillary Clinton has always emphasized her commitment to the public space program and maintaining American leadership in space exploration, research and development. She has pledged to continue funding towards NASA to better stimulate scientific research, innovation, technology, security and the economy. Clinton supports the current studies being conducted on Mars and also hopes that human exploration of Mars will one day be a reality.
CONSENSUS
Recently, there has been little focus on space exploration and NASA initiatives from the candidates, indicating that it is not a top campaign priority for either camp. However, to many citizens, it is important that the next president preserves the public space program. With President Obama’s goal of sending humans to Mars by 2030 looming overhead, both candidates will need to put their money where their mouth is to ascertain America’s future outside of Earth.
Health Care
TRUMP
Trump has repeatedly signaled his intentions to dismantle Obamacare, labeling it as “expensive”, a “fraud,” and a “disaster.” Trump touts health savings accounts instead — a form of investment accounts — as a viable replacement to the current healthcare system. In addition, Trump believes allowing for competition among healthcare providers will help reduce spiraling healthcare costs.
As of 2017, a fifth of Obamacare enrollees won’t have a choice in their health care company — up from only two percent of enrollees in 2016 — due to decreased competition. As a whole, competition is shrinking as premiums continue to rise in the healthcare industry. To increase competition and lower premiums, Trump envisions buying insurance across state lines as a cheaper alternative to the current system.
CLINTON
Hillary Clinton has defended the Affordable Care Act (ACA), noting that though premiums, co-pays, and deductibles have increased, health care coverage across the United States is over 90 percent. Because over 20 million people have found coverage since the institution of Obamacare, Clinton believes turning back will be detrimental towards those 20 million, as well as the other 170 million people who get health insurance through their employers.
In addition, Clinton has highlighted specific terms of the ACA as successes in the healthcare industry that should not be rolled back. In the October debate, Clinton mentioned a few of them: the clause that prevents insurance companies from denying coverage because of pre-existing conditions, as well as preventing companies from charging women more than men. Clinton also brought up the fact that adults up to the age of 26 can be covered under their parent’s insurance under the new terms of the Affordable Care Act.
Because of these clauses and the vast coverage Obamacare has already established within the United States, Clinton wants to expand and fix health care, rather than start over with a new system. According to Clinton, “Reigning in the costs…has to be the highest priority for the next president.” She also stated in a recent debate, that we should “fix what’s broken, but let’s not just throw it away.”
In terms of improving Obamacare, Clinton believes in maintaining a mostly employee-based health coverage system and providing additional help to small businesses to offer coverage to their employees. By bringing down costs, Clinton believes she can increase health care coverage to 100 percent across the United States whilst “keep[ing] quality up.”
CONSENSUS
The cost of healthcare and medication has skyrocketed despite America’s widespread enrollment in health insurance. Of the two candidates, the choices are to either build on the controversial Obamacare or to dismantle it and start anew. Both arguments have their merit, but the discussion on health spending is far from over and will continue to be an expensive part of our GDP.
Education
TRUMP
Donald Trump’s education reform centers around giving families a choice in schools, a traditional piece of the Republican platform. Trump plans on diverting $20 billion in federal spending towards “providing school choice to every American child living in poverty.” When families choose the schools they wish to send their children to, Trump will then give block grants to states, allowing states to disperse money to the schools that families choose to enroll in.
With regards to the controversial Common Core educational standards, Trump has promised to dismantle it, citing that “Common Core is a total disaster…we cannot let it continue.” Instead, Trump envisions empowering individual states to set their own STEM-rich curriculum to enrich future economies.
CLINTON
Though Secretary Clinton’s educational reforms focus mostly on reducing debt for college students, Clinton has promised to fund computer science education for every student in America. According to Clinton, school districts and states will be issued money to encourage computer science competency.
For college students, Clinton has promised a three month moratorium, or grace period, for all federal loan borrowers. Clinton has also envisioned free community college for all, and free tuition at in-state public colleges and universities for families that make less than $85,000 a year. Clinton hopes that evolving education reforms will eventually allow families that make under $125,000 a year to attend in-state schools without paying tuition.
In addition to her tuition reforms, Clinton has also pledged $25 billion to historically minority-serving colleges and universities in order to better serve underprivileged groups.
CONSENSUS
The United States spends more per pupil than any other developed nation in the world — nearly $15,171 per student. As a country, about 7.3 percent of our GDP goes towards students, compared to other developed countries that spend about 6.3 percent of their GDP on their students. Our numbers do not necessarily add up, as we trail developed countries in mathematical literacy. The next US president will have to reverse current trends and improve US STEM efforts without simply throwing more money into the educational system.
