Besides the well known tax breaks (deepwater incentives, depletion allowances, tertiary recovery tax breaks) and other government support (eminent domain used to secure mineral rights, and rights of way for pipelines and transmission lines, dredging of deepwater ports and waterways, leases on public land) there are other hidden government giveaways to the fossil fuel industries. Government research labs provide the basic research that these companies need (seismology, offshore surveys, deep drilling, enhanced gas recovery, super computing). The military protects the oil supply lines. The Coast Guard cleans up the spills. The taxpowers pay the costs of the pollution left behind, monetarily and with the loss of quality of life and health. The government gives them incentives to develop the resources, but they use that money for excessive lobbying efforts.

We continually have scares from contaminated food (tainted spinach, mercury in fish, salmonella, botulism, Mad Cows). There are terroristic threats against our food supply. Pollinating bees are dying off. Are gentically modified foods safe? We import more and more food from countries where they tell us not to drink the water or eat the salads or eat the shellfish. Factory farming methods have a huge economic impact when contamination is discovered and there's no way to trace the source, especially when meat products from a dozen states are mixed together in packing plants Lack of genetic diversity in our seed stocks might put us in jeopardy. Hormones and antibiotics in farm animals, as well as pesticides on crops and some plastics used in food and drink containers, are causing medcal problems in humans. Yet most regulations and inspections are a century behind the times. Labeling on food packaging is misleading if not fraudulent. Fisheries around the world are being decimated from overfishing. Is "pink slime" really food? Farm laborers who pick our crops don't always have access to sanitary facilities. People who work in our restaurants work while they're sick because they don't get paid when they stay home and they usually don't have health insurance.

We always hear from business leaders that American students are illiterate when it comes to business and economic issues. But are our future leaders who largly come from the business and law communities knowledgable enough about the science issues that they will have to deal with? Can they calculate the economic impact that nature has on our economy? Should basic science and environmental science be taught in business and law schools? Should profits always take precedence over environmental destruction? Should developers build in geologically hazardous areas (ie. barrier islands, landslide areas) or fill-in wetlands? Should air pollution be paid for before or after it leaves the stack? Who should pay for cleanups?

"Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."
Richard P. Feynman

Do you understand the economic and social benefits of protecting wetlands?

Wetlands are very important to our quality of life. They prevent flooding, replenish our aquifers, purify our pollution, provide the breeding grounds for our major fisheries, are the most biologically active areas of our oceans, and they provide recreational opportunities for millions of humans who fish, swim, hunt, sail, etc. We've made progress in preserving large wetlands from further loss, but now we're losing them in dribs and drabs, a road needs to be enlarged here, a condo with a water view is being built there, and all of a sudden the wetlands are gone permanently. The public has an interest in preserving its drinking water, having affordable and safe seafood, protecting itself from floods, and saving habitat for wildlife. Shrimp fishermen need jobs just as much as cattle ranchers. Salmon fishermen need jobs just as much as loggers.

The NAS recommendation in "Science and Technology for America's Progress" (2008) emphasized the need for the Office of Science and Technology Policy Director to be a cabinet level position. I was postulating whether having a completely "science devoted" department would increase science's influence on policy, education, business, and social decisions. I feel science has frequently been used as a political tool when the data supports a position. I therefore would like scientists to independently select the director - but I do not know how such a selection process would be enacted.
Ahh...perchance to dream......when there is
"Water, water everywhere and not a drop to drink....."

Are the benefits of nuclear power worth the risk? We've had three major warning calls so far: Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukishima. Every machine designed by humans fails at some point. Financial interests will always try to keep something running past it's design lifetime. We still haven't solved the problem of how to deal safely with nuclear waste products or where to store them. Complex systems will always have unforseen problems and need constant maintenance that may be beyond the understanding of the people who work there. Nuclear material poses a security risk. The insurance industry won't touch it because of the huge unknown financial risk leaving the taxpayers liable for any accidents. Because of global warming there might not be enough freshwater available for cooling purposes. The costs of buidling them and deactivating them may be more than the income from the power generated over its lifetime. If everything works fine they might have the benefit of reducing carbon emissions from power plants, but does investing in them just delay investments in solar and wind and other clean energies that don't require massive financial and political backing and huge environmental studies?