Last week I had the pleasure of sitting in on a terrific Massive Open Online Course (MOOC) called Energy 101 as it was filmed at UT Austin.

Taught by Dr. Michael Webber, the course provides an in-depth overview of all things energy from the transportation sector to climate change to the energy embedded in the food we eat. As the website describes, by becoming fluent in energy, you will be able to think critically about energy issues. Registration is free and the course will be taught in modules over 11 weeks. I highly recommend this to everyone because energy touches all of us:

ABOUT THIS COURSE

This multidisciplinary course will give students an overview of energy technologies, fuels, environmental impacts and public policies. Topics will be interdisciplinary and will include an introduction to quantitative concepts in energy, including the differences among fuels and energy technologies, energy policy levers, and the societal aspects of energy, such as culture, economics, war, and international affairs. This course will cover brief snippets of energy history, use real-world examples, and look forward into the future. The course will have interactive learning modules and lecture-oriented around current events related to energy.

Watch the preview and then go sign up…

As the election nears, energy policy remains a regular topic on the campaign trail. Controversial subjects like arctic drilling and hydraulic fracturing continue making headlines as the political class debate our nation’s changing energy mix. But let’s not deceive ourselves, or the public at large, about a president’s real role and reach.

Although certain real-world outcomes will be dependent on voters this November, the rhetoric may not match the reality on some fronts this election season. For example, coal supporters generally favor Mitt Romney, yet the United States will become ever less dependent on coal no matter who wins due to abundantly available natural gas. Likewise, opponents of the Keystone XL Pipeline typically rally around President Obama, even though that project will probably roll ahead regardless of the victor.

Perhaps the most telling sign of the vast disconnect between perception and reality has to do with gasoline prices. According to the latest poll numbers, 45 percent of Americans ranked the cost of gasoline as the energy topic they would most like to see the candidates address during the presidential debates. For comparison, U.S. energy security was the second-most-popular response, garnering a total of just 10 percentage points. Other choices, such as energy efficiency, climate change and offshore drilling, did not break out of the single digits.

Politicians are acutely attuned to the interests of their constituents. So it’s not surprising that gas prices featured prominently in speeches at both the Republican and Democratic National Conventions. We have been hearing a good deal of related rhetoric for years. The price we pay at the pump memorably took central stage in Michele Bachmann’s campaign during the summer of 2011 when she told crowds she would reduce the cost of gasoline.

“Under President Bachmann you will see gasoline come down below $2 a gallon again,” she promised. “That will happen.”

Of course, Bachmann never outlined just how she would achieve this feat because a sitting president cannot simply make it so. What she didn’t understand — and what most voters do not seem to grasp — is that gasoline prices are tied to a global crude oil market. Therefore, even if our government goes so far as to enact policies that expand domestic drilling, the excess production at home could very well be offset by other factors, such as reduced OPEC production.

But right or wrong, voters’ perceptions on these issues do matter tremendously. Tomorrow’s energy solutions require more than cutting-edge technologies and carefully crafted legislation. Public opinion — what people really think about energy — plays the most critical role in shaping America’s energy future.

Personal attitudes, concerns, and priorities are determined by more than just “the facts.” We take into account stories in the media, the talking points of politicians, vocal celebrities and religious leaders, as well as the opinions of family and friends. All of these perspectives flow together to, in the aggregate, influence which energy issues our representatives — regional and national — address through policy and legislation.

Just weeks before we go to the polls, there are countless partisan claims being made regarding where Obama and Romney sit on every hot-button issue. But in reality, national energy strategies don’t fit so neatly into red or blue compartments. The boundaries are blurry, motivated by more than a candidate’s platform. Energy policies often cross party lines and we must open our eyes to when and where they do. More importantly, we must, at times, be willing to cross party lines along with them.

This post originally appeared at NPR’s 13.7 Cosmos and Culture blog.

AUSTIN, Texas, Oct. 16, 2012 — As the 2012 presidential election draws near, more voters say they prefer the energy policies espoused by President Barack Obama than Gov. Mitt Romney’s energy platform, according to the latest University of Texas at Austin Energy Poll results released today.

View Energy Poll Briefing Slides

While support from Democrats and Republicans fell along party lines, Obama garners more support from Libertarian voters (48 percent vs. 21 percent for Romney) and independent voters (27 percent vs. 23 percent for Romney).

Overall, 37 percent of respondents say Obama’s platform is best for the country, while 28 percent favor Romney’s views on energy. More than a third of those surveyed (35 percent) are not sure whose energy policies they prefer or are undecided.

The online nationwide survey, conducted Sept. 6–17, offers further insights into how energy issues might affect the upcoming presidential election. This is the third wave of the Energy Poll, which was launched in October 2011.

“While job creation and the economy continue to top the list of concerns, two out of three consumers say energy issues are important to them,” said Sheril Kirshenbaum, director of the University of Texas at Austin Energy Poll. “Support for increased production of domestic energy supplies remains strong, and we’re also seeing a lot of interest in the promotion of alternative forms of energy and energy-saving technologies that crosses party lines.”

Sixty-two percent of the 2,092 poll respondents say they are more likely to vote for a candidate who says he will increase funding for scientific and university research into new energy technologies, and 58 percent would back a candidate promising to expand natural gas development.

Consumers also support an increase in renewable forms of energy, with 58 percent saying they are more likely to vote for a candidate who supports additional financial incentives for companies engaged in renewable technologies. Meanwhile, 40 percent say they would be more likely to vote for a candidate who supports decreasing the use of coal as an energy source (46 percent of Democrats and 30 percent of Republicans).

The poll also shows a notable rise in the willingness of consumers to adopt new energy technologies. Between September 2011 and September 2012, the percentage of consumers who say they will use “smart meter” technology within the next five years rose from 38 percent to 45 percent. Similarly, more consumers indicate they are likely to own a hybrid vehicle (30 percent to 36 percent during the same timeframe).

Other findings from the latest UT Energy Poll include:

• Between March and September 2012, the percentage of respondents who say that climate change is occurring jumped from 65 percent to 73 percent. This increase occurred across all political parties (Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, and independent voters) with the greatest change notable in the southern states (57 percent to 71 percent).
• When asked to report their level of knowledge on energy issues, 45 percent of men consider themselves knowledgeable, while just 20 percent of women do.
• Ninety-two percent of respondents are concerned about the cost of gasoline, and 63 percent are more likely to vote for a candidate promising to make it less expensive.

Data from The University of Texas at Austin Energy Poll were weighted using U.S. Census Bureau figures, as well as propensity scores, to ensure the sample’s composition reflects the actual U.S. population. The poll was developed by the McCombs School of Business to provide an objective, authoritative look at consumer attitudes and perspectives on key energy issues. It is designed to help inform national discussion, business planning and policy development.

As a founding member of ScienceDebate, I must politely disagree with Laura Helmuth’s well-circulated Slate piece entitled, “Romney Out-Debates Obama: How the GOP candidate schooled the president on science policy.” That’s a strong declaration, and from a scientific standpoint – an unfair assessment.

It’s true that many of Romney’s answers to the 14 science questions were longer in length than Obama’s. But both sets of responses were too highly variable to claim that anyone “schooled” anyone. Highlighting question 2 specifically, it’s clear that the GOP candidate has a lot to learn about a very critical global challenge:

Read all of their positions here…

In 2007, friends and I launched ScienceDebate - a nonprofit, nonpartisan initiative to get presidential candidates to address science and technology issues along the campaign trail. This year we presented both President Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney with fourteen questions focusing on key science policy issues like energy, climate change, food security, and more. Today we have their answers!

Here’s an excerpt, but make sure to read all of their positions here:

6. Energy. Many policymakers and scientists say energy security and sustainability are major problems facing the United States this century. What policies would you support to meet the demand for energy while ensuring an economically and environmentally sustainable future?

Barack Obama:

Since taking office, I have supported an all-of-the-above energy approach that will allow us to take control of our energy future, one where we safely and responsibly develop America’s many energy resources – including natural gas, wind, solar, oil, clean coal, and biofuels – while investing in clean energy and increasing fuel efficiency standards to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

I know the country that harnesses the power of clean, renewable energy will lead the global economy in the 21st century. That’s why I have made the largest investment in clean energy and energy efficiency in American history and proposed an ambitious Clean Energy Standard to generate 80 percent of our electricity from clean energy sources like wind, solar, clean coal, and natural gas by 2035. Since taking office, electricity production from wind and solar sources has already more than doubled in the United States. We are boosting our use of cleaner fuels, including increasing the level of ethanol that can be blended into gasoline and implementing a new Renewable Fuel Standard that will save nearly 14 billion gallons of petroleum-based gasoline in 2022. America has regained its position as the world’s leading producer of natural gas. My administration is promoting the safe, responsible development of America’s near 100-year supply of natural gas that will help support more than 600,000 jobs. Because of these actions, we are positioning ourselves to have cleaner and cheaper sources of fuel that make us more energy secure and position the U.S. as a world leader in the clean energy economy.

Mitt Romney:

A crucial component of my plan for a stronger middle class is to dramatically increase domestic energy production and partner closely with Canada and Mexico to achieve North American energy independence by 2020. While President Obama has described his own energy policy as a “hodgepodge,” sent billions of taxpayer dollars to green energy projects run by political cronies, rejected the Keystone XL Pipeline as not in “the national interest,” and sought repeatedly to stall development of America’s domestic resources, my path forward would establish America as an energy superpower in the 21st century.

The goal of energy independence has long proved elusive, but analysts across the spectrum — energy experts, investment firms, even academics at Harvard University — now recognize that surging U.S. energy production, combined with the resources of America’s neighbors, can meet all of the continent’s energy needs within a decade. The key is to embrace these resources and open access to them.

A successful national energy strategy will have a fundamental influence on the well-being of the nation. An expansion in the affordable, reliable supply of domestically produced energy can bolster the competitiveness of virtually every industry within the country, creating millions of new jobs from coast to coast. With fewer energy imports and more exports of manufactured goods, America’s trade deficit will decline and the dollar will strengthen.

The benefits even extend beyond immediate economic growth. The lease payments, royalties, and taxes paid to the American people in return for the development of the nation’s resources can yield literally trillions of dollars in new government revenue. Lower energy prices can ease the burdens on household budgets. And all Americans can rest assured that the nation’s security is no longer beholden to unstable but oil-rich regions half way around the world.

I have put forward a six-part plan for achieving these goals. First, I will empower states to control onshore energy development, including on federal lands within their borders. Second, I will open offshore areas to development. Third, I will pursue a North American Energy Partnership so that America can benefit from the resources of its neighbors. Fourth, I will ensure accurate assessment of the nation’s energy resources by updating decades-old surveys that do not reflect modern technological capabilities. Fifth, I will restore transparency and fairness to permitting and regulation. And sixth, I will facilitate private-sector-led development of new energy technologies.

Throughout this agenda, I remain committed to implementing and enforcing strong environmental protections that ensure all energy development activity is conducted in a safe and responsible manner. But whereas President Obama has used environmental regulation as an excuse to block the development of resources and the construction of infrastructure, I will pursue a course that designs regulation not to stifle energy production but instead to facilitate responsible use of all energy sources — from oil and coal and natural gas, to nuclear and hydropower and biofuels, to wind and solar. Energy development, economic growth, and environmental protection can go hand-in-hand if the government focuses on transparency and fairness instead of seeking to pick winners and repay political favors.

A full white paper describing my plan for energy independence is available at MittRomney.com.

As offshore oil drilling edges ever closer to becoming a reality in the Arctic Ocean, the good folks at the Center for American Progress examine the region’s lack of readiness in the event of a spill:

A sad, but fascinating scientific report in the journal Nature describes the physiological and genetic damage observed in generations of butterflies following the collapse of the Fukushima Dai-ichi Nuclear Power Plant. While it’s been difficult to study the biological impacts of the accident on animals, scientists have concluded that the pale grass blue Zizeeria maha (a common lycaenid butterfly in Japan) suffered increasingly severe abnormalities over time due to radioactive materials released into the environment.

Representative abnormalities of individuals that ingested contaminated leaves. From the top left to the right bottom, the panels show right antenna malformation (Iitate montane region), right palpus abnormality (Fukushima), dented left compound eye (Iitate flatland), eclosion failure (Fukushima), bent wings (Fukushima), additional bent wings (Hirono), aberrant wing colour patterns (Fukushima), and an ectopic black spot beside the discal spot (Iitate flatland; enlargement in the inset). Arrowheads indicate abnormal parts, and arrows indicate deformed wing spots. Scale bars for the top four panels indicate 1.0 mm, and those for the bottom four panels indicate 5.0 mm.

Although epigenetic effects cannot be entirely excluded, it is most likely that the abnormal phenotypes observed are produced by random mutations caused by the exposure to radiation. This outbreak of abnormal phenotypes in the Fukushima area is very different from the outbreak of wing colour-pattern changes previously observed at the northern range margins of this species, i.e., the Fukaura area, which is located approximately 400 km northwest of the Fukushima Dai-ichi NPP. The Fukaura populations at the time of the outbreak were composed of temperature-shock types that exhibit distinct wing colour-pattern modifications but no other wing modifications or aberrations. Moreover, to the best of our knowledge, no malformations of appendages and other parts have been detected. In contrast, the outbreak in the Fukushima area includes various unexpected abnormal phenotypes. These abnormalities cannot be expressed within the range of phenotypic plasticity exhibited by normal populations. This information and the experimental data obtained in this study allow us to conclude that the present outbreak of abnormal individuals in the Fukushima area was caused by random genetic mutations in addition to physiological effects due to the artificial radionuclides from the Fukushima Dai-ich NPP.

For those interested in heritable genetic damage due to low-dose radioaction exposure, this article is a must-read.

I often write about what I consider to be the most significant challenge of the 21st century: the looming water crisis. As I explained earlier this year at NPR:

As temperatures rise due to climate change, evaporation and precipitation have increased. This means that the atmosphere holds more water. Unfortunately, the condition is anticipated to lead to storms and floods of increased severity in some parts of the world, with prolonged and more intense droughts elsewhere.

“Extreme extremes,” says [Jay Famiglietti, director of the University of California's Center for Hydrologic Modeling], which could lead to greater conflict over the scarce resource.

In other words, prepare for water wars. This is a big deal. But based on this new data from the UT Energy Poll, it appears that most of us here in the United States still do not understand what’s taking place on our watch:

What will it take?

Source: The UT Energy Poll

As Bloomberg reports: