torsdag, mars 31, 2011
Extra-Cold Winters in Northeastern North America and Northeastern Asia?
Warm water off continents' eastern coasts to blame
Snow cover over North America and Europe in March, 2003, as imaged by a satellite instrument.
March 30, 2011
If you're sitting on a bench in New York City's Central Park in winter, you're probably freezing.
After all, the average temperature in January is 32 degrees Fahrenheit.
But if you were just across the pond in Porto, Portugal, which shares New York's latitude, you'd be much warmer--the average temperature is a balmy 48 degrees Fahrenheit.
Throughout northern Europe, average winter temperatures are at least 10 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than similar latitudes on the northeastern coast of the United States and the eastern coast of Canada.
The same phenomenon happens over the Pacific, where winters on the northeastern coast of Asia are colder than in the Pacific Northwest.
Researchers at the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) have now found a mechanism that helps explain these chillier winters--and the culprit is warm water off the eastern coasts of these continents.
"These warm ocean waters off the eastern coasts actually make it cold in winter counte rintuitive," says Tapio Schneider, a geoscientist at Caltech.
Schneider and Yohai Kaspi, a postdoctoral fellow at Caltech, describe their work in a paper published in the March 31 issue of the journal Nature.
"This research makes a novel contribution to an old problem," says Eric DeWeaver, program director in the National Science Foundation's (NSF) Division of Atmospheric and Geospace Sciences, which funded the research.
"Traditional wisdom has it that western Europe is warm because of the Gulf Stream, but this paper presents evidence that atmospheric circulation plays an important role in maintaining the colder temperatures found on the eastern boundaries of the mid-latitude continents."
Using computer simulations of the atmosphere, the researchers found that the warm water off an eastern coast will heat the air above it and lead to the formation of atmospheric waves, drawing cold air from the northern polar region.
The cold air forms a plume just to the west of the warm water. In the case of the Atlantic Ocean, this means the frigid air ends up right over the northeastern United States and eastern Canada.
For decades, the conventional explanation for the cross-oceanic temperature difference was that the Gulf Stream delivers warm water from the Gulf of Mexico to northern Europe.
But in 2002, research showed that ocean currents aren't capable of transporting that much heat, instead contributing only up to 10 percent of the warming.
Kaspi's and Schneider's work reveals a mechanism that helps create a temperature contrast not by warming Europe, but by cooling the eastern United States.
Surprisingly, it's the Gulf Stream that causes this cooling.
In the northern hemisphere, the subtropical ocean currents circulate in a clockwise direction, bringing an influx of warm water from low latitudes into the western part of the ocean.
These warm waters heat the air above it.
"It's not that the warm Gulf Stream waters substantially heat up Europe," Kaspi says. "But the existence of the Gulf Stream near the U.S. coast is causing the cooling of the northeastern United States."
The researchers' computer model simulates a simplified, ocean-covered Earth with a warm region to mimic the coastal reservoir of warm water in the Gulf Stream.
The simulations show that such a warm spot produces so-called Rossby waves.
Rossby waves are large atmospheric waves--with wavelengths that stretch for more than 1,609 kilometers (1,000 miles).
They form when the path of moving air is deflected due to Earth's rotation, a phenomenon known as the Coriolis effect.
Similar to how gravity produces water waves on the surface of a pond, the Coriolis force is responsible for Rossby waves.
In the simulations, the warm water produces stationary Rossby waves, in which the peaks and valleys of the waves don't move, but the waves still transfer energy.
In the northern hemisphere, the stationary Rossby waves cause air to circulate in a clockwise direction just to the west of the warm region.
To the east of the warm region, the air swirls in the counterclockwise direction. These motions draw in cold air from the north, balancing the heating over the warm ocean waters.
To gain insight into the mechanisms that control the atmospheric dynamics, the researchers sped up Earth's rotation in the simulations.
In those cases, the plume of cold air gets bigger--consistent with it being a stationary Rossby-wave plume. Most other atmospheric features would get smaller if the planet were to spin faster.
Although it's long been known that a heat source could produce Rossby waves, which can then form plumes, this is the first time scientists have shown how the mechanism causes cooling that extends west of the heat source.
According to the researchers, the cooling effect could account for 30 to 50 percent of the temperature difference across oceans.
It also explains why the cold region is just as big for both North America and Asia, despite the continents' differences in topography and size.
The Rossby-wave induced cooling depends on heating air over warm ocean water. Since the warm currents along western ocean boundaries in both the Pacific and Atlantic are similar, the resulting cold region to their west would be similar as well.
The next step, Schneider says, is to build simulations that more realistically reflect what happens on Earth. Future simulations would incorporate more complex features like continents and cloud feedbacks.
The research was also funded by a NOAA Climate and Global Change Postdoctoral Fellowship and a David and Lucille Packard Fellowship.
-NSF-
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is an independent federal agency that supports fundamental research and education across all fields of science and engineering. In fiscal year (FY) 2010, its budget is about $6.9 billion. NSF funds reach all 50 states through grants to nearly 2,000 universities and institutions. Each year, NSF receives over 45,000 competitive requests for funding, and makes over 11,500 new funding awards. NSF also awards over $400 million in professional and service contracts yearly.
Warm water off continents' eastern coasts to blame
Snow cover over North America and Europe in March, 2003, as imaged by a satellite instrument.
 |
| The Gulf Stream flows northward along the Eastern U.S. then diverges out into the Atlantic Ocean |
March 30, 2011
 |
| Sea-surface temperatures off Eastern North America; purple = freezing temperature of ocean water. |
After all, the average temperature in January is 32 degrees Fahrenheit.
But if you were just across the pond in Porto, Portugal, which shares New York's latitude, you'd be much warmer--the average temperature is a balmy 48 degrees Fahrenheit.
Throughout northern Europe, average winter temperatures are at least 10 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than similar latitudes on the northeastern coast of the United States and the eastern coast of Canada.
 |
| Surface temperature deviation averaged over northern hemisphere winter months and across 40 years. |
Researchers at the California Institute of Technology (Caltech) have now found a mechanism that helps explain these chillier winters--and the culprit is warm water off the eastern coasts of these continents.
"These warm ocean waters off the eastern coasts actually make it cold in winter counte rintuitive," says Tapio Schneider, a geoscientist at Caltech.
Schneider and Yohai Kaspi, a postdoctoral fellow at Caltech, describe their work in a paper published in the March 31 issue of the journal Nature.
"This research makes a novel contribution to an old problem," says Eric DeWeaver, program director in the National Science Foundation's (NSF) Division of Atmospheric and Geospace Sciences, which funded the research.
"Traditional wisdom has it that western Europe is warm because of the Gulf Stream, but this paper presents evidence that atmospheric circulation plays an important role in maintaining the colder temperatures found on the eastern boundaries of the mid-latitude continents."
Using computer simulations of the atmosphere, the researchers found that the warm water off an eastern coast will heat the air above it and lead to the formation of atmospheric waves, drawing cold air from the northern polar region.
 |
| The northern hemisphere is perturbed with a constant localized heating at the ocean surface. |
The cold air forms a plume just to the west of the warm water. In the case of the Atlantic Ocean, this means the frigid air ends up right over the northeastern United States and eastern Canada.
For decades, the conventional explanation for the cross-oceanic temperature difference was that the Gulf Stream delivers warm water from the Gulf of Mexico to northern Europe.
But in 2002, research showed that ocean currents aren't capable of transporting that much heat, instead contributing only up to 10 percent of the warming.
Kaspi's and Schneider's work reveals a mechanism that helps create a temperature contrast not by warming Europe, but by cooling the eastern United States.
Surprisingly, it's the Gulf Stream that causes this cooling.
In the northern hemisphere, the subtropical ocean currents circulate in a clockwise direction, bringing an influx of warm water from low latitudes into the western part of the ocean.
These warm waters heat the air above it.
"It's not that the warm Gulf Stream waters substantially heat up Europe," Kaspi says. "But the existence of the Gulf Stream near the U.S. coast is causing the cooling of the northeastern United States."
The researchers' computer model simulates a simplified, ocean-covered Earth with a warm region to mimic the coastal reservoir of warm water in the Gulf Stream.
The simulations show that such a warm spot produces so-called Rossby waves.
Rossby waves are large atmospheric waves--with wavelengths that stretch for more than 1,609 kilometers (1,000 miles).
They form when the path of moving air is deflected due to Earth's rotation, a phenomenon known as the Coriolis effect.
Similar to how gravity produces water waves on the surface of a pond, the Coriolis force is responsible for Rossby waves.
In the simulations, the warm water produces stationary Rossby waves, in which the peaks and valleys of the waves don't move, but the waves still transfer energy.
In the northern hemisphere, the stationary Rossby waves cause air to circulate in a clockwise direction just to the west of the warm region.
To the east of the warm region, the air swirls in the counterclockwise direction. These motions draw in cold air from the north, balancing the heating over the warm ocean waters.
To gain insight into the mechanisms that control the atmospheric dynamics, the researchers sped up Earth's rotation in the simulations.
In those cases, the plume of cold air gets bigger--consistent with it being a stationary Rossby-wave plume. Most other atmospheric features would get smaller if the planet were to spin faster.
Although it's long been known that a heat source could produce Rossby waves, which can then form plumes, this is the first time scientists have shown how the mechanism causes cooling that extends west of the heat source.
According to the researchers, the cooling effect could account for 30 to 50 percent of the temperature difference across oceans.
It also explains why the cold region is just as big for both North America and Asia, despite the continents' differences in topography and size.
The Rossby-wave induced cooling depends on heating air over warm ocean water. Since the warm currents along western ocean boundaries in both the Pacific and Atlantic are similar, the resulting cold region to their west would be similar as well.
The next step, Schneider says, is to build simulations that more realistically reflect what happens on Earth. Future simulations would incorporate more complex features like continents and cloud feedbacks.
The research was also funded by a NOAA Climate and Global Change Postdoctoral Fellowship and a David and Lucille Packard Fellowship.
-NSF-
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is an independent federal agency that supports fundamental research and education across all fields of science and engineering. In fiscal year (FY) 2010, its budget is about $6.9 billion. NSF funds reach all 50 states through grants to nearly 2,000 universities and institutions. Each year, NSF receives over 45,000 competitive requests for funding, and makes over 11,500 new funding awards. NSF also awards over $400 million in professional and service contracts yearly.
Samsung först med genomskinlig skärm
Färgversionen av LCD-skärmen har 15 procent genomskinlighet att jämföra med 5 procent för motsvarande skärmar idag.
Samsung kommer före konkurrenterna med att starta massproduktion av genomskinliga LCD-skärmar.
Under mässor har Samsung demonstrerat skärmar som är genomskiliga som fönster – och det är just skärmar som ersätter glaset i skyltfönster som kan bli den första stora tillämpningen för tekniken.
ELEKTRONIK TIDNINGEN
Samsung kommer före konkurrenterna med att starta massproduktion av genomskinliga LCD-skärmar.
Under mässor har Samsung demonstrerat skärmar som är genomskiliga som fönster – och det är just skärmar som ersätter glaset i skyltfönster som kan bli den första stora tillämpningen för tekniken.
ELEKTRONIK TIDNINGEN
1000 döda runt Fukushima får ligga kvar
1000 människor som dog av tsunamin ligger ännu kvar runt kärnkraftverket Fukushima. Myndigheterna oroas av strålningen.
De ansvariga för uppröjningsarbetet efter katastroferna i Japan har ställts inför ett etiskt svårt dilemma - 1000 döda människor ligger kvar i utrymningszonen runt kärnkraftverket Fukushima Daiichi.
De har under utsläppen från reaktorerna belagts med radioaktiva ämnen. Myndigheterna oroas över att polis, läkare och anhöriga ska "smittas" av strålningen under omhändertagandet och senare på bårhusen, rapporterar Japan Times.
NY TEKNIK
De ansvariga för uppröjningsarbetet efter katastroferna i Japan har ställts inför ett etiskt svårt dilemma - 1000 döda människor ligger kvar i utrymningszonen runt kärnkraftverket Fukushima Daiichi.
De har under utsläppen från reaktorerna belagts med radioaktiva ämnen. Myndigheterna oroas över att polis, läkare och anhöriga ska "smittas" av strålningen under omhändertagandet och senare på bårhusen, rapporterar Japan Times.
NY TEKNIK
Otrohet orsak till journalintrång
Läkaren läste både sin älskares och hans frus journaler. Straffet blev villkorlig dom och uppsägning.
Läkaren tjuvläste journal och bröt mot tystnadsplikten
Den läkare i Landstinget Kronoberg som gjort sig skyldig till dataintrång och brott mot tystnadsplikten genom att tjuvläsa patientjournaler, blev avskedad innan domen hade fallit. Vanligtvis väntar landstinget tills efter ett domslut men i detta fall sades kvinnan upp direkt.
– Läkaren arbetar inte längre kvar inom Landstinget Kronoberg, säger personaldirektör Jeanette Kjellberg till Smålandsposten.
Läkaren har erkänt att hon vid ett 30-tal tillfällen läste sin tidigare älskares journaler för att ta reda på så mycket som möjligt om honom. Bland annat fick hon reda på att han även tidigare misstänktes ha varit otrogen.
Läkaren läste även hans frus och andra närståendes journaler. Intrången avslöjades när mannens fru begärde ut logglistorna från landstinget.
Läkaren tjuvläste journal och bröt mot tystnadsplikten
Den läkare i Landstinget Kronoberg som gjort sig skyldig till dataintrång och brott mot tystnadsplikten genom att tjuvläsa patientjournaler, blev avskedad innan domen hade fallit. Vanligtvis väntar landstinget tills efter ett domslut men i detta fall sades kvinnan upp direkt.
– Läkaren arbetar inte längre kvar inom Landstinget Kronoberg, säger personaldirektör Jeanette Kjellberg till Smålandsposten.
Läkaren har erkänt att hon vid ett 30-tal tillfällen läste sin tidigare älskares journaler för att ta reda på så mycket som möjligt om honom. Bland annat fick hon reda på att han även tidigare misstänktes ha varit otrogen.
Läkaren läste även hans frus och andra närståendes journaler. Intrången avslöjades när mannens fru begärde ut logglistorna från landstinget.
Strålbehandling var sällan orsaken till ny cancer
Risken att strålbehandling orsakar ny cancer är liten. Den slutsatsen dras i ny jättestudie.
Strålbehandling förbättrar överlevnaden vid många typer av cancer, men ökar samtidigt risken att drabbas av en andra cancer.
Hur ofta en ny cancer verkligen beror på tidigare strålbehandling är dock okänt, enligt amerikanska forskare.
Nu har de analyserat data från nästan 650 000 vuxna patienter i det amerikanska cancerregistret SEER. Alla hade överlevt i minst fem år efter att ha drabbats av en cancertyp som rutinmässigt behandlas med strålning.
Sammanlagt ingick 15 olika cancertyper i studien, däribland bröst-, lung-, struphuvud-, prostata- och testikelcancer.
Under uppföljningsperioden på i genomsnitt 12 år drabbades 9 procent av patienterna av ny cancer. Forskarna beräknar att 8 procent av dessa nya insjuknanden skulle kunna ha att göra med tidigare strålbehandling.
Hälften av dem som tros ha drabbats av ny cancer på grund av strålning hade överlevt prostata- eller bröstcancer.
Högst var risken för patienter som strålbehandlats i unga år, och för cancer i organ som kräver hög strålningsdos.
Enligt forskarna visar studien att nyttan med strålbehandling överväger den ökade risken att senare drabbas av ny cancer.
De säger dock att effekterna av nyare typer av strålbehandling inte avspeglas i studien, eftersom den gjordes på patienter som behandlades före 2003.
Bakom studien står bland andra forskare vid National Cancer Institute i Maryland. Den publiceras i tidskriften Lancet Oncology.
Abstract: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanonc/article/PIIS1470-2045(11)70061-4/abstract
Första muträttegången har startat
Den första rättegången i den omfattande muthärvan i Göteborgs tingsrätt inleddes i dag. Först ut att bedömas rättsligt är en man, som vid tiden för det misstänkta brottet hade en chefsbefattning på bostadsbolaget Poseidon. /SvD
I dag ställs en 55-årig före detta chef vid det kommunala bostadsbolaget Poseidon inför rätta för grovt mutbrott.
Usch för dessa bovar i slips och fluga!
I dag ställs en 55-årig före detta chef vid det kommunala bostadsbolaget Poseidon inför rätta för grovt mutbrott.
Usch för dessa bovar i slips och fluga!
Motbjudande doft kan bekämpa vägglöss
Vägglöss är en allt vanligare plåga som kräver omfattande sanering i bostäder. Men nu har forskare från Lund och Sundsvall upptäckt att unga vägglöss producerar en doft som är motbjudande för andra vägglöss. Förhoppningen är att dessa rön kan bidra till en effektivare bekämpning av de blodsugande krypen.
De senaste åren har vägglusangreppen blivit allt vanligare i svenska hem. Det finns två olika arter av vägglöss som suger blod från människan, dels den vanliga vägglusen, dels den tropiska vägglusen. Med ökat resande har den tropiska vägglusen allt oftare följt med resenärer till Sverige.
Ett forskarlag från Lunds universitet och Mittuniversitetet i Sundsvall har nu identifierat och kvantifierat en typ av dofter som vägglöss producerar, så kallade alarmferomoner. Forskarna har undersökt dessa dofter både hos vuxna djur och hos nymfer, det vill säga omogna vägglöss. Forskarlaget konstaterade att de dofter som avges är förvånansvärt lika mellan arterna. Dessutom avger nymferna en doft som är annorlunda jämfört med de vuxna djurens.
Beteendetester visar att nymfernas doft är motbjudande för vuxna individer samt även för andra nymfer. Den bortstötande effekten kan användas i kontrollsystem där alarmferomoner gör att vägglössen blir mer rörliga och därmed ökar effektiviteten av exempelvis uttorkande medel för avdödning, menar forskarna. En sådan framtida miljövänlig behandlingsmetod kräver dock ökad förståelse för hur vägglössens feromonsystem fungerar.
Forskningsresultaten redovisas i senaste numret av den vetenskapliga tidskriften PLoS ONE.
Kraftigt vinstfall för HM
Att vinsten skulle bli lägre var väntat men inte så låg som den kom att visa sig när klädjätten H&M redovisade sina kvartalssiffror idag.
Hennes & Mauritz redovisar ett resultat före skatt på 3.538 miljoner kronor (5.055) för det första kvartalet, december-februari, i räkenskapsåret 2010/2011.
Analytikerna hade väntat sig ett resultat före skatt på i genomsnitt 3.753 miljoner kronor.
AFFÄRSVÄRLDEN
Hennes & Mauritz redovisar ett resultat före skatt på 3.538 miljoner kronor (5.055) för det första kvartalet, december-februari, i räkenskapsåret 2010/2011.
Analytikerna hade väntat sig ett resultat före skatt på i genomsnitt 3.753 miljoner kronor.
AFFÄRSVÄRLDEN
Pro-Ouattara forces seize major Ivory Coast city
Fighters supporting Ivory Coast's internationally recognized leader seized control of the country's administrative capital Wednesday, marking a symbolic victory after months of political chaos sparked when the incumbent refused to step down after an election.
The fall of Yamoussoukro caps a dramatic advance on the city from multiple directions this week, but many believe a final bloody battle over the presidency is now destined for the commercial capital of Abidjan, 143 miles away.
Capt. Leon Alla, a defense spokesman for the internationally backed leader Alassane Ouattara, said on Wednesday that "the town of Yamoussoukro is in the hands of the Republican Forces."
Alla said Abidjan, the country's largest city, is divided into neighborhoods backing Ouattara and others supporting incumbent leader Laurent Gbagbo, who has refused to relinquish the presidency.
The international community and Ivory Coast's electoral commission say Ouattara won the November presidential election, but Gbagbo has refused to give up power after a decade in office. Up to 1 million people have fled the fighting caused by political chaos, and at least 462 people have been killed since the election.
Also on Wednesday, the U.N. Security Council voted unanimously to demand an immediate end to the escalating violence and impose sanctions on Gbagbo.
__________________________________________________
The Tulsa World is the daily newspaper for the city of Tulsa, Oklahoma, and is the second-most widely circulated newspaper in the state, after The Oklahoman. The Tulsa World is the primary newspaper for the northeastern and eastern portions of Oklahoma. It was founded in 1905 and remains an independent newspaper owned and operated for four generations by the Lorton family of Tulsa.
The fall of Yamoussoukro caps a dramatic advance on the city from multiple directions this week, but many believe a final bloody battle over the presidency is now destined for the commercial capital of Abidjan, 143 miles away.
Capt. Leon Alla, a defense spokesman for the internationally backed leader Alassane Ouattara, said on Wednesday that "the town of Yamoussoukro is in the hands of the Republican Forces."
The international community and Ivory Coast's electoral commission say Ouattara won the November presidential election, but Gbagbo has refused to give up power after a decade in office. Up to 1 million people have fled the fighting caused by political chaos, and at least 462 people have been killed since the election.
Also on Wednesday, the U.N. Security Council voted unanimously to demand an immediate end to the escalating violence and impose sanctions on Gbagbo.
__________________________________________________
The Tulsa World is the daily newspaper for the city of Tulsa, Oklahoma, and is the second-most widely circulated newspaper in the state, after The Oklahoman. The Tulsa World is the primary newspaper for the northeastern and eastern portions of Oklahoma. It was founded in 1905 and remains an independent newspaper owned and operated for four generations by the Lorton family of Tulsa.
Sarah Palin Wants To Know Whether We're In A 'Squirmish' In Libya
Add this to the ever growing list of Palinspeak.
Last night on Greta Van Susteren, Sarah Palin wanted to know exactly what we are doing in Libya.
"I, too, am not knowing, do we use the term intervention, do we use war, do we use squirmish? What is it?
In other news, the GOP has postponed their first debate because they have yet to find a serious candidate who will officially declare they are running for president. Apparently they are all too squirmish. /Business Insider
Last night on Greta Van Susteren, Sarah Palin wanted to know exactly what we are doing in Libya.
"I, too, am not knowing, do we use the term intervention, do we use war, do we use squirmish? What is it?
In other news, the GOP has postponed their first debate because they have yet to find a serious candidate who will officially declare they are running for president. Apparently they are all too squirmish. /Business Insider
Sign language users read words and see signs simultaneously
University Park, Pa. -- People fluent in sign language may simultaneously keep words and signs in their minds as they read, according to an international team of researchers.
In an experiment, deaf readers were quicker and more accurate in determining the meaningful relationship between English word pairs when the word pairs were matched with similar signs, according to Judith Kroll, Distinguished Professor of Psychology, Linguistics and Women's Studies, Penn State. The slightly better reaction time and improved accuracy rate indicates that the readers are able to juggle both English and sign language at the same time.
"If a sign language user is a bilingual juggler they might not respond to the connections between the signs and words in a conscious way," said Kroll, who serves as the director of Penn State's Center for Language Science. "But we can design experiments to measure the unconscious response."
The study shows that sign language users are similar to other bilinguals, said Kroll, who also worked with Jill Morford, professor, University of New Mexico; Erin Wilkinson, assistant professor, University of Manitoba; Agnes Villwock, student, University of Hamburg; and Pilar Pinar, associate professor, Gallaudet University.
"This reflects previous research on bilinguals that shows both languages are active even when they're reading or speaking one language," Kroll said.
According to Morford, who was the lead author for the study, the research also represents the growing acceptance among the scientific community that sign language is a real language.
"This work is critical to help make the science of studying American Sign Language every bit as rigorous as the study of other languages," said Morford.
The researchers, who released their findings in a recent issue of Cognition, tested 19 deaf adults who were fluent in American Sign Language as they decided whether pairs of English words were related or unrelated in meaning.
A total of 120 word pairs was divided into two groups of 60 word pairs that had either related or unrelated meanings. Of the related pairs, such as bird-duck, 14 also had similar signs while 16 of the unrelated word pairs had similar signs. In ASL, signs are considered related if they have similar hand shapes, locations, movements or orientations. The researchers added a number of randomly assigned word pairs to complete the test.
When the participants encountered word pairs and signs that were related, the reaction time was significantly faster and more accurate than the reaction of a control group made up of 15 bilingual speakers who spoke English as a second language.
When the word pairs were matched with unrelated signs, the participants' reaction time was slower and less accurate.
"You see interference," said Kroll. "The reaction isn't slowed down enough to cause issues in the day-to-day usage of the language, but there's a momentary gap in processing that indicates that the bilingual is not processing information like monolinguals."
The research conducted on ASL by Penn State's Center for Language Science (CLS), in collaboration with the National Science Foundation's Science of Learning Center on Visual Language and Visual Learning (VL2) at Gallaudet University, was supported by the NSF's Science of Learning Center Program and the National Institutes of Health. CLS and VL2 are partners in a new NSF project awarded to Penn State as part of the partnerships for international research and education program.
______________________________________________
National and International Collaborations
The CLS includes affiliated researchers around the world. Our many national and international collaborations bring distinguished visitors to the Penn State campus, and provide opportunities for our students to gain valuable research experience at other U.S. universities as well as in other countries. The CLS is an affiliate of the NSF Science of Learning Center at Gallaudet University, opening up further opportunities for collaboration in deaf studies, translation, and sign languages.
Support for the CLS is provided from within Penn State by the Children, Youth, and Families Consortium; The College of the Liberal Arts; and the College of Health and Human Development. Funding for individual faculty and graduate students is provided by grants from the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation.
Quiche de Tocino y Queso Cheddar
Påsk-kaka att baka för spansktalande. Min blogg har läsare med spanska som modersmål (ber icke-spansktalande om ursäkt för denna avvikelse) som bör
uppmuntras någon gång.
Compartir Imprimir Tiempo de Preparación: 20 minutos Tiempo de Principio a Fin: 1 hora 5 minutos Cantidad de Porciones: 8 Porciones
Ingredientes:
1 1/2 tazas de mezcla Bisquick Heart Smart®
2 cucharadas de aceite de canola
4 cucharadas de agua hirviendo
4 rebanadas de tocino cocido, desmenuzado
1/2 taza de queso Cheddar fuerte, reducido en grasa (2 oz)
4 cebollitas de cambray (green onions), medianas, finamente rebanadas ( aproximadamente1/4 taza)
2 huevos enteros
2 claras de huevo
1 1/4 tazas de leche sin grasa (skim milk)
1/2 cucharadita de mostaza molida
1/4 cucharadita de sal
1/2 cucharadita de salsa de chile (red pepper sauce)
Modo de preparación:
1.Precalienta el horno a 400°F. Aplica spray para cocinar a un molde para pay de vidrio de 9 pulgadas. En un tazón hondo mediano, revuelve bien la mezcla Bisquick® y el aceite. Añade el agua hirviendo; revuelve vigorosamente hasta tener una masa suave (puedes añadir de 1 a 2 cucharaditas más de agua, si es necesario). Presiona la masa contra el fondo y los lados del molde para pay.
2.Agrega el tocino, el queso y las cebollas sobre la masa. En un tazón mediano, bate los huevos, las claras, la leche, la mostaza, la sal y la salsa de chile con el batidor de globo de alambre hasta que todo se mezcle bien. Vacía sobre la masa. Cubre los bordes de masa con tiras de papel aluminio para evitar el tostado excesivo de la corteza.
3.Hornea de 30 a 35 minutos o hasta que el centro esté cocido. Quita las tiras de papel aluminio. Déjalo reposar 10 minutos antes de cortar.
Información Nutricional:
1 Porción:180 Calorías (80 Calorías de Grasa);Grasas 8g (Saturada 1.5g, Monoinsaturada 4.5g, Poliinsaturadas 1.5g);Colesterol 60mg;Sodio 480mg;Proteína 9g;
% de Valores Diarios:Beta-Caroteno 4%;Calcio 20%;Ácido Fólico 8%;Hierro 6%;Magnesio 2%;Niacina 8%;Ácido Pantoténico 4%;El Fósforo 10%;Riboflavina 15%;Selenio 15%;Tiamina 8%;Vitamina A 4%;Vitamina B12 8%;Vitamina B6 2%;Vitamina D 6%;Vitamina E 4%;Zinc 4%;
uppmuntras någon gång.
Compartir Imprimir Tiempo de Preparación: 20 minutos Tiempo de Principio a Fin: 1 hora 5 minutos Cantidad de Porciones: 8 Porciones
Ingredientes:
1 1/2 tazas de mezcla Bisquick Heart Smart®
2 cucharadas de aceite de canola
4 cucharadas de agua hirviendo
4 rebanadas de tocino cocido, desmenuzado
1/2 taza de queso Cheddar fuerte, reducido en grasa (2 oz)
4 cebollitas de cambray (green onions), medianas, finamente rebanadas ( aproximadamente1/4 taza)
2 huevos enteros
2 claras de huevo
1 1/4 tazas de leche sin grasa (skim milk)
1/2 cucharadita de mostaza molida
1/4 cucharadita de sal
1/2 cucharadita de salsa de chile (red pepper sauce)
Modo de preparación:
1.Precalienta el horno a 400°F. Aplica spray para cocinar a un molde para pay de vidrio de 9 pulgadas. En un tazón hondo mediano, revuelve bien la mezcla Bisquick® y el aceite. Añade el agua hirviendo; revuelve vigorosamente hasta tener una masa suave (puedes añadir de 1 a 2 cucharaditas más de agua, si es necesario). Presiona la masa contra el fondo y los lados del molde para pay.
2.Agrega el tocino, el queso y las cebollas sobre la masa. En un tazón mediano, bate los huevos, las claras, la leche, la mostaza, la sal y la salsa de chile con el batidor de globo de alambre hasta que todo se mezcle bien. Vacía sobre la masa. Cubre los bordes de masa con tiras de papel aluminio para evitar el tostado excesivo de la corteza.
3.Hornea de 30 a 35 minutos o hasta que el centro esté cocido. Quita las tiras de papel aluminio. Déjalo reposar 10 minutos antes de cortar.
Información Nutricional:
1 Porción:180 Calorías (80 Calorías de Grasa);Grasas 8g (Saturada 1.5g, Monoinsaturada 4.5g, Poliinsaturadas 1.5g);Colesterol 60mg;Sodio 480mg;Proteína 9g;
% de Valores Diarios:Beta-Caroteno 4%;Calcio 20%;Ácido Fólico 8%;Hierro 6%;Magnesio 2%;Niacina 8%;Ácido Pantoténico 4%;El Fósforo 10%;Riboflavina 15%;Selenio 15%;Tiamina 8%;Vitamina A 4%;Vitamina B12 8%;Vitamina B6 2%;Vitamina D 6%;Vitamina E 4%;Zinc 4%;
White Dwarfs Could Be Fertile Ground For Other Earths
Washington DC (SPX) Mar 31, 2011 - Planet hunters have found hundreds of planets outside the solar system in the last decade, though it is unclear whether even one might be habitable. But it could be that the best place to look for planets that can support life is around dim, dying stars called white dwarfs.
More >>http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/White_Dwarfs_Could_Be_Fertile_Ground_For_Other_Earths_999.html
SPACE DAILY
More >>http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/White_Dwarfs_Could_Be_Fertile_Ground_For_Other_Earths_999.html
SPACE DAILY
President Reagan Takes a Bullet
On this day in 1981, former President Ronald W. Reagan was shot outside a Washington, D.C., hotel. Reagan was rushed to the nearby George Washington University Hospital, where staff surgeons Benjamin Aaron and Joseph Giordano operated to remove a .22-caliber bullet through a 6-inch incision just below his left nipple. The bullet struck Reagan's seventh rib and penetrated his left lung by 3 inches, causing the lung to collapse. Doctors removed the bullet and re-inflated Reagan's lung. Reagan also received 2 1/2 quarts of transfused blood. The operation lasted about two hours, and Reagan was never in grave danger, doctors said later.
Aetna InteliHealth
NEJM
 |
| This Week at NEJM.org March 31, 2011 http://www.nejm.org/ |
This trial examined the independent and combined effects of weight loss and exercise in obese adults 65 years of age or older. The findings suggest that weight loss plus exercise provides greater improvement in physical function than either intervention alone.---":
(>> http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1008234?query=featured_home)
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's favorable rating from Americans is now 66%, up from 61% in July 2010 and just one percentage point below her all-time high from December 1998. She continues to get higher ratings than Barack Obama and Joe Biden, and she scores better with women than men, 72% vs. 59%.
Hillary Clinton är beundransvärd tycker jag. En av de bästa representanterna som kvinnorörelsen har idag.
Hillary Clinton är beundransvärd tycker jag. En av de bästa representanterna som kvinnorörelsen har idag.
Joseph Hayden
Idag är det lämpligt att börja dagen med musik av Joseph Hayden som föddes den 31 mars (1732).
Därefter kan jag, med all respekt för Hayden, återgå till morgonsedvänjan att lyssna till musik av Mozart. Steget är inte väldigt långt.
Därefter kan jag, med all respekt för Hayden, återgå till morgonsedvänjan att lyssna till musik av Mozart. Steget är inte väldigt långt.
onsdag, mars 30, 2011
FDA Probes Link Between Food Dyes, Kids' Behavior
 |
| Some experts have raised concerns over the presence of artificial dyes in food, claiming a link between the chemicals and hyperactivity in children. But the studies are far from conclusive. |
Mycket viktigt forskningsområde
Uranium Mining Techniques
Mining methods have been changing. In 1990, 55 percent of world production came from underground mines, but this shrunk dramatically to 1999, with 33 percent at the time. Since the year 2000, new Canadian mines have increased the global representation of underground mines again.
Read more: http://resourceinvestingnews.com/14597-uranium-mining-techniques.html
Jumbo problems
Jumbo Problems
Dreamliner Becomes a Nightmare for Boeing
By Dinah Deckstein
 |
| Now delivery of the jet is way behind schedule, and the delays could cost the firm billions. Here, a Boeing 787 Dreamliner conducts a test flight on March 20. |
 |
| Boeing wanted to revolutionize the airplane business with its Dreamliner, which was to be built using a modular approach. This 2007 photo shows the production line in Boeing's factory in Everett, Washington. |
 |
| Despite the problems, the 787 continues to sell well, with 843 orders already clocked up. |
 |
| Boeing's website says the 787 "will use 20 percent less fuel for comparable missions than today's similarly sized airplane." |
 |
| A crowd gathers to watch the 787 put through its paces at Paine Field in Everett, Washington state. |
 |
| The 787 is not the only new model on Boeing's books, however. The 747-8, a stretched version of the classic Jumbo Jet, is also scheduled for launch later this year. The freighter version, seen here, will enter service first. |
Boeing wanted to revolutionize the airplane business with its Dreamliner, which was to be built using a modular approach. But the US company went too far in its outsourcing, and the aircraft has been plagued by production problems. Delivery is now way behind schedule and the delays could cost the firm billions.
For reasons of data protection and privacy, your IP address will only be stored if you are a registered user of Facebook and you are currently logged in to the service. For more detailed information, please click on the "i" symbol.
Eight years ago, managers at the American airplane manufacturer Boeing had a brainstorm. Their idea: Build airplanes the same way the automobile industry manufactures cars, with contractors producing entire components that are then assembled in a final step. That dream resulted in Boeing's new long-range 787, the first model to be built using this modular principle. And perhaps it was that approach that inspired the plane's name: Dreamliner.
A visit to Boeing's factory in Everett, Washington, north of Seattle, shows what's become of that heady vision. Here, gleaming airplane bodies stand nose to tail on a long factory work floor, as if on an assembly line. Most of them have already received the final coat of paint, adorned with logos for airlines such as Air India and Japan Airlines.
So far, though, not one of the planes, which cost up to $185 million (€131 million) each, has been delivered to buyers. They haven't even received official authorization, due to problems with the software and electronics. Instead, the finished jets are taking up space in the area behind the building and on a nearby airfield.
There are already around two dozen planes waiting here, with more set to join them in the coming weeks and months. Boeing also plans to move part of the fleet to Texas for retrofitting. This spectacular airplane stockpile in Washington could one day go down in aviation history -- as a monument to the hubris of Boeing managers and a warning for future generations.
New Era in Aviation?
Hardly any other project, with the exception of Airbus' A380 wide-body jet, has fueled the imaginations of aviation experts and fans around the world as strongly as Boeing's hypermodern showcase jet.
When the project officially began in 2003, it looked as if a new era in civilian aviation was about to dawn. Boeing managers promised their passengers more room, better cabin air quality and larger windows made of "smart glass" which could be adjusted to let in different amounts of light. It was all to be made possible by the increased use of a novel composite material called carbon fiber reinforced plastic (CFRP), instead of the traditional aluminum. The efficient new jet was also supposed to consume 20 percent less fuel and be easier to maintain.
Then there was the production process, which seemed even more revolutionary than the technology. According to Boeing's plans, final assembly of the new jet would take just three days. To achieve that aim, the company even tossed out traditional industry rules which hold that production of complex airplanes is best entrusted to experienced teams and that important components should be constructed at the main production facility.
Instead, Boeing outsourced the production of the aircraft's components, including important parts such as the plane's wings and enormous fuselage, to around 50 subcontractors around the world. Boeing CEO James McNerney stated that the company would retain responsibility only for design, development, assembly and customer care. "The R&D investment level and risk-sharing model with suppliers was deemed appropriate at the time," a Boeing spokesperson says today, in justifying the decision.
But revolutions always require sacrifices. It was a lesson Boeing learned the hard way. Nearly 60 customers worldwide are waiting for the 787, with first delivery now postponed for the seventh time. Even if the first of the 843 jets ordered so far is delivered to All Nippon Airways late this summer as planned, it will prove difficult to make up a delay that now amounts to three years.
Victim of a Cultural Shift
The delay is due to a series of problems. First, there were the bubbles that appeared during the process of baking the huge plastic fuselage components, which are made from sheets of carbon fiber soaked in polymers. Then there was a shortage of the necessary rivets and bolts. The horizontal stabilizers and the joint between the wing and fuselage also required improvements.
Then, as if those issues weren't enough, last November a control box ignited during a test flight, setting off a chain reaction that caused essential onboard systems to fail. That meant overhauling the power supply and installing new control software.
Other new airplane models -- the Airbus A380 for example -- have also had their share of mishaps and malfunctions in recent years. Most of the time, these were the results of the manufacturers setting themselves overly ambitious deadlines and cramming their planes full of new technology.
Still, those factors alone are not enough to explain Boeing's run of bad luck. The company's managers have fallen victim to a cultural shift they themselves helped to create before the decision to build the 787, and which is now threatening to overwhelm them.
It started with Boeing's merger with competitor McDonnell Douglas in the late 1990s. Harry Stonecipher, former CEO of McDonnell Douglas and later of Boeing, felt airplane construction, measured against the high investment and risk involved, yielded only modest returns. He and his colleagues began looking for a way to build the 787 using as little of the company's own resources as possible. The solution they settled on was large-scale outsourcing.
Attractive Options
The newly merged corporation certainly would have had the necessary funds to carry out production itself, but company higher-ups apparently preferred to use the cash to buy back the firm's own stock, which had the agreeable side effect of increasing its share price. This not only benefitted the board of directors, with their attractive stock options, but also Stonecipher himself, who was one of the company's largest single stockholders.
"Boeing pursues a balanced cash deployment strategy to ensure it meets its goals in funding its existing operations, investing in future growth and for ensuring an appropriate return to shareholders through dividends and share repurchase," says a company spokesperson today.
Meanwhile, some of Boeing's subcontractors grew overwhelmed by the tasks assigned to them. Some even outsourced parts of their contracts to other outside companies, further muddling communications and coordination.
The parts that trickled into Boeing's final assembly plant in Seattle were often unfinished blanks instead of completed subassemblies. The original idea of simply putting together finished components, Lego-style, was out of the question.
Another problem was that the dimensions of the enormous fuselage sections also sometimes exceeded specified tolerance levels, which in the case of the 787 are often measured in mere millimeters.
'Overly Ambitious'
In its desperation, Boeing had no choice but to take over some of the subcontracting companies itself. "We went too much with outsourcing," Jim Albaugh, CEO of Boeing's commercial airplane division, said in a recent interview with the Seattle Times. "Now we need to bring it back to a more prudent level."
Albaugh's boss, Boeing CEO McNerney, recently admitted the production schedule for the 787 may have been "overly ambitious."
That insight comes a bit too late. As early as February 2001, former McDonnell Douglas manager John Hart-Smith, an experienced engineer, warned against too much outsourcing at a Boeing symposium. "Excessive downsizing can lead to an increase in costs," he told his colleagues. "It can also reduce a company below the critical mass of technology needed to develop future product to stay in business." But his warning fell on deaf ears.
Boeing won't put an exact number on the additional costs for technical adjustments, aid to contractors and penalty fees for disgruntled customers, but industry experts put it at well over $10 billion (€7 billion).
So far, this amount has had only a limited effect on the company's balance sheet. Unlike Airbus, for example, Boeing is able to distribute these costs across a longer time period and among a very large number of airplanes that either have been sold or are still to be ordered. Still, the company admitted in late January that its profits this year could shrink by up to 15 percent, due to delayed delivery of the 787.
Re-Drawing the Lines
The next few months should reveal whether or not the ambitious project will still manage to prove a success. Boeing hopes to finally receive authorization for its showcase jet from American and European agencies -- and start moving planes off the lot in Everett. "Boeing is making good progress on the 787 program," says a company spokesperson. "We are re-drawing the lines and adjusting where necessary."
If everything goes according to plan, Boeing will deliver around a dozen or more of the planes this year. By 2013 -- just two years from now -- plans are to roll out 10 planes per month, instead of the current two, from the production facility near Seattle and another final assembly line in South Carolina.
But Boeing's managers may once again have bitten off more than they can chew. "It's a mystery to me how they plan to pull this off," says one high-ranking Airbus manager. "Normally in our industry, you would need twice as much time for such an ambitious ramping-up of production."
 |
| A man walks past a model of a Boeing 787 at an aerospace exhibition in Hong Kong on March 8. |
 |
| The Dreamliner program has been beset by problems. Here, emergency services in Laredo, Texas attend a 787 in the colors of launch customer All Nippon Airways which made an emergency landing in November 2010 after smoke was detected in the cabin. |
 |
| The success of the Dreamliner is crucial to Boeing. The company has shown off its newest airplane around the world, including here in Paris. http://www.spiegel.de/international/ |
The first edition of the Der Spiegel was published in Hanover on 4 January 1947, a Saturday. Its release was initiated and sponsored by the British occupational administration and preceded by a magazine titled, Diese Woche (This Week), which had first been published in November 1946. After disagreements with the British, the magazine was handed over to Rudolf Augstein as chief editor, and was renamed Der Spiegel. From the first edition in January 1947, Augstein held the position of editor-in-chief, which he retained until his death on 7 November 2002.
After 1950, the magazine was owned by Augstein and John Jahr; Jahr's share merged with Richard Gruner in 1965 to form the publishing company Gruner + Jahr. In 1969, Augstein bought out Gruner + Jahr for DM 42 million and became the sole owner of Der Spiegel. However, in 1971 Gruner + Jahr bought back a 25% share in the magazine. In 1974, Augstein restructured the company to make the employees shareholders. All employees with more than three years seniority are offered the opportunity to become an associate and participate in the management of the company, as well as in the profits.
Since 1952, Der Spiegel has been headquartered in its own building in the old town part of Hamburg.
Der Spiegel is similar in style and layout to American news magazines such as Time or Newsweek. In terms of the breadth and amount of detail in its articles it is comparable to the Atlantic Monthly. It is known in Germany for its distinctive, academic writing style and its large volume—a standard issue may run 200 pages or more. Typically, it has a content to advertising ratio of 2:1.
As of 2010, Der Spiegel was employing the equivalent of 80 full-time fact checkers, which the Columbia Journalism Review called "most likely the world’s largest fact checking operation". /Wikipedia
The best magazine of Europe (I think)
Vattenflaskan mot strömmen
Retap är namnet på en dansk-svensk innovation inom det alltmer växande området "dricksvatten på flaska". Men det är en produkt som minst sagt går mot strömmen – det är nämligen en specialtillverkad glasflaska, som är avsedd för flergångsbruk och som ska fyllas med vanligt kranvatten och sålunda ersätta dyrt buteljerat bordsvatten!
"Ur miljömässig synpunkt är det inte försvarligt att betala upp till tvåtusen gånger mer för vanligt dricksvatten, bara för att det är fabriksbuteljerat på en PET- eller glasflaska", säger Retap ApS ekonomidirektör Henrik Kemp.
Sluta straffa våra patienter
Lagen om utförsäkring är omänsklig och måste stoppas. Det skriver över hundra läkare i dag i en debattartikel i Svenska Dagbladet.
Sluta straffa våra patienter
”Vi kräver att statsmakterna omedelbart slutar skada de långvarigt sjuka genom en omänsklig lag”, skriver de 108 läkarna från olika specialiteter i debattartikeln.
Läkarna skriver att de ofta möter människor som har kommit i kläm i den nya sjukförsäkringsreformen och de anser att det är själva lagen som är grundproblemet. Den ”förutsätter att ett tillfrisknande efter svåra sjukdomar sker efter tidtabell”. Dessutom skriver de att inriktningen på att all arbetsförmåga hos en person ska tillvaratas bygger på en fiktiv arbetsmarknad.
Läkarna bakom debattartikeln ser inte förslaget om att ta bort läkarnas roll i arbetsskadebedömningen som en lösning. I stället kräver de ett omedelbart stopp av utförsäkringarna och en utredning om en, vad de kallar, mänskligare lag. De vill också att nödvändiga resurser för en verklig rehabilitering för dem som är sjuka sätts in.
Läs hela debattartikeln här:
http://www.svd.se/opinion/brannpunkt/sluta-straffa-vara-patienter_6050543.svd
Den ytterst ansvarige för den omänskliga lagen, Fredrik Reinfeldt (bilden till vänster) , borde skämmas.
 |
| Jag brukar inte räcka långnäsa men ibland är det omöjligt att låta bli |
Sveriges 33 hetaste teknikbolag 2011
På väg upp, hungriga och snabba. Det är de gemensamma dragen i företagen som lyckats knipa en plats på Ny Tekniks rankning.
Listan: Sveriges 33 hetaste teknikbolag 2011
NY TEKNIK
Listan: Sveriges 33 hetaste teknikbolag 2011
NY TEKNIK
Den mycket starkt misstänkte tog sitt liv
 |
| Stefan Börjesson |
som misstänktes ha mördat och styckat en kvinna i Örebro avled i förmiddags.
Börjesson tog sitt liv i en träningslokal i häktet där han vid tillfället var
ensam.
Förhör med honom hölls senast i går. - Där presenterades en del material som var väldigt besvärande för honom, säger åklagare Helena
Eckerrot Flodin.
På fredag skulle troligen en ny häktningsförhandling hållits mot
honom.
Syrian government resigns amid continuing unrest
Syria’s cabinet has resigned, in an effort to counter the wave of protests calling for political reform. Muhammad Naji al-Otari, the outgoing prime minister who has held the post since 2003, will act as the caretaker prime minister until a new government is formed.
Obama Seeks “Achievable and Necessary” Energy Goal
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
March 30, 2011
Remarks of President Barack Obama—As Prepared for Delivery
A Secure Energy Future
Georgetown University
March 30, 2011
We meet here at a tumultuous time for the world. In a matter of months, we’ve seen regimes toppled and democracy take root across North Africa and the Middle East. We’ve witnessed a terrible earthquake, catastrophic tsunami and nuclear emergency batter a strong ally and the world’s third largest economy. And we’ve led an international effort in Libya to prevent a massacre and maintain stability throughout the broader region.
As Americans, we are heartbroken by the lives that have been lost as a result of these events. We are moved by the thirst for freedom in many nations, as well as the strength and perseverance of the Japanese people. And of course, it’s natural to feel anxious about what all this means for us.
One area of particular concern has been the cost and security of our energy. In an economy that relies on oil, rising prices at the pump affect everybody – workers and farmers; truck drivers and restaurant owners. Businesses see it hurt their bottom line. Families feel the pinch when they fill up their tank. For Americans already struggling to get by, it makes life that much harder.
But here’s the thing – we’ve been down this road before. Remember, it was just three years ago that gas prices topped $4 a gallon. Working folks haven’t forgotten that. It hit a lot of people pretty hard. But it was also the height of political season, so you had a lot of slogans and gimmicks and outraged politicians waving three-point-plans for two-dollar gas – when none of it would really do anything to solve the problem. Imagine that in Washington.
The truth is, of course, was that all these gimmicks didn’t make a bit of difference. When gas prices finally fell, it was mostly because the global recession led to less demand for oil. Now that the economy is recovering, demand is back up. Add the turmoil in the Middle East, and it’s not surprising oil prices are higher. And every time the price of a barrel of oil on the world market rises by $10, a gallon of gas goes up by about 25 cents.
The point is, the ups and downs in gas prices are usually temporary. When you look at the long-term trends, though, there will be more ups than downs. That’s because countries like India and China are growing at a rapid clip. And as two billion more people start consuming more goods, and driving more cars, and using more energy, it’s certain that demand will go up a lot faster than supply.
So here’s the bottom line – there are no quick fixes. And we will keep on being a victim to shifts in the oil market until we get serious about a long-term policy for secure, affordable energy.
We’ve known about the dangers of our oil dependence for decades. Presidents and politicians of every stripe have promised energy independence, but that promise has so far gone unmet. I’ve pledged to reduce America’s dependence on oil too, and I’m proud of the historic progress we’ve made over the last two years towards that goal. But we’ve also run into the same political gridlock and inertia that’s held us back for decades.
That has to change.
We cannot keep going from shock to trance on the issue of energy security, rushing to propose action when gas prices rise, then hitting the snooze button when they fall again. The United States of America cannot afford to bet our long-term prosperity and security on a resource that will eventually run out. Not anymore. Not when the cost to our economy, our country, and our planet is so high. Not when your generation needs us to get this right.
It is time to do what we can to secure our energy future.
So today, I’m setting a new goal: one that is reasonable, achievable, and necessary. When I was elected to this office, America imported 11 million barrels of oil a day. By a little more than a decade from now, we will have cut that by one-third.
I set this goal knowing that imported oil will remain an important part of our energy portfolio for quite some time. And when it comes to the oil we import from other nations, we can partner with neighbors like Canada, Mexico, and Brazil, which recently discovered significant new oil reserves, and with whom we can share American technology and know-how.
But our best opportunities to enhance our energy security can be found in our own backyard. And we boast one critical, renewable resource the rest of the world cannot match: American ingenuity.
To make ourselves more secure – to control our energy future – we will need to harness that ingenuity. It is a task that won’t be finished by the end of my presidency, or even the next. But if we continue the work that we have already begun over the last two years, we won’t just spark new jobs, industries and innovations; we will leave your generation and future generations a country that is safer, healthier, and more prosperous.
Today, my Administration is releasing a Blueprint for A Secure Energy Future that outlines the comprehensive national energy policy we’ve pursued since the day I took office. And here at Georgetown, I’d like to talk in broad strokes about how we will secure that future.
Meeting this new goal of cutting our oil dependence depends largely on two things: finding and producing more oil at home, and reducing our dependence on oil with cleaner alternative fuels and greater efficiency.
This begins by continuing to increase America’s oil supply. Last year, American oil production reached its highest level since 2003. And for the first time in more than a decade, oil we imported accounted for less than half the liquid fuel we consumed.
To keep reducing that reliance on imports, my Administration is encouraging offshore oil exploration and production – as long as it’s safe and responsible. I don’t think anyone’s forgotten that we’re not even a year removed from the largest oil spill in our history. I know the people of the Gulf Coast haven’t. What we learned from that disaster helped us put in place smarter standards of safety and responsibility – for example, if you’re going to drill in deepwater, you’ve got to prove that you can actually contain an underwater spill. That’s just common sense.
Today, we’re working to expedite new drilling permits for companies that meet these standards. Since they were put in place, we’ve approved 39 new shallow water permits; and we’ve approved an additional 7 deepwater permits in recent weeks. When it comes to drilling onshore, my Administration approved more than two permits last year for every new well that the industry started to drill. So any claim that my Administration is responsible for gas prices because we’ve “shut down” oil production might make for a useful political sound bite – but it doesn’t track with reality.
In fact, we are pushing the oil industry to take advantage of the opportunities they already have. Right now, the industry holds tens of millions of acres of leases where it’s not producing a drop – sitting on supplies of American energy just waiting to be tapped. That’s why part of our plan is to provide new and better incentives that promote rapid, responsible development of these resources. We’re also exploring and assessing new frontiers for oil and gas development from Alaska to the Mid- and South Atlantic. Because producing more oil in America can help lower oil prices, create jobs, and enhance our energy security.
But let’s be honest – it’s not the long-term solution to our energy challenge. America holds only about two percent of the world’s proven oil reserves. And even if we drilled every drop of oil out of every one of those reserves, it still wouldn’t be enough to meet our long-term needs.
All of this means one thing: the only way for America’s energy supply to be truly secure is by permanently reducing our dependence on oil. We have to find ways to boost our efficiency so that we use less oil. We have to discover and produce cleaner, renewable sources of energy with less of the carbon pollution that threatens our climate. And we have to do it quickly.
In terms of new sources of energy, we have a few different options. The first is natural gas. As I mentioned earlier, recent innovations have given us the opportunity to tap large reserves – perhaps a century’s worth – in the shale under our feet. Now, we have to make sure we’re doing it safely, without polluting our water supply. And that’s why I’m asking my Energy Secretary, Steven Chu, to work with other agencies, the natural gas industry, states, and environmental experts to improve the safety of this process. I don’t know if you’ve heard, but he’s got a Nobel Prize for physics, after all. He likes to tinker on this stuff in his garage on the weekend.
But the potential here is enormous. It’s actually an area of broad bipartisan agreement. Last year, more than 150 Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle proposed legislation providing incentives to use clean-burning natural gas in our vehicles instead of oil. They were even joined by T. Boone Pickens, a businessman who made his fortune on oil. So I ask them to keep at it and pass a bill that helps us achieve this goal.
Another substitute for oil that holds tremendous promise is renewable biofuels – not just ethanol, but biofuels made from things like switchgrass, wood chips, and biomass.
If anyone doubts the potential of these fuels, consider Brazil. Already, more than half – half – of Brazil’s vehicles can run on biofuels. And just last week, our Air Force used an advanced biofuel blend to fly an F-22 Raptor faster than the speed of sound. In fact, the Air Force is aiming to get half of its domestic jet fuel from alternative sources by 2016. And I’m directing the Navy and the Departments of Energy and Agriculture to work with the private sector to create advanced biofuels that can power not just fighter jets, but trucks and commercial airliners.
So there’s no reason we shouldn’t be using these renewable fuels throughout America. That’s why we’re investing in things like fueling stations and research into the next generation of biofuels. Over the next two years, we’ll help entrepreneurs break ground on four next-generation biorefineries – each with a capacity of more than 20 million gallons per year. And going forward, we should look for ways to reform biofuels incentives to make sure they meet today’s challenges and save taxpayers money.
As we replace oil with fuels like natural gas and biofuels, we can also reduce our dependence by making cars and trucks that use less oil in the first place. After all, 70 percent of our petroleum consumption goes to transportation. And so does the second biggest chunk of most families’ budgets. That’s why one of the best ways to make our economy less dependent on oil and save folks more money is simply to make our transportation more efficient.
Last year, we established a groundbreaking national fuel efficiency standard for cars and trucks. Our cars will get better gas mileage, saving 1.8 billion barrels of oil over the life of the program. Our consumers will save money from fewer trips to the pump – $3,000 on average over time. And our automakers will build more innovative products. Right now, there are even cars rolling off assembly lines in Detroit with combustion engines that can get more than 50 miles per gallon.
Going forward, we’ll continue working with automakers, autoworkers and states to ensure that the high-quality, fuel-efficient cars and trucks of tomorrow are built right here in America. This summer, we’ll propose the first-ever fuel efficiency standard for heavy-duty trucks. And this fall, we’ll announce the next round of fuel standards for cars that builds on what we’ve done.
To achieve our oil goal, the federal government will lead by example. The fleet of cars and trucks we use in the federal government is one of the largest in the country. That’s why we’ve already doubled the number of alternative vehicles in the federal fleet, and that’s why, today, I am directing agencies to purchase 100% alternative fuel, hybrid, or electric vehicles by 2015. And going forward, we’ll partner with private companies that want to upgrade their large fleets.
We’ve also made historic investments in high-speed rail and mass transit, because part of making our transportation sector cleaner and more efficient involves offering Americans – urban, suburban, and rural – the choice to be mobile without having to get in a car and pay for gas.
Still, there are few breakthroughs as promising for increasing fuel efficiency and reducing our dependence on oil as electric vehicles. Soon after I took office, I set a goal to have one million electric vehicles on our roads by 2015. We’ve created incentives for American companies to develop these vehicles, and for Americans who want to buy them. New manufacturing plants are opening over the next few years. And a modest, $2 billion investment in competitive grants for companies to develop the next generation of batteries for these cars has jumpstarted a big new American industry. Soon, America will be home to 40 percent of global manufacturing capacity for these batteries. And that means jobs. But to make sure we stay on the road to this goal, we need to do more – by offering more powerful incentives to consumers, and by rewarding the communities that pave the way for adoption of these vehicles.
Now, the thing about electric cars is that, well, they run on electricity. And even if we reduce our oil dependency, a smart, comprehensive energy policy requires that we change the way we generate electricity in America – so that it’s cleaner, safer, and healthier. And by the way – we also know that ushering in a clean energy economy has the potential to create an untold number of new jobs and new businesses – jobs that we want right here in America.
Part of this change comes from wasting less energy. Today, our homes and businesses consume 40 percent of the energy we use, costing us billions in energy bills. Manufacturers that require large amounts of energy to make their products are challenged by rising energy costs. That’s why we’ve proposed new programs to help Americans upgrade their homes and businesses and plants with new, energy-efficient building materials like lighting, windows, heating and cooling – investments that will save consumers and business owners tens of billions of dollars a year, free up money for investment and hiring, and create jobs for workers and contractors.
And just like the fuels we use, we also have to find cleaner, renewable sources of electricity. Today, about two-fifths of our electricity comes from clean energy sources. But I know that we can do better than that. In fact, I think that with the right incentives in place, we can double it. That’s why, in my State of the Union Address, I called for a new Clean Energy Standard for America: by 2035, 80 percent of our electricity will come from an array of clean energy sources, from renewables like wind and solar to efficient natural gas to clean coal and nuclear power.
Now, in light of ongoing events in Japan, I want to say another word about nuclear power. America gets one-fifth of our electricity from nuclear energy. It has important potential for increasing our electricity without adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. But I’m determined to ensure that it’s safe. That’s why I’ve requested a comprehensive safety review by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to make sure that all of our existing nuclear energy facilities are safe. We’ll incorporate those conclusions and lessons from Japan in designing and building the next generation of plants. And my Administration is leading global discussions towards a new international framework in which all countries operate their nuclear plants without spreading dangerous nuclear materials and technology.
A Clean Energy Standard will broaden the scope of clean energy investment by giving cutting-edge companies the certainty they need to invest in America. In the 1980s, America was home to more than 80 percent of the world’s wind capacity, and 90 percent of its solar capacity. We owned the clean energy economy. But today, China has the most wind capacity. Germany has the most solar. Both invest more than we do in clean energy. Other countries are exporting technology we pioneered and chasing the jobs that come with it because they know that the countries that lead the 21st century clean energy economy will be the countries that lead the 21st century global economy.
I want America to be that nation. I want America to win the future.
A Clean Energy Standard will help drive private investment. But government funding will be critical too. Over the past two years, the historic investments we’ve made in clean and renewable energy research and technology have helped private sector companies grow and hire hundreds of thousands of new workers. I’ve visited gleaming new solar arrays among the largest in the world, tested an electric vehicle fresh off the assembly line, and toured once-shuttered factories where they’re building advanced wind blades as long as a 747 and the towers to support them. I’ve seen the scientists searching for that next big energy breakthrough. And none of this would have happened without government support.
Now, in light of our tight fiscal situation, it’s fair to ask how we’ll pay for all of it. As we debate our national priorities and our budget in Congress, we have to make tough choices. We’ll have to cut what we don’t need to invest in what we do need. Unfortunately, some want to cut these critical investments in clean energy. They want to cut our research and development into new technologies. They’re even shortchanging the resources necessary to promptly issue new permits for offshore drilling. These cuts would eliminate thousands of private sector jobs, terminate scientists and engineers, and end fellowships for researchers, graduate students and other talent we desperately need for the 21st century.
See, we are already paying a price for our inaction. Every time we fill up at the pump; every time we lose a job or a business to countries that invest more than we do in clean energy; when it comes to our air, our water, and the climate change that threatens the planet you’ll inherit – we are already paying that price. These are the costs we’re already bearing. And if we do nothing, that price will only go up.
At a moment like this, sacrificing these investments would weaken our energy security and make us more dependent on oil, not less. That’s not a game plan to win the future. That’s a vision to keep us mired in the past. And I will not accept that outcome for the United States of America.
I want to close by speaking directly to the people who will be writing America’s next great chapter – the students gathered here today.
The issue of energy independence is one that America has been talking about since before your parents were your age. On top of that, you go to school in a town that, for a long time, has suffered from a chronic unwillingness to come together and make tough choices. Because of all this, you’d be forgiven for thinking that maybe there isn’t much we can do to rise to our challenges.
But everything I have seen and experienced with your generation convinces me otherwise. I believe it is precisely because you have come of age in a time of rapid and sometimes unsettling change – born into a world with fewer walls, educated in an era of information, tempered by war and economic turmoil – that you believe, as deeply as any of our generations, that America can change for the better.
We need that. We need you to dream big. We need you to summon that same spirit of unbridled optimism, that bold willingness to tackle tough challenges and see those challenges through that led previous generations to rise to greatness – to save democracy, to touch the moon, to connect the world with our own science and imagination.
That is what America is capable of. And it is that very history that teaches us that all of our challenges – all of them – are within our power to solve.
I don’t want to leave this challenge for future presidents. I don’t want to leave it for my children. And I do not want to leave it for yours. Solving it will take time and effort. It will require our brightest scientists, our most creative companies, and, most importantly, all of us – Democrats, Republicans, and everyone in between – to do our part. But with confidence – in America, in ourselves, and in one another – I know it is a challenge we will solve.
Thank you. God Bless You, and God Bless the United States of America.
Office of the Press Secretary
March 30, 2011
Remarks of President Barack Obama—As Prepared for Delivery
A Secure Energy Future
Georgetown University
March 30, 2011
As Americans, we are heartbroken by the lives that have been lost as a result of these events. We are moved by the thirst for freedom in many nations, as well as the strength and perseverance of the Japanese people. And of course, it’s natural to feel anxious about what all this means for us.
One area of particular concern has been the cost and security of our energy. In an economy that relies on oil, rising prices at the pump affect everybody – workers and farmers; truck drivers and restaurant owners. Businesses see it hurt their bottom line. Families feel the pinch when they fill up their tank. For Americans already struggling to get by, it makes life that much harder.
But here’s the thing – we’ve been down this road before. Remember, it was just three years ago that gas prices topped $4 a gallon. Working folks haven’t forgotten that. It hit a lot of people pretty hard. But it was also the height of political season, so you had a lot of slogans and gimmicks and outraged politicians waving three-point-plans for two-dollar gas – when none of it would really do anything to solve the problem. Imagine that in Washington.
The truth is, of course, was that all these gimmicks didn’t make a bit of difference. When gas prices finally fell, it was mostly because the global recession led to less demand for oil. Now that the economy is recovering, demand is back up. Add the turmoil in the Middle East, and it’s not surprising oil prices are higher. And every time the price of a barrel of oil on the world market rises by $10, a gallon of gas goes up by about 25 cents.
The point is, the ups and downs in gas prices are usually temporary. When you look at the long-term trends, though, there will be more ups than downs. That’s because countries like India and China are growing at a rapid clip. And as two billion more people start consuming more goods, and driving more cars, and using more energy, it’s certain that demand will go up a lot faster than supply.
So here’s the bottom line – there are no quick fixes. And we will keep on being a victim to shifts in the oil market until we get serious about a long-term policy for secure, affordable energy.
We’ve known about the dangers of our oil dependence for decades. Presidents and politicians of every stripe have promised energy independence, but that promise has so far gone unmet. I’ve pledged to reduce America’s dependence on oil too, and I’m proud of the historic progress we’ve made over the last two years towards that goal. But we’ve also run into the same political gridlock and inertia that’s held us back for decades.
That has to change.
We cannot keep going from shock to trance on the issue of energy security, rushing to propose action when gas prices rise, then hitting the snooze button when they fall again. The United States of America cannot afford to bet our long-term prosperity and security on a resource that will eventually run out. Not anymore. Not when the cost to our economy, our country, and our planet is so high. Not when your generation needs us to get this right.
It is time to do what we can to secure our energy future.
So today, I’m setting a new goal: one that is reasonable, achievable, and necessary. When I was elected to this office, America imported 11 million barrels of oil a day. By a little more than a decade from now, we will have cut that by one-third.
I set this goal knowing that imported oil will remain an important part of our energy portfolio for quite some time. And when it comes to the oil we import from other nations, we can partner with neighbors like Canada, Mexico, and Brazil, which recently discovered significant new oil reserves, and with whom we can share American technology and know-how.
But our best opportunities to enhance our energy security can be found in our own backyard. And we boast one critical, renewable resource the rest of the world cannot match: American ingenuity.
To make ourselves more secure – to control our energy future – we will need to harness that ingenuity. It is a task that won’t be finished by the end of my presidency, or even the next. But if we continue the work that we have already begun over the last two years, we won’t just spark new jobs, industries and innovations; we will leave your generation and future generations a country that is safer, healthier, and more prosperous.
Today, my Administration is releasing a Blueprint for A Secure Energy Future that outlines the comprehensive national energy policy we’ve pursued since the day I took office. And here at Georgetown, I’d like to talk in broad strokes about how we will secure that future.
Meeting this new goal of cutting our oil dependence depends largely on two things: finding and producing more oil at home, and reducing our dependence on oil with cleaner alternative fuels and greater efficiency.
This begins by continuing to increase America’s oil supply. Last year, American oil production reached its highest level since 2003. And for the first time in more than a decade, oil we imported accounted for less than half the liquid fuel we consumed.
To keep reducing that reliance on imports, my Administration is encouraging offshore oil exploration and production – as long as it’s safe and responsible. I don’t think anyone’s forgotten that we’re not even a year removed from the largest oil spill in our history. I know the people of the Gulf Coast haven’t. What we learned from that disaster helped us put in place smarter standards of safety and responsibility – for example, if you’re going to drill in deepwater, you’ve got to prove that you can actually contain an underwater spill. That’s just common sense.
Today, we’re working to expedite new drilling permits for companies that meet these standards. Since they were put in place, we’ve approved 39 new shallow water permits; and we’ve approved an additional 7 deepwater permits in recent weeks. When it comes to drilling onshore, my Administration approved more than two permits last year for every new well that the industry started to drill. So any claim that my Administration is responsible for gas prices because we’ve “shut down” oil production might make for a useful political sound bite – but it doesn’t track with reality.
In fact, we are pushing the oil industry to take advantage of the opportunities they already have. Right now, the industry holds tens of millions of acres of leases where it’s not producing a drop – sitting on supplies of American energy just waiting to be tapped. That’s why part of our plan is to provide new and better incentives that promote rapid, responsible development of these resources. We’re also exploring and assessing new frontiers for oil and gas development from Alaska to the Mid- and South Atlantic. Because producing more oil in America can help lower oil prices, create jobs, and enhance our energy security.
But let’s be honest – it’s not the long-term solution to our energy challenge. America holds only about two percent of the world’s proven oil reserves. And even if we drilled every drop of oil out of every one of those reserves, it still wouldn’t be enough to meet our long-term needs.
All of this means one thing: the only way for America’s energy supply to be truly secure is by permanently reducing our dependence on oil. We have to find ways to boost our efficiency so that we use less oil. We have to discover and produce cleaner, renewable sources of energy with less of the carbon pollution that threatens our climate. And we have to do it quickly.
In terms of new sources of energy, we have a few different options. The first is natural gas. As I mentioned earlier, recent innovations have given us the opportunity to tap large reserves – perhaps a century’s worth – in the shale under our feet. Now, we have to make sure we’re doing it safely, without polluting our water supply. And that’s why I’m asking my Energy Secretary, Steven Chu, to work with other agencies, the natural gas industry, states, and environmental experts to improve the safety of this process. I don’t know if you’ve heard, but he’s got a Nobel Prize for physics, after all. He likes to tinker on this stuff in his garage on the weekend.
But the potential here is enormous. It’s actually an area of broad bipartisan agreement. Last year, more than 150 Members of Congress from both sides of the aisle proposed legislation providing incentives to use clean-burning natural gas in our vehicles instead of oil. They were even joined by T. Boone Pickens, a businessman who made his fortune on oil. So I ask them to keep at it and pass a bill that helps us achieve this goal.
Another substitute for oil that holds tremendous promise is renewable biofuels – not just ethanol, but biofuels made from things like switchgrass, wood chips, and biomass.
If anyone doubts the potential of these fuels, consider Brazil. Already, more than half – half – of Brazil’s vehicles can run on biofuels. And just last week, our Air Force used an advanced biofuel blend to fly an F-22 Raptor faster than the speed of sound. In fact, the Air Force is aiming to get half of its domestic jet fuel from alternative sources by 2016. And I’m directing the Navy and the Departments of Energy and Agriculture to work with the private sector to create advanced biofuels that can power not just fighter jets, but trucks and commercial airliners.
So there’s no reason we shouldn’t be using these renewable fuels throughout America. That’s why we’re investing in things like fueling stations and research into the next generation of biofuels. Over the next two years, we’ll help entrepreneurs break ground on four next-generation biorefineries – each with a capacity of more than 20 million gallons per year. And going forward, we should look for ways to reform biofuels incentives to make sure they meet today’s challenges and save taxpayers money.
As we replace oil with fuels like natural gas and biofuels, we can also reduce our dependence by making cars and trucks that use less oil in the first place. After all, 70 percent of our petroleum consumption goes to transportation. And so does the second biggest chunk of most families’ budgets. That’s why one of the best ways to make our economy less dependent on oil and save folks more money is simply to make our transportation more efficient.
Last year, we established a groundbreaking national fuel efficiency standard for cars and trucks. Our cars will get better gas mileage, saving 1.8 billion barrels of oil over the life of the program. Our consumers will save money from fewer trips to the pump – $3,000 on average over time. And our automakers will build more innovative products. Right now, there are even cars rolling off assembly lines in Detroit with combustion engines that can get more than 50 miles per gallon.
Going forward, we’ll continue working with automakers, autoworkers and states to ensure that the high-quality, fuel-efficient cars and trucks of tomorrow are built right here in America. This summer, we’ll propose the first-ever fuel efficiency standard for heavy-duty trucks. And this fall, we’ll announce the next round of fuel standards for cars that builds on what we’ve done.
To achieve our oil goal, the federal government will lead by example. The fleet of cars and trucks we use in the federal government is one of the largest in the country. That’s why we’ve already doubled the number of alternative vehicles in the federal fleet, and that’s why, today, I am directing agencies to purchase 100% alternative fuel, hybrid, or electric vehicles by 2015. And going forward, we’ll partner with private companies that want to upgrade their large fleets.
We’ve also made historic investments in high-speed rail and mass transit, because part of making our transportation sector cleaner and more efficient involves offering Americans – urban, suburban, and rural – the choice to be mobile without having to get in a car and pay for gas.
Still, there are few breakthroughs as promising for increasing fuel efficiency and reducing our dependence on oil as electric vehicles. Soon after I took office, I set a goal to have one million electric vehicles on our roads by 2015. We’ve created incentives for American companies to develop these vehicles, and for Americans who want to buy them. New manufacturing plants are opening over the next few years. And a modest, $2 billion investment in competitive grants for companies to develop the next generation of batteries for these cars has jumpstarted a big new American industry. Soon, America will be home to 40 percent of global manufacturing capacity for these batteries. And that means jobs. But to make sure we stay on the road to this goal, we need to do more – by offering more powerful incentives to consumers, and by rewarding the communities that pave the way for adoption of these vehicles.
Now, the thing about electric cars is that, well, they run on electricity. And even if we reduce our oil dependency, a smart, comprehensive energy policy requires that we change the way we generate electricity in America – so that it’s cleaner, safer, and healthier. And by the way – we also know that ushering in a clean energy economy has the potential to create an untold number of new jobs and new businesses – jobs that we want right here in America.
Part of this change comes from wasting less energy. Today, our homes and businesses consume 40 percent of the energy we use, costing us billions in energy bills. Manufacturers that require large amounts of energy to make their products are challenged by rising energy costs. That’s why we’ve proposed new programs to help Americans upgrade their homes and businesses and plants with new, energy-efficient building materials like lighting, windows, heating and cooling – investments that will save consumers and business owners tens of billions of dollars a year, free up money for investment and hiring, and create jobs for workers and contractors.
And just like the fuels we use, we also have to find cleaner, renewable sources of electricity. Today, about two-fifths of our electricity comes from clean energy sources. But I know that we can do better than that. In fact, I think that with the right incentives in place, we can double it. That’s why, in my State of the Union Address, I called for a new Clean Energy Standard for America: by 2035, 80 percent of our electricity will come from an array of clean energy sources, from renewables like wind and solar to efficient natural gas to clean coal and nuclear power.
Now, in light of ongoing events in Japan, I want to say another word about nuclear power. America gets one-fifth of our electricity from nuclear energy. It has important potential for increasing our electricity without adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. But I’m determined to ensure that it’s safe. That’s why I’ve requested a comprehensive safety review by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to make sure that all of our existing nuclear energy facilities are safe. We’ll incorporate those conclusions and lessons from Japan in designing and building the next generation of plants. And my Administration is leading global discussions towards a new international framework in which all countries operate their nuclear plants without spreading dangerous nuclear materials and technology.
A Clean Energy Standard will broaden the scope of clean energy investment by giving cutting-edge companies the certainty they need to invest in America. In the 1980s, America was home to more than 80 percent of the world’s wind capacity, and 90 percent of its solar capacity. We owned the clean energy economy. But today, China has the most wind capacity. Germany has the most solar. Both invest more than we do in clean energy. Other countries are exporting technology we pioneered and chasing the jobs that come with it because they know that the countries that lead the 21st century clean energy economy will be the countries that lead the 21st century global economy.
I want America to be that nation. I want America to win the future.
A Clean Energy Standard will help drive private investment. But government funding will be critical too. Over the past two years, the historic investments we’ve made in clean and renewable energy research and technology have helped private sector companies grow and hire hundreds of thousands of new workers. I’ve visited gleaming new solar arrays among the largest in the world, tested an electric vehicle fresh off the assembly line, and toured once-shuttered factories where they’re building advanced wind blades as long as a 747 and the towers to support them. I’ve seen the scientists searching for that next big energy breakthrough. And none of this would have happened without government support.
Now, in light of our tight fiscal situation, it’s fair to ask how we’ll pay for all of it. As we debate our national priorities and our budget in Congress, we have to make tough choices. We’ll have to cut what we don’t need to invest in what we do need. Unfortunately, some want to cut these critical investments in clean energy. They want to cut our research and development into new technologies. They’re even shortchanging the resources necessary to promptly issue new permits for offshore drilling. These cuts would eliminate thousands of private sector jobs, terminate scientists and engineers, and end fellowships for researchers, graduate students and other talent we desperately need for the 21st century.
See, we are already paying a price for our inaction. Every time we fill up at the pump; every time we lose a job or a business to countries that invest more than we do in clean energy; when it comes to our air, our water, and the climate change that threatens the planet you’ll inherit – we are already paying that price. These are the costs we’re already bearing. And if we do nothing, that price will only go up.
At a moment like this, sacrificing these investments would weaken our energy security and make us more dependent on oil, not less. That’s not a game plan to win the future. That’s a vision to keep us mired in the past. And I will not accept that outcome for the United States of America.
I want to close by speaking directly to the people who will be writing America’s next great chapter – the students gathered here today.
The issue of energy independence is one that America has been talking about since before your parents were your age. On top of that, you go to school in a town that, for a long time, has suffered from a chronic unwillingness to come together and make tough choices. Because of all this, you’d be forgiven for thinking that maybe there isn’t much we can do to rise to our challenges.
But everything I have seen and experienced with your generation convinces me otherwise. I believe it is precisely because you have come of age in a time of rapid and sometimes unsettling change – born into a world with fewer walls, educated in an era of information, tempered by war and economic turmoil – that you believe, as deeply as any of our generations, that America can change for the better.
We need that. We need you to dream big. We need you to summon that same spirit of unbridled optimism, that bold willingness to tackle tough challenges and see those challenges through that led previous generations to rise to greatness – to save democracy, to touch the moon, to connect the world with our own science and imagination.
That is what America is capable of. And it is that very history that teaches us that all of our challenges – all of them – are within our power to solve.
I don’t want to leave this challenge for future presidents. I don’t want to leave it for my children. And I do not want to leave it for yours. Solving it will take time and effort. It will require our brightest scientists, our most creative companies, and, most importantly, all of us – Democrats, Republicans, and everyone in between – to do our part. But with confidence – in America, in ourselves, and in one another – I know it is a challenge we will solve.
Thank you. God Bless You, and God Bless the United States of America.