From all-in on renewables to all-in on denial of evidence, contrasts abound.

"I believe in science."

With that comment, said during her acceptance speech with a bit of a bemused smile, Hillary Clinton sought to differentiate herself from Donald Trump. The Democratic presidential nominee next noted a consequence of that belief: climate change is real, and we can do something about it.

Thus far, climate science is playing an unexpectedly large role in this campaign. Three of the four candidates from significant parties—Democratic, Green, Libertarian—have indicated they accept the scientific community's conclusions on the topic. Inevitably, that acceptance leads to consequences for energy policy, so it's difficult to separate the two.

But science is playing a role in other ways, as well. Issues such as vaccines and the space program have been mentioned by the candidates. And all four candidates have felt compelled to answer 20 science policy questions posed by the Science Debate organization.

We have invited all four of these campaigns to discuss science and energy issues with Ars. As of this writing, only an advisor from the Trump campaign responded. Still, it's possible to learn a lot about the candidates' positions based on public statements and campaign material regarding a handful of high-profile scientific issues.

Can we afford science?

For many scientists, the only way to sustain an active research career is through federal funding. This can be direct—organizations like the Department of Energy and NOAA employ many scientists—or indirect, through research grants. For many of the federal agencies that fund research, funding has barely kept pace with inflation for well over a decade, leading to declines in real dollar terms.

Since the cost of having access to the latest and greatest research equipment—from supercomputers to DNA sequencers—tends to increase faster than inflation, this has caused problems. Grant application success rates have plunged, highly trained scientists have given up on research, and most research organizations have become broken records, constantly announcing that more money is needed.

All of this means it's impossible to discuss science policy without discussing budgetary policy first. While anyone's spending plans are likely to face pressure from the many conservatives currently serving as the majority of the House of Representatives, we'll assume for the sake of this discussion that at least some of the new president's priorities are enacted. So, are any of the candidates likely to be able to boost science funding?

For at least two candidates, the answer is no, and their budgetary priorities are likely to force scientific agencies to cut back further. Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson, for example, promises a balanced budget without any new taxes, which would clearly necessitate spending cuts. Johnson has given no indication that science funding would be immune from those cuts.

Republican nominee Donald Trump hasn't given a date for when he'd balance the budget (though he says it is a priority), but he plans to cut taxes for all incomes, eliminating the estate tax and providing a significant child care credit. These cuts would obviously significantly decrease tax income. While Trump claims that increased economic activity would counteract that drop, previous promises of this sort have never been matched by reality.

Nevertheless, Trump seems to be anxious to spend money on science. "Though there are increasing demands to curtail spending and to balance the federal budget, we must make the commitment to invest in science, engineering, healthcare, and other areas that will make the lives of Americans better, safer and more prosperous," he told Science Debate. "We must have programs such as a viable space program and institutional research that serve as incubators to innovation and the advancement of science and engineering in a number of fields."

All of which suggests that some funding for science may be preserved in a Trump administration. "In a time of limited resources, one must ensure that the nation is getting the greatest bang for the buck," he clarified. Whether preservation is possible as budget deficits explode is questionable.

The remaining two candidates call for tax increases. Green Party nominee Jill Stein wants to see the tax system be more progressive, increasing taxes on corporations and higher income brackets. She'd use most of it to fund a massive green energy jobs program but also promises to make large cuts to military spending. Given that science is a relatively small part of the federal budget, there's a reasonable chance that the money can be found to continue or increase funding for it. Stein, however, has yet to describe any research priorities.

Clinton's tax statements are nearly identical: increase taxes on the wealthy and close corporate loopholes. She has also made specific promises for new funding in science, although those promises are focused on a limited number of areas of interest (like Alzheimer's) and may not benefit science as a whole. But medical research more generally may benefit, as Clinton has said that she plans on "scaling up our broader investment in the National Institutes of Health’s budget." She's also on record as stating, "I share the concerns of the science and technology community, including many in the industry, that the United States is underinvesting in research." Assuming some of her tax proposals are adopted, a Clinton administration may actually have the money to pay for it.

What science do they like?

Clinton's professed belief in science shows in the issues she has chosen to highlight on her campaign's issues page. Items like addiction, HIV, Alzheimer's, and autism all touch on science. For some of these, her proposed policy is based on well-established research, like the use of treatment and recovery rather than punishment for drug addiction. In others, such as Alzheimer's and HIV, her campaign is advocating continued or increased research.

She has also recognized the role that science is playing in informing policy more generally, telling Science Debate, "Funding is needed not only for the basic science research agencies and the large science and engineering mission agencies but also for the broader universe of agencies that are increasingly dependent on STEM [Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics] for their missions." Clinton also proposes to create a "Public Health Rapid Response Fund" to handle emerging issues like Zika's arrival and the Flint, Michigan, water crisis.

For NASA, Clinton promises to maintain the country's leadership in space. She's also said, "I will work with Congress to ensure that NASA has the leadership, funding, and operational flexibility necessary to work in new ways with industry."
If science is central to Clinton's campaign, it's much more peripheral to other candidates. Johnson's website doesn't mention much about any scientific issues beyond climate change, but his answers to Science Debate provide some hints as to his plans. These plans include a change in the way grants are funded, reducing the dollars allocated to specific research programs in favor of general grant funding, and revising the granting agencies' relationship with universities.

Areas of research directed toward applications, like the NIH's translational medicine initiative, would also see changes or be scrapped entirely. "Our basic priorities will bend towards funding for basic science and limiting funding for applied science to that which has clear public benefit but isn’t feasible in the private sector," Johnson told Science Debate. The private sector would be expected to pursue that work. That's similar to his view on NASA, where he's said, "We welcome private participation and even dominance in space exploration."

In fact, this is similar to Johnson's approach to everything science related: let the states or the market handle it. Public health and vaccination rules are best left to the states unless problems cross state lines. Protection of our land and environment is best done by private landowners, with the government limited to placing restrictions on activities that harm others, like pollution. He does, however, support a government mandate for labeling foods containing GMOs. And like Clinton, Johnson favors treatment for drug addiction.

It's important to note that, with the exception of GMOs, almost all of Johnson's pronouncements are very general. He doesn't name any specific areas of science or science-based policy (like high-energy physics or the Endangered Species Act) that he favors or disfavors.

If Johnson is a cipher when it comes to science, Jill Stein is more of a broken record. Two central themes of the Green Party campaign are universal healthcare and a massive roll-out of renewable energy that will be funded to a level that would allow the US to experience full employment. Time and time again, when asked about science and health policy issues, she has turned the question around to focus on how these two programs are responsive to science and would benefit the US population.

Some of her other comments, however, suggest that radical change may not be limited to those two areas. Referring to the National Science Foundation and National Institutes of Health, Stein told Science Debate, "We will revisit these institutions—their charge, focus, and operations—to ensure that they're performing as expected." Stein also supports GMO labeling and has called for a ban on any new GMO or pesticide until it is "proven safe"—a nearly impossible standard to meet.

On the positive side, while she has said some ambiguous things on vaccines in the past, she has more recently acknowledged that "Vaccines are a critical part of our public health system." When it comes to health regulations more generally, Stein frequently raises concerns about the influence of corporations on the regulatory process. That concern extends to space exploration, where she's a bit of the converse of Johnson: Stein emphasizes international partnerships and argues against allowing corporate interests to set the direction for space exploration. It's not clear whether that's a dig at commercial crew or not.

Space exploration, as noted above, is one of the rare places that Trump shows unambiguous support for science. Beyond that, however, his support is very conditional. Allocate funds to preserve public health? "The implication of the question is that one must provide more resources to research and public health enterprises to make sure we stay ahead of potential health risks," he told Science Debate. "In a time of limited resources, one must ensure that the nation is getting the greatest bang for the buck." Ocean health? "My administration will work with Congress to establish priorities for our government and how we will allocate our limited fiscal resources." On some level, these are admissions that his tax plan will require hard choices.
But these replies also reflect a more general mistrust of the government (which, to be clear, is shared by the party he represents). When asked how the government could help make agriculture sustainable, Trump responded, "The implication of your question is that there should be central control of American agriculture by the federal government—that is totally inappropriate." A question about protecting biodiversity prompted this response: "For too long, presidents and the Executive Branch of our federal government have continued to expand their reach and impact."

Beyond his answers to Science Debate, Trump has said very little on science issues with one exception—vaccines. He has publicly suggested they caused autism for years, doing so again during a primary debate. So it was a bit of a surprise to find him telling Science Debate that, "We should educate the public on the values of a comprehensive vaccination program." It's not clear why he has suddenly chosen to rejoin the reality-based community on this issue.

The big one

The bit of science that's most obviously driving the largest policy issues is climate change, which may finally nudge us to restructure our energy economy in a way that fulfills some of the promises made during the 1970s oil crises. Or, not. When it comes to acceptance of climate change, this election offers the full spectrum of responses.

At one end is the Green Party's Stein, who is thoroughly convinced that it's the greatest threat facing humanity—ever. This is not an exaggeration: "Climate change is the greatest existential threat that humanity has ever faced" is a direct quote. That makes tackling it in a comprehensive way a central part of her pitch to the electorate. This isn't an interim, partial solution like the Paris Agreement; it's a complete elimination of fossil fuel use.

Clinton is a step down on the urgency spectrum, but she still wholeheartedly accepts the science. "Climate change is an urgent threat and a defining challenge of our time," she told Science Debate. "Its impacts are already being felt at home and around the world." Her response is middle-of-the-road for the Democratic Party: keep what Obama has done in place and expand on it. It's a national implementation of the Paris approach: we know what we're planning on doing isn't sufficient, but we can turn the ratchet one notch further toward addressing the problem.

If we were following the political spectrum from left to right, the Republican candidate would typically be viewed as coming next. But instead we have Libertarian Gary Johnson, whose website summarizes his views on climate change as follows: "Is the climate changing? Probably so. Is man contributing to that change? Probably so." Since then, he has gotten a bit more definitive, telling Science Debate that, "We accept that climate change is occurring and that human activity is contributing to it, including through greenhouse gases."

That significantly undersells the science in two ways. For one, we're quite certain the climate is changing; the data is unequivocal. An overwhelming majority of scientists who have evaluated the evidence has also concluded that humanity has been driving almost all of the change for roughly a half-century. It's possible that Johnson was making some sort of statement on the tentative nature of scientific conclusions, but it seems more likely he was either expressing his own indifference to expertise or that of the people he hopes to attract as voters.

Johnson seems to be a bit erratic when it comes to the topic, recently saying that climate change is inevitable given that the Sun will eventually expand to swallow the Earth. He later said that was just a joke.

If all that leaves you a bit confused as to Johnson's position on the climate, you'll get just as confused by what he plans to do about it. His website announces that, "Governors Johnson and Weld strongly believe that the federal government should prevent future harm by focusing on regulations that protect us from real harm, rather than needlessly costing American jobs and freedom in order to pursue a political agenda." Yet that's embedded in a statement that starts with the proclamation, "the environment is a precious gift and must be protected."

Johnson told Science Debate that, "We believe that a motivated and informed market will demand efficiency and reduced greenhouse gases, mitigating at least some of mankind’s effects." And he talked enthusiastically about the prospect of a carbon fee before turning around and saying it wouldn't work a few days later. It's hard to know where he stands on a given day.

Then there's Donald Trump, who falls on the hard-core denialist end of the spectrum. Trump has said the whole thing was just invented by the Chinese (something he naturally denied in the first presidential debate). He has also repeated the "it's cold now, so the Earth can't be warmer" schtick. In his response to Science Debate, he managed to put “climate change" in quotes as if to question its existence.

That was followed by a long list of other things that Trump suggested might be worth tackling first, like providing clean water or addressing malaria. He accompanied such statements with the argument that we'll have limited resources to spend and will have to make hard choices. Of course, back in 2009, Donald Trump and several of his children supported action on climate change. This suggests that Trump has simply adopted the Republican Party orthodoxy on this issue. Oddly, however, his running mate Mike Pence has broken with that orthodoxy and recognized scientific reality.

Based on our conversation with Trump campaign advisor Kathleen Hartnett White, it's clear that Trump is hearing this orthodoxy is well founded. According to White, the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) "never really takes on an explanation of how the other variables in climate affect climate... It never takes on the Sun. There are a number of very, very senior atmospheric physicists—one I think of in particular, Fritz Varenholt, who wrote a book called The Neglected Sun. As a scientist, he's just appalled that better knowledge about the role of the Sun would not be a part of the science."

A cursory check revealed that the IPCC does consider solar variability. Varenholt's PhD was in chemistry, he has done no research and worked in the electric industry since 1998, and his book predicted cooling that appears not to be happening. This makes it clear that some of the people advising Trump have latched on to people who tell them what they want to hear.

Trump's climate policy is pretty clear: rescind anything we're doing about it. For good measure, early indications are that he's naming someone from the Competitive Enterprise Institute think tank to head the EPA and is putting an oil company executive in charge of the Department of the Interior.

Energy policy

Naturally, indifference to climate change has a heavy influence on Trump's energy policy. Trump has promised to extract as much energy as he can, claiming that current regulations are blocking the US from an energy bonanza. He promises to restore coal production. Of course, the US is currently producing record amounts of oil and natural gas, while coal is suffering from market forces such as the cheap price of natural gas and wind power. We asked his advisor White about these issues.

"Of course we need environmental regulation," she said. White went on to say there are limits to what these regulations should do. "The law itself does not say EPA can ban industries by establishing an emissions limit or environmental standard which is beyond the capabilities that we have." She suggested we risk heading in that direction with fracking, as "the methane rules that the EPA is proposing, for many operators, they're infeasible, they're not a standard they can make." White then complained some endangered species rulings risked putting millions of acres off-limits to extraction.

As for coal, she suggested that rescinding some other rules could help fight the economic tide. "If you wanted to take on reviving coal, there are several EPA rules that would have to be amended or rescinded. Like the [carbon dioxide] endangerment finding. Like the mercury rule. That would be necessary." She did, however, acknowledge that this wouldn't be easy. Rescinding the EPA's endangerment finding that set the stage for carbon emissions limits, the advisor said, "that's a long process that must be [scientifically] justified, and more than likely would be litigated." None of this was settled policy, White noted, but it would have to be considered if Trump would follow through on his promises.

In his energy policy speech, Trump suggested that, contrary to evidence, wind and solar energy weren't economical. In his answers to Science Debate, however, Trump said, "Energy independence means exploring and developing every possible energy source including wind, solar, nuclear and bio-fuels," suggesting he might have gotten better information since then. He later went on to emphasize the value of nuclear power to his plan for making the US energy independent.

Hillary Clinton joins him in supporting nuclear power, but for different reasons. "Meeting the climate challenge is too important to limit the tools available in this fight. Nuclear power—which accounts for more than 60 percent of our zero carbon power generation today—is one of those tools." From there on, however, their opinions diverge pretty radically.

Clinton would defend Obama's Clean Power Plan and expand it so that the US generates half of its power from clean sources by 2026. She'd eliminate extraction of fossil fuels from regions that are environmentally sensitive, and the candidate has specifically promised to cut down on methane emissions. She also hopes to have the US install half a billion solar panels in her first term alone, and she wants to increase the efficiency of energy use, including in the transportation sector. All of this amounts to a pretty significant expansion over what the Obama administration has started.

Still, these promises are nowhere near as significant as what Jill Stein wants, which includes a complete decarbonization of the US energy economy. This would also include ending support for most of the fossil fuel extraction industry, including offshore drilling, natural gas transport, and uranium mining. Any remaining fossil fuel producers would be subject to a carbon tax. Of nuclear, Stein told Science Debate that, "Nuclear fission technology is unsafe, expensive, and dirty—from the mining of uranium to the disposal of spent fuel." She'd phase out all nuclear power in the US within a decade, making her goal of ending fossil fuel use an even higher hurdle to clear.

Stein's energy policy is inseparable from her economic policy, which is to guarantee a job for any US adult who wants one. During her time in office, this would involve putting them to work in building out the renewable generating capacity her plan requires, as well as modernizing the grid and adding storage to buffer renewables' intermittency.

Johnson, as noted above, takes climate change seriously enough that he has considered doing something about it. But he has changed his answer on what should be done a number of times, so it's difficult to tell if that would translate to anything. His positions don't shift only with climate policy; try to figure out what policy might arise from a statement he provided to Science Debate: "We believe that no source of energy is categorically wrong or right, but some sources of energy may be procured or used incorrectly or used in the wrong applications, too often as a consequence of government interference and manipulation. Fracking is literally rearranging the global energy marketplace and should be accompanied by appropriate research into its impacts and the reasonable regulation thereof."

The Libertarian does support nuclear energy and would promote research into new technologies in the area: "The Johnson-Weld administration would maintain strict nuclear safety standards but also investigate newer and safer lower yield reactors like breeder reactors or thorium reactors, which produce less or even reduce nuclear waste." As for the waste we already have, it could be dealt with if "decisions can be based on science and honest risk assessment," rather than political machinations, according to Johnson.

Summing up

The good news for science is that all of the candidates who have gone on record are enthusiastic about its potential to drive positive changes in the US. There are, however, some very big caveats. Gary Johnson has said little about the topic, and it's difficult to identify a coherent plan in what he has said. Jill Stein has suggested that corporate influences are distorting the generation of science-based policies by the US government. And Donald Trump appears to be willing to reject certain scientific conclusions entirely.

When it comes to actually supporting scientific research, however, both Trump and Johnson call for tax policies that would likely require significant cutbacks in federal research agencies. This in turn would force major cutbacks to grants to research institutions. Stein, having focused almost entirely on acting on the findings of climate science, has said very little about whether she supports research in other fields. And while Hillary Clinton has set budget priorities that might allow an expansion of research funding, some of her public statements suggest she may go the route of moonshot-style efforts that can sometimes bleed the basic science budgets of the agencies responsible for them.

When it comes to climate science and the energy policies that result, the suite of candidates offers a position for everyone. Jill Stein would have a massive and expensive effort that would see the US become the world's leader in renewable energy. Clinton would take Obama's incremental steps and keep pushing them further, leaving us in much better shape but short of a comprehensive solution. Johnson might consider pushing the market along (or he might not), hoping that industry would get the hint and solve things for us. And Trump would pretend there's nothing to see, and we should all just move along to drilling more.