Public Interest Report

THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURYBarack Obama’s decisive victory, based on thetheme of change, provides a unique opportunity tomake changes in the key areas of national securi-ty and domestic policy. There will be a narrowwindow during which a new team can come for-ward with specific plans to implement the boldcommitments made during the campaign andwork with the Congress to get them passed quick-ly. It will be critical to propose bold plans and beprepared to argue forcibly for the urgency of thegoals and the utility of the proposed solutions. More on page 3.

U.S. AND CHINA: HOW TO GREEN THE ECONOMY AND CLEAR THE SKIESNo topic has risen more quickly in recent years thanprocuring green energy alternatives and combatingclimate change. How can China and the United Stateswork together to stop global climate change? Whatcan the new U.S. president do to help China becomemore energy efficient? The Federation of AmericanScientists hosted a conference to answer these ques-tions at the University of California, Berkeley.More on page 11.

MOVING TOWARD THE PATH TO ZEROThe future of the world’s nuclear security is uncer-tain. The United States must lead the way to reduc-ing nuclear weapons worldwide and supporting theComprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) and theNuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) are two of theways the U.S. can strengthen nonproliferation effortsworldwide. FAS hosted a conference to discuss U.S.nuclear weapons policy in the 21st century at theCommonwealth Club in San Francisco.More on page 17.

THE FEDERATION OF AMERICAN SCIENTISTS Volume 61, Number 2 Fall 2008

PublicInterest Report

President’s Message 2

The New American Century 3

Mark D. Levine Receives 2008 Public Service Award 8for Energy Efficiency Research

United States and China: How to Green 11the Economy and Clear the Skies

China’s Energy Policies and their Environmental Impacts 12

FAS Recognizes Professor of Geophysics 13and Astronomy with 2008 Hans Bethe Award

The Path to Zero - U.S. Nuclear Policy 17for the 21st Century

James C. Warf, Manhattan Project 20Chemist, Author, Activist

Congress Launches the First National Research 21Program Focused on Technology and Learning

Become a Member and Support FAS 22

Membership: Help FAS Make the World 23a More Secure Place

2

Kissinger, George Schultz, William Perry,and Sam Nunn wrote a powerful opinionpiece in the Wall Street Journal that laidout the rational for doing this and a seriesof practical steps forward. This was followed by a year of detailed work at theHoover Institute, which led to a secondWall Street Journal article by the sameauthors laying out an even more detailedset of proposals. FAS, the NaturalResources Defense Council, and the Unionof Concerned Scientists crafted a set ofproposals in the new edition of their report,Toward True Security. There was aremarkable amount of overlap between the proposals. George Shultz participatedenthusiastically and made clear that he andhis colleagues intend to pursue the missionof reducing U.S. and world nuclear arse-nals vigorously next year. He repeatedlymade the point that Ronald Reagan wasdeeply sincere about his desire to eliminatenuclear weapons and had been for yearsbefore becoming president. The 2008 Hans Bethe Award was given to RaymondJeanloz who delivered introductoryremarks at the session. These are alsosummarized in this issue.

We look forward to an exciting year andhope we can count on all of you to help us.FAS

The election of Barack Obama and a new political landscape in theCongress inaugurates a renewal for

Washington science and technology policy.We at FAS are working hard to understandthe priorities of the new leadership and the people we should work with. This PIRcovers two themes that we will be pursuingwith increased emphasis in the comingyear: technologies that can address energyand climate challenges around the world,and developing a practical path to a worldfree of nuclear weapons. FAS hosted twomajor conferences on these subjects inCalifornia during our most recent Boardmeeting.

One meeting focused on the sharedinterests of the U.S. and China in energytechnologies. It included the 2008 FASPublic Service Award ceremony, whichhonored Mark Levine, a long-time FASmember who pioneered efforts to collabo-rate with China on energy technologies. His remarks are summarized in this issue.A number of senior Chinese officials participated in the conference. Chineseemissions of carbon dioxide now slightlyexceed those of the U.S. Together the twocountries produce 40 percent of all globalcarbon emissions. Each country arrived atthis situation from very different historiesand face different challenges in meetingclimate goals. But both nations under-stand that solutions hinge on the develop-ment of dramatically more efficient meth-ods for using energy and a new generationof clean fuels and sources of electricity.There are many areas where collaborativeresearch could pay important results.

The second meeting focused on imple-menting strategies for the worldwide elimination of nuclear weapons. Henry

PRESIDENT’S MESSAGE

Political Landscape

Ushers in a New Era

for Science and Technology

2

About FAS

The Federation of American Scientists(FAS), founded on 8 December 1945 asthe Federation of Atomic Scientists byManhattan Project scientists, works toensure that advances in science are usedto build a secure, rewarding, environ-mentally sustainable future for all peopleby conducting research and advocacy on science public policy issues. Currentweapons nonproliferation issues rangefrom nuclear disarmament to biologicaland chemical weapons control to moni-toring conventional arms sales and spacepolicy. FAS also promotes learning technologies and limits on governmentsecrecy. FAS is a tax-exempt, tax-deductible 501(c)(3) organization.

FAS

PUBLIC INTEREST REPORT

Fall 2008, Volume 61, Number 2

ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED

FAS Public Interest Report

FAS Public Interest Report,USPS No. 188-100is published quarterly at:

1725 DeSales Street, NW, 6th FloorWashington, DC 20036

Periodicals postage paid at Washington, DC,and at additional mailing offices.

POSTMASTER:SEND ADDRESS CHANGES TO

FAS Public Interest Report1725 DeSales Street, NW, 6th FloorWashington, DC 20036

Annual subsription is $25/year.Copyright © 2008 by the Federationof American Scientists.

Archived FAS Public Interest Reportsare available online at www.fas.org

Phone 202.546.3300Fax 202.675.1010E-mail [email protected].

EDITORIAL STAFF

Editor: Henry KellyManaging Editor: Monica A. Amarelo

FALL 2008 | PUBLIC INTEREST REPORT

The New American Century

Barack Obama’s decisive victory,based on the theme of change, provides a unique chance to make

some basic approaches in key areas ofnational security and domestic policy.There will be a narrow window during whicha new team can come forward with specificplans to implement the commitments madeduring the campaign and work with theCongress to get them passed quickly. It willbe critical to pick the right list, to proposeplans bold enough to match the need, andbe prepared to argue forcibly for theurgency of the goals and the utility of theproposed solution.

Coming in the midst of the worst finan-cial crisis in a generation, there will bepowerful pressures to shy away from pro-grams requiring new funding. But failing to make the investments President-electObama promised for reestablishing U.S.leadership in research, innovative business-es, education, and infrastructure would putthe country on a path to irrelevance. Theinability of the Japanese to escape the scle-rotic thinking of their establishment man-agers has not only lost a decade of growth,but undercut the confident tone of a nationthat once seemed poised to lead the worldwith technology and invention. This is oneof the few times when a president may beable to slay some sacred cows saying plain-ly that we simply can’t afford to be hemor-rhaging money in federal programs thathave long outlived their original purposes.

There is general agreement that a newfiscal stimulus package is needed and thatit should focus on government spendingmost likely to generate economic activityquickly. Carefully constructed, this shortterm stimulus can also build an infrastruc-ture that will pay long term dividends. The

3

investments should focus on acceleratingthe revolutionary changes already underwayin national security, in the economy, in theway energy is used and produced, and ineducation.

A National Security Revolution

While Americans are all in sticker shockat spending $700 billion to bail out WallStreet, we’ve been spending nearly thismuch every year on national security pro-grams at the Department of Defense andDepartment of Energy. In 2008 the U.S.spent $676 billion.

And it seems that the base budget,reported at the beginning of the year, isbasically a kind of retainer. You have to payextra (in the form of an annual “supplemen-tal”) if the military is actually asked to fight.It’s time to take a careful look at what we’re

getting for the retainer.

While only a small portion of the budget,one essential part of the base budget mustbe a revitalized investment in defenseresearch and development. The DefenseAdvanced Research Projects Agency(DARPA) and other programs have filled thepipeline of innovation and led to keyadvances in materials, communication sys-tems, and computation that have under-pinned U.S. security for generations. Theseinnovations have led to spinoffs of greatbenefit to the civilian economy. Defenseresearch – particularly basic research –needs to be put back on its feet with fundingand creative new management.

The United States is maintaining adefense infrastructure largely unaffected bya dramatically changed security environ-ment. Repeated fights over closing bases

See New American Century, p. 4

THE FEDERATION OF AMERICAN SCIENTISTS

4

and laboratories, and cutting pointless hard-ware have resulted in some savings – but notnearly enough. Weapons systems like theballistic missile defense are not counted asearmarks but should be. We continue to fundoutlandishly expensive programs that wouldbe near the bottom of any list of priorities fordefense spending prepared by a team tryingto build a defense system tailored to real21st century threats to our security. The U.S.spends roughly twice the NSF budget to digholes in Alaska for missiles that don’t work.Can we really afford this?

But the worst thing an earmark does iswaste money. There are cases where mili-tary pork can do real harm – as the missiledefense deployments have clearly alreadydone so. These legacy programs rob invest-ments badly needed to address new chal-lenges: cyber attacks, rapid and real timeintelligence, robotics, and flexible operationsin dense urban environments.

The U.S. nuclear weapons program isanother pointless legacy. We are maintain-ing nearly 10,000 weapons of which about1000 are on a hair trigger alert. We continueto operate the full Cold War contingent ofweapons laboratories. No one seems ableto explain what logic drives these huge num-bers. On the other hand it’s easy to explainthe harm they do – the risk of accidents, andthe way they undermine any serious effort torebuild international nonproliferation efforts.

The good news here is that theKissinger, Shultz, Nunn, and Perry “gang offour” have forced the nation to ask the obvi-ous questions about its nuclear policy andboth political parties have shown an interestin a dramatic rethinking of U.S. nuclear policy. What we lack is an accompanyingstrategy for building a global nonprolifera-tion system that makes technical, political,and economic sense.

Most importantly, however, we seemunable to accept the recommendations from

in solving problems that are global in nature– energy supplies, water, food, and diseaseprevention. Investing in collaborative proj-ects in these areas, while not a substitute for an ability to project power, can providesecurity at a far lower cost.

field commanders that skillful diplomacyand civilian economic development canalmost always achieve security objectives ata lower cost than direct military intervention.The personal history of the new presidentand his skill in building coalitions, positionsthe U.S. to finding ways to be a full partner

New American Century, from p. 3 National Defense Outlays

US Manufacturing Employment


5

An Economic Revolution

The twin pressures of a tightly integratedglobal economy and a revolution in produc-tion technology is transforming the U.S.economy like the profound movement in anearlier generation that took Americans offthe farm and onto factory floors, and out ofsweat shops into modern manufacturingplants. But the effects thus far have beenfrightening.

Income inequality has grown sharply andgaps are as great as they were in the 1920s.The U.S. trade deficit continues to widen.Last year we imported $800 billion morethan we exported. About 40 percent of thisdeficit resulted from petroleum imports.This year our petroleum imports alone maybe more than $500 billion.

We’re even getting clobbered in hightechnology products. The U.S. went from a$30 billion trade surplus in advanced tech-nology products in 2000 to a $40 billiondeficit in 2006. In Asia the trade balance inadvanced technology products increasedfrom $25 billion to $72 billion over the sameperiod as China and other nations, led byhighly competent engineers, implemented aprogram to move from imitation to innova-tion. Employment in U.S. manufacturing thathas provided solid middle class incomes forgenerations is vanishing at breathtakingrates—they’re now less than 10 percent ofall jobs. The number of manufacturing jobstoday is lower than it was in the 1950s.

There is no way to restore the glories ofthe U.S. manufacturing juggernaut of thelate 20th century. The production processhas moved irrevocably away from a systemthat could be operated by a high schoolgraduate to one that relies on sophisticatedequipment integrated into an internationalnetwork. Even non-manufacturing jobs areredefined as information technology toolsreplace the routine tasks of many serviceemployees. Service sector productivity hasbeen increasing at an astonishing 3 percentper year.

While much remains uncertain, it isincreasingly clear that a prosperous futureU.S. economy will automate most anony-mous, routine physical tasks and depend onpeople skilled in invention and managingchange. The new economy will rely on newtools that educate, heal, persuade, commu-nicate, and counsel with unprecedented connections to each other and a reservoir ofworldwide information. Success will dependon our ability to maintain an unrelentingpace of innovation and reinvention coupledwith an effective system.

The U.S. needs to make investments inthe ingredients we know must be part of anysuccessful strategy to build an economy thatprovides sustainable growth in output andemployment. These include strong researchand development programs capable of focus-ing funding on areas most likely to be pro-ductive in expanding our understanding ofhow the world works – even when there is noclear connection to contemporary problems.Applied research in areas like energy, agri-culture, and health should find ways to define

problems in ways that invite innovative solu-tions from many sources and disciplines.Recent research suggests, for example, thatadvances in silicon nano-wires may providebreakthroughs in solid-state refrigeration.

The energy and climate policies dis-cussed below can provide a powerful set oftools for creating markets for innovativeproducts and production systems. Amongother things, this can provide strong incen-tives for increases in private research invest-ment. Skillful use of stimulus funding canalso provide key infrastructures – the intro-duction of broadband, smart electric gridsand transportation networks, and newindustrial facilities designed to producehighly efficient cars with highly productiveprocesses.

Energy and Climate

President-elect Obama supports cuttingU.S. CO2 production 80 percent by 2050. Thissimply can not be achieved unless a key ele-

See New American Century, p. 6

US Merchandise Trade

6


ment of the economic transformationinvolves a fundamental shift in the connec-tions between energy use and economicactivity. The momentum of current patternsof economic growth is not encouraging and,worldwide, is leading to huge growth inenergy use and emissions. The recessionwill slow growth but unless something dramatic changes, economic recovery will be accompanied by a rapid growth in energydemand.

Achieving the dramatic climate goalswhile accommodating economic growth willbe an unprecedented achievement. And itmust be accompanied with a strategy thatallows poor nations to sharply increase percapita income without offsetting gainsachieved here. The good news is the innova-tion-driven economic recovery just describedis consistent with the changes needed todrastically increase the productivity of ener-gy use and a shift to a new generation ofenergy supplies. It is also consistent with aprogram to build a transportation and com-munications infrastructure consistent with a

new economy. The investments needed toachieve this massive transformation are solarge, and touch so many parts of the econo-my, that an innovation-driven energy and climate program can be the engine to driveneeded changes in the entire economy.

Reconstructing existing infrastructure –buildings, even entire urban areas andtransportation systems – requires specialfocus. Clearly we don’t want to rebuild the1950s highway system without carefulthought to mass transit, urban design, andnovel transportation modes that could leadto more livable, more sustainable, andhealthier urban areas. About 70 percent ofall U.S. electricity goes to power residentialand commercial buildings – and the turnoverrate of these structures is very slow; thereare 130 million homes in the United Stateswhile only 1-2 million new homes are builteach year. Then so, in most cases, the costof renovating these homes to reduce elec-tricity use is far lower than the cost of build-ing new electric generating facilities. Astrategy that could get an ambitious retrofitfor every building sold (roughly every sevenyears for housing) is essential. This means

making full use of the regulatory authoritiesand incentives available through agencies not traditionally associated with energy andenvironmental issues, such as Housing andUrban Development, Transportation, andAgriculture.

Education and Training

People will only benefit from the kinds of changes envisioned here, as workers, asconsumers, or as citizens, if they are able toenter the workforce trained to take intellec-tually challenging jobs, and if they able tokeep learning in response to relentless inno-vation. This is already evident in the growinggap separating the income of people with college degrees from those with a highschool education. Soon it will no longer bepossible to have a middle class job with ahigh school education.

The challenge is that while the need isgrowing, the cost of providing sophisticatededucation and training is also rising. Afteryears of effort, U.S. K-12 students still com-pare poorly with students in Europe and partsof Asia. Costs continue to soar – collegetuition outpaces growth in incomes. As we’veargued in these pages before, the only afford-able way to provide a highly diverse popula-tion with the education and training requiredto make them part of a fast-paced, flexibleeconomy will involve using the same informa-tion technology tools that have made otherservice enterprises more productive. Thismeans making use of simulations, personal-ized tutors, and continuous embeddedassessments. The process requires buildingan infrastructure that can continuouslyimprove upon itself based on reviews fromscholars and teachers from many disciplinesaround the world. And it will require a way toensure the persistence of material developed– such as learning modules, virtual objects,and simulated tours. The world is litteredwith many small efforts that can’t interoper-ate with modern systems and are trapped informats rapidly rendered obsolete.

New American Century, from p. 5

World Energy Use

7


A Path Forward

The federal government has alwaysplayed a central role in the research neededto develop technologies to drive Americangrowth, and it clearly must do so again. Itmust ensure that the market for innovationsis strong – by encouraging private researchinvestment and providing a strong pull forcreative new approaches through cleverdesign of energy and environmental regula-tions. Efforts to do this have faltered andrepairing the damage must be a centralfocus of the new president. A report fromthe National Academies of Science titled“The Gathering Storm” sounded the alarmthat a new level of federal research invest-ment is needed. This led to the AmericaCompetes legislation that – while filled with a laundry list of pet projects – showedbipartisan determination to double federal

research spending in key agencies.

Virtually none of the promises werebacked with appropriations. This has tochange. It would be disastrous to cut backon research and education investmentsessential to build a strong economy andmeet the energy and climate changes weface. An economic crisis will force sometough choices but it may also provide a rareopportunity to take a tough look at legacydefense programs, water projects, agricul-tural subsidies, and a tax code with hun-dreds of pages of manipulations designed toprotect businesses. Doubling budgets for theNational Science Foundation, the Depart-ment of Energy’s Office of Science, and the National Institute of Standards andTechnology would cost roughly $21 billion ayear. This is the annual amount we spend onagricultural price supports. Eliminating the

Strategic Defense Initiative would saveenough money to increase the NSF budget150 percent. In spite of all the rhetoric, thereal buying power of U.S. energy researchprograms is less than half that in the late1970s. A 5-fold increase has been suggest-ed and would clearly be justified.

There are many ways to go wrong at thiscritical moment, and a lot of pressure tobuild walls around familiar terrain instead oflooking forward. But if any nation can con-tinue to reinvent itself around a revolution intechnology it’s the United States. We havethe intellectual infrastructure, superbresearch populations, and talent drawn fromaround the world. With the right leadership,we can maintain the perpetual revolutionthat is the real America. FAS

8


8

By Monica Amarelo

Mark D. Levine, director of theChina Energy Group at theLawrence Berkeley National

Laboratory, is the recipient of the 2008 FASPublic Service Award for "his extraordinarycontributions to energy efficiency researchand for his work in China to build a strongenergy program.”

Levine is a pioneer on energy efficiencyresearch. He was part of a major study, “A Time to Choose,” funded by the FordFoundation in 1972 that, along with the 1973American Physical Society study, created themandate and agenda for energy efficiency inthe United States. He has been a leader inenergy efficiency since that time, havingplayed significant roles in key studies of theAmerican Physical Society, the World EnergyCouncil, the U.S. Department of Energy, theEnergy Foundation, and other organizations.

He was also a part of the Intergovern-mental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)team of scientists that won the 2007 NobelPeace Prize, awarded jointly to former VicePresident Al Gore, Jr., "for their efforts tobuild up and disseminate greater knowledgeabout man-made climate change, and to laythe foundations for the measures that areneeded to counteract such change."

For the last 20 years, Levine led the ChinaEnergy Group (http://china.lbl.gov/) at LBNL.The group formed as a result of a U.S.Department of Energy sponsored conferenceon China’s energy markets held in Nanjing,China in 1988 and has worked collaborativelywith Chinese organizations to further energyefficiency policy in China.

“Through my work with the China EnergyGroup, we’ve introduced techniques for analyzing appliance efficiency standards inChina, created voluntary energy efficiencyagreements between China’s government

and industry, and developed state-of-the-arttools and data collection to permit analysisof China’s energy future,” said Levine, listingsome of the many contributions made thatenhance the collaboration between expertsin the U.S. and China. “It is extremely impor-tant to promote clean technology policieshere and abroad that result in buildings,industry, and motor vehicles that are safe,affordable and energy efficient.”

In testimony before the U.S.-ChinaEconomic and Security Review Commissionon August 13, 2008, Levine stated that thereare misunderstandings in both China and theU.S. that cause both countries to missopportunities for fruitful cooperation.Perhaps the greatest misunderstanding isthe failure to recognize that China has in thepast (1980-2000) and is again puttingtremendous effort into reducing growth ofenergy-related CO2 emissions through thedesign and implementation of aggressiveand innovative energy efficiency policies.

“Together China and the United Statesaccount for nearly 40 percent of currentglobal energy-related CO2 emissions andhave the largest potential to reduce emis-sions growth,” said Henry Kelly, president of the Federation of American Scientists.“Solutions depend critically on both Chinaand the U.S., and it is essential that the twocountries work cooperatively – particularly in energy efficiency. Mark Levine has beeninstrumental in helping both countriesunderstand that efficiency technologies areessential for meeting energy and climatechange goals at the lowest possible price.”

“As long as China appears to do little toreduce growth of greenhouse gas emissionsit will be politically difficult for the U.S. tosign an international treaty that commits toa serious cap on emissions. And as long asthe U.S. appears to do little, China won’tcommit to any limits on its own emissions,”said Arthur Rosenfeld, commissioner of theCalifornia Energy Commission and Chairmanof the FAS Board of Directors. “It’s a viciouscircle that Mark and the China Energy Groupare trying to break.”

In addition to his continuing role in lead-ing the China Energy Group at LawrenceBerkeley National Laboratories, Levineserved as director of the EnvironmentalEnergy Technologies Division from 1996-2006. The division is at the forefront ofresearch on indoor air quality, buildingsenergy efficiency, and a variety of cleanenergy technologies, and Levine expandedits mission to include taking on a leadershiproll in analyzing energy efficiency issues.

The 2008 FAS Public Service Award waspresented on Thursday, 25 September 2008,in the Sibley Auditorium of the University ofCalifornia, Berkeley. To learn more, pleasevisit http://www.fas.org/press/events/2008sept_publicserviceaward.html. FAS

Mark D. Levine Receives 2008 Public Service Award

for Energy Efficiency Research

Mark D. Levine receives congratulationsfrom FAS Board Chair Arthur Rosenfeld.

“We created the Beijing Energy Efficiency Center and the

Beijing Energy Efficiency Center in turn talked the Chinese

government into moving energy efficiency into the top

priority. By creating this organization we helped influence

the government to pursue big energy efficiency projects.”

9

SPRING 2008 | PUBLIC INTEREST REPORTFALL 2008 | PUBLIC INTEREST REPORT

“I’m very much honored to receive thisaward. And now I’m going to talkabout three topics. I want to tell you

about the China Energy Group because mycolleagues deserve the credit and even moreso our colleagues in China.

Secondly I’m going to talk about themyths and realities of energy and carbondioxide emissions in China. I imagine few of you will know that all of the myths areincorrect.

And finally I’ll make observations aboutworking with China on energy efficiency.

The China Energy Group started with a1988 conference on energy markets in Chinain Nanjing, China. I saw a view graph thatsaid the saturation of refrigerators in Chinain 1983 was close to zero. Later on someoneelse gave a talk and said the saturation ofrefrigerators in China in 1985 was 15 or 17percent. Something dramatic had happenedin Beijing in a two-year period.

Later I saw data that showed that energydemand in China had grown less than half as fast as the economy from 1980 – 1986. I knew that couldn’t be the case becauseeveryone knew that in developing countriesenergy grew faster than the economy.

So I resolved to get to the bottom of whatwas happening. Therein lay the event thatled to all this collaboration with China.

We created the Beijing Energy EfficiencyCenter and the Beijing Energy EfficiencyCenter in turn talked the Chinese govern-ment into moving energy efficiency into thetop priority. By creating this organization wehelped influence the government to pursuebig energy efficiency projects.

Now let me talk about China. I’ll startwith the bad news. The reality is China hasterrible air pollution. However for the firsttime, policies to improve air quality through-out China are taking effect. In fact overall airpollution has diminished in the last severalyears, year by year.

The first myth is that China’s subsidizedenergy prices cause them to use more ener-gy and gives their firms a competitive advan-tage. Electricity is very expensive in China.Residents of Guangzhou pay more($0.16/kWh) for electricity than residents ofSan Francisco. Natural gas prices inShanghai are the same as in San Francisco

I arranged for Steve Nadel with theAmerican Council for an Energy EfficientEconomy (ACEEE) to take a sabbatical inChina. He worked at the Energy ResearchInstitute, which was then part of the statedevelopment and planning commission.Later Steve returned the favor by getting meto train the Chinese on appliance efficiencystandards in exchange for their agreeingthat they would issue the standard andimplement it in a certain time period. Andsure enough, 18 months later, the Chinesecame out with refrigerator standards.

The Chinese were much smarter politi-cally than we’ve been here in the U.S. Sincethis was very new for China and difficult forrefrigerator manufacturers, they started withlenient and easy standards. But they told theindustry that in five years they were going tocome out with much tougher standards. Andthat five years after that they’d do it again.

I think the important point about this is –and this happened not only with refrigera-tors but with every single other product wetrained the Chinese on appliance standards– they made a commitment up front andkept every single commitment they made.

The refrigerator standards training prob-ably cost half a million dollars and will save10 billion dollars worth of carbon dioxideemissions, if you treat carbon dioxide as $20a ton, by 2020.

Excerpt from the Acceptance Speech by Mark D. Levine

25 September 2008 at the University of California, Berkeley, CA

See Acceptance Speech, p. 10

Arthur Rosenfeld

10


($10/mcf). And coal prices throughout China($147/t) are higher than in the U.S.

Until two years ago oil and gasoline wasat world prices and only in the last two yearshave there been subsidies for oil-relatedproducts. China does not have low energyprices. This is just not true.

Energy demand growth is faster than GDPin developing countries during periods ofindustrialization. China, virtually unique inthe developing world, has demonstratedsince 1980 that this need not be the case.Imagine what the world would be like ifenergy had followed GDP. Today China wouldbe using four times as much.

It wasn’t a fluke or a coincidence thatenergy demand growth was restrained inChina. This was conscious policy establishedby Deng Xiaoping in 1980. And to give proper

credit, it was a group of about 100 academ-ics working on energy research that puttogether a confidential report that said thefollowing: China’s energy crisis is not ashortage of energy, but rather an energypolicy crisis.

They told Deng Xiaoping his policy waswrong. At that time, it was decided thatenergy would grow half as fast as GDP. Thegoal was to double energy growth in 20 yearswhile GDP increased by a factor of four. Infact GDP increased more than a factor offour and energy did less than double.

Some people think that China is profligatein its energy use and becoming more so. The reality is the per capita energy use isonly ⅛ U.S. and ¼ EU.

Myth – China will soon overtake theUnited States as the largest contributor toenergy related CO2 concentration in the

atmosphere. That is to say China is destroy-ing the atmosphere. The reality by anymeasure of contribution to atmospheric CO2

is that the Chinese have done far less harmthan the United States.

Now I will acknowledge that in the lastfive years China’s emissions of CO2 haveincreased dramatically. China’s emissionsare now at the U.S. level. However per capitaemissions in China are much lower thanthose of the U.S.

Myth – China is doing little to reduce itsgrowth of CO2 emissions. The reality is Chinahas a target to reduce energy intensity by 20 percent in five years. They’re very likely toachieve at least ⅔ of that goal which wouldreduce CO2 emissions by 1.0 billion metrictons in five years.

Next myth – China is inefficient in its useof energy and continues to be inefficient.Energy demand in China has rapidly grown,not because of increasing inefficiency, butbecause of the demand for industrial output.China now manufactures 50 percent of thecement in the world. But the efficiency ofcement production in China has beenincreasing at several percent per year.

Here are some of my observations onworking with China on energy efficiency.There has been high-level government support for energy efficiency in China since1980, with the exception of the years 2000 –2005. In China, people are interested inenergy efficiency and are willing to do thingsabout it. I can’t say that’s been true in theUnited States at governmental levels.

And to conclude, in China, scientificanalysis leads to high receptivity for adviceon policy. If you’re a scientist and you haveanalysis, the leaders will listen. The well-being of the country for many people in gov-ernment and at research institutions is stillmore important than individual satisfaction.”

To listen the entire presentation, pleasevisit http://www.fas.org/press/events/2008sept_publicserviceaward.html. FAS

Acceptance Speech, from p. 9

About the Public Service AwardSince 1971, the Federation of American

Scientists (FAS) has recognized an out-standing statesman or public interestadvocate who has made a distinctive con-tribution to public policy at the intersec-tion of science and national security. Pastrecipients include Senator Edward M.Kennedy, Richard Garwin, Carl Sagan,and Phillip Morrison.

• 1971 Richard L. Garwin• 1972 Matthew S. Meselson• 1973 Wolfgang K.H. Panofsky• 1975 Bernard T. Feld• 1976 Hans A. Bethe• 1977 Bruce N Ames• 1978 William A. Shurcliff• 1979 John P. Holdren• 1980 Jerome B. Weisner• 1981 Philip Morrison• 1982 Randall Forsberg

• 1983 Edward M. Kennedy• 1984 Ruth Adams• 1985 Carl Sagan• 1986 Charles B. Archambeau

Jack F. EverndenLynn R. Sykes

• 1987 Thomas B. Cochran• 1988 Hugh E. Dewitt• 1989 Frank von Hippel• 1990 John H. Gibbons• 1991 John E. Pike• 1992 Herbert F. York• 1993 George Soros• 1994 Jeremy J. Stone• 1995 Lester R. Brown• 1996 Sally Lillienthal• 1997 Richard L. Garwin• 1998 Morton H. Halperin• 2007 Edward J. Markey• 2008 Mark Levine

11


No topic has risen more quickly inrecent years than procuring greenenergy alternatives to help combat

climate change. How can China and theUnited States work together to stop globalclimate change? What can the new U.S.president do to help China become moreenergy efficient? On 25 September 2008, theFederation of American Scientists hosted apanel discussion on this topic at theUniversity of California, Berkeley.

The participants included 2008 FASPublic Service Award recipient Mark Levine,Jiang Lin of the Energy Foundation, DavidFridley of Lawrence Berkeley NationalLaboratory, Tom Gold of the University ofCalifornia at Berkeley, Robert Collier of theSan Francisco Chronicle, and Professor HeJianhum of Tsinghua University and thedirector of the Low Energy Carbon Center in Tsinghua, China.

What United States policies will have thegreatest impact in helping China go green?

Several international studies show thatChina has surged past the U.S. to becomethe world's largest source of greenhousegas emissions. According to a recent studyby scientists at Lawrence Berkeley NationalLaboratory, China accounted for 55 percentof the total increase in the world's green-house gas emissions between 2000 and2006.

The environmental and political conse-quences of China's tremendous growth areprofound. If China does not succeed ingreening its economy and cleaning its skies,negotiations for a new climate change

To watch the panel discussion “What policies should the next U.S. president adoptto help China save energy and reduce green-house gas emissions?” please visit http://www.fas.org/press/events/2008sept_publicserviceaward.html. FAS

treaty will have little chance of success. A solution to the problem of greenhouse gasemissions depends on both China and theU.S. and it is essential that the two countriesdo this cooperatively.

By Monica Amarelo

United States and China:

How to Green the Economy and Clear the Skies

FAS event on U.S. and China energy efficiency

held on 25 September 2008 in San Francisco


12


China’s Energy Policies and their Environmental Impacts

CO2 emissions globally between the presentand 2030, thus being by far the largest futurecontributor to increased concentrations of CO2

in the atmosphere. The United States, mean-while, has the greatest potential of any countryin the world to reduce energy-related green-house gas emissions, for two reasons: first,because the U.S. per-capita intensity of theseemissions is considerably higher than those ofother large industrial countries (e.g., 2.5 timesthat of the European Union and 2.1 times thatof Japan); and second, because the UnitedStates has the scientific, technical, and eco-nomic capability of developing viable alterna-tives to fossil energy technologies and is likelyto be the world leader in any breakthroughtechnology if one is developed.

It is not enough that China and the UnitedStates both take steps to reduce CO2 emis-sions. It is essential that the two countries dothis cooperatively. As long as China does littleto reduce growth of greenhouse gas emissionsor appears to be doing little, it will be political-ly difficult for the United States to sign a bind-ing international treaty that commits to a serious cap on emissions. And as long as theUnited States either does little or appears tobe doing little, it’s impossible to imagine Chinacommitting to any international treaty thatlimits its own emissions. This is a vicious circle in which neither country will act boldlyunless the other acts first, and neitherappears willing to act first.

The point here is the one I emphasizethroughout this statement: If we succeed inworking cooperatively with China to reduceCO2 emissions, the world stands a far greaterchance of reducing the threat of global climatechange. If we do not, it’s difficult to see howChina will do it all alone. This is a choice thattwo great nations – who contribute by far thelargest CO2 emissions to the atmosphere –have to make.” FAS

Excerpts of testimony by Mark D. Levine before the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission

“Iwish to thank the Commission for giving me the opportunity to participate in this hearing. I consider the topic,

“China’s Energy Policies and their Environ-mental Impacts,” to be one of great impor-tance. I believe there are misunderstandingsin both China and the United States surround-ing this topic that cause both countries to miss opportunities for fruitful collaboration.Perhaps the greatest of these misunderstand-ings is the failure to recognize that China hasin the past (1980-2000) and is again puttingtremendous effort into reducing growth ofenergy-related CO2 emissions through thedesign and implementation of aggressive andinnovative energy efficiency policies.

I wish to stress two points: The first is thatChina and the United States, accounting fornearly 40% of current global energy-relatedCO2 emissions and having the largest potentialto reduce emissions growth, need to workcooperatively to establish a global regime inwhich these emissions are contained. Thesecond is the need for assistance from outsidefor China to successfully limit these emis-sions. I suggest that China, without assistancein reducing greenhouse gas emissions, couldtriple or even quadruple emissions over thenext 20 to 25 years. With serious assistancefrom industrialized countries, especially theUnited States, the increase in emissions couldbe cut in half. The second outcome makes itpossible to conceive of a future in which theworst effects of global climate change areaverted; in the first case, such a future is difficult to imagine.

I have three major recommendations forthe United States government:

1. The United States and China should engagein formal and regular discussions of waysof working together to reduce greenhousegas emissions, with the goal of influencing

global negotiations, a serious proposal thatboth the United States and China agree tois likely to be acceptable to both industrial-ized and developing countries.

2. In the near term, the greatest support that the United States can provide to China(and other developing countries) is to buildcapacity in those countries to create andimplement policies and programs thatreduce greenhouse gas emissions. TheUnited States should play a leadership role,creating a program at the level of $500 mil-lion per year (~$200 million of which is forChina). The United States should stronglyencourage other industrialized nations tofund such programs as well.

3. In the long term, the solution to climatechange will have to rely on technology thatis not yet commercialized. The UnitedStates government should play a key role in establishing a basis for performing R&Don these technologies with other nations(including China) and the sharing of intel-lectual property of these future technolo-gies among nations of the world.

I urge the Commission to consider theseideas and recommendations seriously, in lightof the statement that I provide below.

Issues

Progress toward a solution to the problemof greenhouse gas emissions depends critical-ly on both China and the United States andthat deepened bilateral cooperation wouldgreatly increase the likelihood of finding aneffective way to move forward. China and theUnited States produce approximately equallevels of energy-related CO2 emissions andtogether account for almost 40% of suchemissions worldwide. China is projected toaccount for 40% to 50% of new energy-related


13

FAS Recognizes Professor of Geophysics and

Astronomy with 2008 Hans Bethe Award

proclaimed it an amazing success and confirmed the ability of the United States to sustain its nuclear weapons stockpile.

“Raymond Jeanloz’s investigation intothe effects of aging of materials, compo-nents, and systems within the U.S. nucleararsenal found that the materials that makeup the nuclear core are far more stable andpredictable than anyone would have antici-pated,” said Ivan Oelrich, vice president ofthe strategic security program at theFederation of American Scientists. “Hisconclusion that the U.S. stockpile will bestable for periods of at least 60 years tookthe wind out of the sails of advocates fornew nuclear weapons.”

Jeanloz’s analysis demonstrated theresilience of the U.S. nuclear weaponsestablishment provides an opportunity foran extensive examination of post-Cold Warnuclear weapons policy and its role in the21st century.

"The world's only superpower wouldsend a negative signal to the non-nuclearstates if it felt the need to develop newtypes of nuclear weapons," wrote RaymondJeanloz in the March 2003 edition of ArmsControl Today.

Throughout the 1990s, Jeanloz advisedthe U.S. Department of Energy, adding aresponsible voice to the National NuclearSecurity Administration AdvisoryCommittee. He is also the 1988 recipient of a fellowship, often called a "geniusaward," from the John D. and Catherine T.MacArthur Foundation.

As a Berkeley professor, Jeanloz hasserved on committees and panels includingthe National Security Panel andNonproliferation, Arms Control andInternational Security Advisory Committee

The Federation of American Scientistshas chosen Raymond Jeanloz, a pro-fessor of geophysics and astronomy

at the University of California at Berkeley, asthe recipient of the 2008 Hans Bethe Awardfor "his demonstration of the reliability ofthe U.S. nuclear stockpile in the presence ofa moratorium on nuclear testing.”

By Monica Amarelo

Hans A. Bethe

“His conclusion that the

U.S. stockpile will be stable

for periods of at least

60 years took the wind

out of the sails of

advocates for new

nuclear weapons.”

In addition to his primary scientific workon the behavior of matter at high tempera-tures and pressures and its application toplanetary interiors, Jeanloz applies hisexpertise to vital questions of national secu-rity as the chair of the National Academy of Science's Committee on InternationalSecurity and Arms Control (CISAC). Underhis leadership, CISAC published severalstudies and analyses of major securityissues such as nuclear weapons policy, themanagement of weapons-useable material,and on the future of U.S. nuclear forces(http://www.nas.edu/cisac).

At the conclusion of his review of theNational Nuclear Security Administration’sStockpile Stewardship Program, Jeanloz

of the Lawrence Livermore NationalLaboratory. He has also served on NationalAcademy studies, including the Committeeon Technical Issues Related to Ratification ofthe Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and theCommittee on Effects of a Nuclear Earth-Penetrator Weapon. In 1979, he received his Ph.D. from the California Institute ofTechnology then joined the faculty of HarvardUniversity before moving to Berkeley.

The 2008 FAS Hans Bethe Award waspresented on Friday, 26 September 2008, atthe FAS Symposium “Paths to Zero” at theCommonwealth Club in San Francisco. Video is online at http://www.fas.org/press/events/2008sept_hansbetheaward.html. FAS


Acceptance Speech by Raymond Jeanloz

26 September 2008 at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco, CA

14

“Thank you. It was a complete sur-prise learning of the award, and itis an overwhelming honor to have

one’s name associated with that of HansBethe. Consummate citizen-scientist, aleader of the Manhattan Project that builtthe first atomic bombs during a time of war,he was the one to explain to the world hownuclear fusion makes the Sun shine, andmakes life possible. Fusion also powersthermonuclear weapons – the hydrogenbomb – and may someday provide vastamounts of energy to sustain our civilization.

Why should the average person careabout nuclear weapons and non-prolifera-tion? After all, we seem to have moreimmediate problems, whether the currenteconomic instabilities or the scourge of ter-rorism that can affect any nation at any time.

than one million times that of TNT: the effectso intense in the devastated area as todemolish the infrastructure on which sur-vival – let alone civilization – depends.

Think about modern society in compari-son with former times, especially a war-hardened society. Our great advances andefficiencies depend on massive interdepen-dencies in jobs and capabilities. We as indi-viduals do not have to grow our own food,create our own shelter or clothing, and finddrinkable water every day for ourselves andour families. Most of us cannot repair ourappliances or our vehicles; we’re not sup-posed to – they are more advanced than that.Loss of electric power can be more than aninconvenience, if extended enough: heat maynot be available because the control systemsare electrical, and water may be inaccessiblebecause pumps don’t work.

In short, we are no longer self-sufficient,but live in a highly integrated web of occupa-tions that provide for enormous capabilitiesand efficiencies. The result is an incrediblyadvanced society, yet one that can also beprofoundly fragile. And we understand thisfragility from a different perspective,because we do prepare for devastation thatcomes from natural causes. We evacuatepopulations as hurricanes approach or asfirestorms threaten a community, and wehave seen the consequences of poorly managing those efforts. Here in the SanFrancisco Bay Area, we prepare ourselves asbest as possible against the threat of earth-quakes, with emergency kits and specialengineering of buildings and structures.

One nuclear detonation in an urban areacan have the impact of the worst of thesedisasters, or more, with hundreds of thou-sands killed or gravely injured in an instant.But the key difference is that this would be a

Hiroshima there were thirty-three mod-ern fire stations; twenty-seven weremade useless by the bombing. Three-quarters of the fire-fighting personnelwere killed or severely injured. At thesame instant, hundreds, perhaps thou-sands, of fires broke out in the wreckedarea. How could these fires be broughtunder control? There were some quarterof a million people injured in a singleminute. The medical officer in charge ofthe public health organization was buriedunder his house. His assistant was killed,and so was his assistant… The powersubstation which served the center of thecity was destroyed… Every hospital butone in the city was badly damaged; notone was able to shelter its patients fromthe rain – even if its shell of concrete stillstood without roof, partitions, or case-

“We have many reminders that focusing on the crises of

the moment, and ignoring long-standing problems can

bring on unexpectedly large catastrophes in the future;

and the future seems inevitably to come upon us

more quickly than we can imagine.”

Events far worse than those ofSeptember 11, 2001 are possible, however.Let me quote the words of Philip Morrison,along with Hans Bethe a founder of theFederation of American Scientists. Also partof the Manhattan Project, he was among thefirst U.S. scientists to visit Hiroshima afterthe bombing, and observed:1

‘The atomic bomb is pre-eminently theweapon of saturation. It destroys so largean area so completely and so suddenlythat the defense is overwhelmed. In

ments. There were whole sections of theouter city undamaged, but the peoplethere were unable to give effective aid....’

The point is not to judge the past – it wasa time of terrible, total war – but of remind-ing ourselves of the devastation caused byone nuclear weapon. A small one by mod-ern standards, and of a design that couldreadily be constructed by terrorists or stock-piled by a failing state, should they get theirhands on the necessary materials. Yet thepower of a nuclear explosion can be more


15

human-induced catastrophe, with perhapshundredfold the casualties of 9/11, and withlocal collapse of society’s infrastructure.The horror of immediate deaths and injuriesis compounded by the fate of those who sur-vive the event, but then succumb due to lossof that infrastructure – whether shelter,medical care or potable water.

No one can know whether such a calami-ty will happen soon, or ever. But we do knowthat the possibility of a nuclear detonationexists, and in some terrible sense growsmore likely with time. This is because theknowledge and materials of nuclear tech-nologies are relentlessly spreading aroundthe globe. In particular, the world at large isembracing nuclear power, and with goodreason because energy is needed for grow-ing economies. Especially for those nationslacking natural resources, nuclear energyprovides an important avenue for growth.And concerns of global climate change arealso motivating demand for nuclear power.So, in addition to the normal diffusion of sci-entific knowledge, much accelerated thesedays by the Internet, the drive for energy andresource security is distinctly hastening thespread of nuclear technology.

There is no intent here to equate nuclearenergy and nuclear weapons, but the fact isthat there are important technical overlapsbetween these domains. With time, relevantknowledge, materials and people arespreading worldwide, and increasing num-bers of countries inevitably become latentnuclear-weapons states. That is, even ifthey have no desire for nuclear weapons atthe present time, latent states have thetechnical capability to develop a nucleararsenal in the future, should they feel theneed to do so.

And, with more than 30,000 weapons’worth of nuclear explosive material – highlyenriched uranium and weapons-grade pluto-nium – available around the world in civilianstockpiles alone, there is significant reasonfor concern about control of materials.

There is over 100,000weapons’ worth of materialwhen military stockpiles arealso taken into account. Evenif protected with 99.99 per-cent perfection, the corre-sponding loss of a fewweapons’ worth of materialcould have a catastrophicimpact. For a single nucleardetonation, whether causedby terrorists or a nation’s mil-itary actions, would not onlydevastate the target butwould also shatter the 60-year – more than 2 genera-tion-long – taboo against theuse of nuclear weapons.

The world would instantlybe changed, with conse-quences that are hard for usto imagine.

Given the pressing urgencies of everydayevents, it is all too easy to look the other wayand ignore the real, long-term dangerspotentially associated with these technolo-gies. Yet nuclear technologies are also nec-essary, and at present inevitable, in a worldof growing economies with concerns aboutgreenhouse-gas emissions. Recent eventsshow that our society runs grave risks if welook only to the near term, planning only torespond to today’s polls or to maximize prof-its in the next financial quarter. We havemany reminders that focusing on the crisesof the moment, and ignoring long-standingproblems can bring on unexpectedly largecatastrophes in the future; and the futureseems inevitably to come upon us morequickly than we can imagine.

My intent here has been to remind uswhy these issues of nuclear weapons andnonproliferation need broader public discus-sion. It is time for the U.S. to become moreof a leader: we need to develop a cleareridea of the role of nuclear weapons in thepost Cold-War, post-9/11 era, and be viewed

as leading the global efforts against nuclearproliferation and the potential of nuclear terrorism.

In these matters, the vision of a worldfree of nuclear weapons described byGeorge Shultz, Bill Perry, Henry Kissingerand Sam Nunn is the most powerful call toaction in recent times. It is motivated by therecognition that we do not live in a worldwith a balance of power between two deter-ring arsenals. Instead, the presence of mul-tiple arsenals is almost an invitation for mis-takes or misunderstandings. And even we inthe U.S. have seen dangerous mishandlingof our own nuclear weapons. Compoundedwith the emergence of well-funded andtechnologically sophisticated terrorism, thepotential for catastrophic events can nolonger be overlooked.

It is not clear when or under what cir-cumstances the world might ever be rid ofnuclear weapons, but the most importantreason for the vision is to motivate all of us

See Jeanloz, p. 16

Raymond Jeanloz accepting award.

16


Hans A. Bethe co-founded theFederation of Atomic Scientists, now theFederation of American Scientists (FAS),with the belief that scientists had an obligation to participate in the difficultchoices that were forced on the U.S. bythe extraordinary advances in nuclearphysics demonstrated by the developmentand use of atomic weapons. The FASHans Bethe Award is presented annuallyto an outstanding individual for science inservice to a more secure world.

In more than sixty years since thefounding of FAS, the range and complexityof issues hinging on sound scientificadvice has increased.

In 2003, Hans Bethe presented theaward to Philip Morrison for his unfailing

ethical compass to America’s most criticaldecisions.

In 2005, the award went to Steve Fetterin recognition of his outstanding contribu-tions as an advocate for arms control andnonproliferation and for his rigorousanalysis of nuclear energy climate changeand a carbon-free energy supply.

In 2007, Matt Bunn was recognized forhis work to understand and promote theglobal control of dangerous nuclear mate-rials and to stop the spread of nuclearweapons.

This year the Hans A. Bethe Awardgoes to Raymond Jeanloz for his demon-stration of the reliability of the U.S.nuclear stockpile in the presence of amoratorium on nuclear testing.

Hans Bethe meets President John F. Kennedy.

Jeanloz, from p. 15

to devise specific, constructive steps thatcould be taken in that direction. Today’sPanel Discussion is a case in point, and Iwould like to move quickly toward startingthat discussion.

In closing, I should emphasize that Icould never have worked alone on issues of nuclear weapons and non-proliferation.Essential technical research is performed by hundreds of scientists and engineers atthe national laboratories. Their value to thenation and to the world at large is in inform-ing policy through high-quality technicalunderstanding, unbiased by politics. It is mygood fortune if I have been in a position tohelp communicate their findings. Withouttheir technically outstanding efforts – work-ing quietly behind the scenes – there wouldhave been nothing to communicate.

And, of course, nothing is possible with-out one’s immediate family. In fact, they provide the motivation for caring so muchabout these issues. But, I have also beenprivileged to work with many dedicated andhighly talented colleagues, from top-qualityresearchers in universities to amazingly conscientious individuals in Washington, DCand elsewhere: numerous members of gov-ernment agencies; members and staff ofCongress; active and retired military officers;colleagues at the National Academy ofSciences, where we use the network of sci-entific communication to pursue discussionsamong security experts around the world.

It is urgent that we in the United Statesfocus on the most effective means of countering nuclear proliferation, and thiscalls especially for cooperative measures.Partnering with nations around the worldoffers the most promising means of address-ing the growing threat of nuclear arms.” FAS

1 “If the Bomb Gets Out of Hand” in One World or None: A Report to the Public on the Full Meaning of the AtomicBomb, edited by Dexter Masters and Katharine Way, NewPress, New York, NY, 240 pp., reprinted in 2007.

FAS Hans A. Bethe Award

By Monica Amarelo

The Path to Zero - U.S. Nuclear Policy for the 21st Century

17


FAS event on moving towards a world free of nuclear weapons held on

26 September 2008 at the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco

Despite the financial meltdown andimpending energy crisis, the mostimportant issues the next president

of the United States will face are in the areasof nuclear security, nuclear terrorism, andnonproliferation and arms control. What will U.S. nuclear policy look like for the 21stcentury?

On 26 September 2008, FAS hosted a discussion on this issue and nuclear energywith a distinguished panel that included2008 Hans Bethe Award recipient RaymondJeanloz, former Secretary of State and fel-low at the Hoover Institution George Shultz,Joseph Cirincione of the Ploughshares Fund,Harold Palmer Smith, Jr. of the University of California at Berkeley, Gloria Duffy of the Commonwealth Club, and FAS VicePresident of Strategic Security Ivan Oelrich.

The United States must lead the way toreduce nuclear weapons worldwide. Whilesupport in the U.S. grows for major reduc-tions in nuclear weapons, there is a continu-ing danger of the proliferation of nuclearweapons to more countries. The future ofthe world’s nuclear security is uncertain.

As George Shultz said, “There’s one realthreat to the national security of the UnitedStates, and it’s a nuclear weapon — howeverit’s delivered by a ballistic missile or cruisemissile or in a suitcase, it will be devastat-ing.”

Steps toward a

Nuclear Free World

The new president must put people first,according to Shultz. He recommends that

President Barack Obama focus on person-nel, staffing his administration with the bestand the brightest people. That should be thepriority.

Shultz went on to explain that if thenuclear initiative becomes a true globalenterprise, it could have a transformingeffect on the world. If world leaders are ableto tackle this important issue and changepolicy, then all of a sudden a problem likeclimate change won’t seem as daunting toovercome.

Joseph Cirincione of the PloughsharesFund believes the new U.S. president mustfirst deal with the nuclear programs in Iranand North Korea. The president must alsowork to renew the Strategic Arms ReductionTreaty (START) or risk losing the ability to

verify Russian nuclear weapons and theirdisposal. While working to extend START, a process should be developed to make significant reductions in U.S. and Russianarsenals.

“The START agreement is going to expirein December of 2009,” said Shultz. “If thatdoesn’t get renewed it’s a catastrophe.”

According to Cirincione, there are threecategories of nuclear issues the presidentwill confront.

“There’s the ‘must-do’ list, driven byexternal events beyond the president’s con-trol. Iran will be one of those. The collapseof the nuclear deal with North Korea will beone of those. Then there’s the ‘will do’ list.

See Path to Zero, p. 18

Former Secretary of State George Shultz and Gloria Duffy of the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco, CA.

18


Start a process for the comprehensive testban treaty. Start a process of reductions withthe Russians. And finally there’s the ‘shoulddo’ list. Things the president will have to doin order to have a comprehensive policy,”said Cirincione.

Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty

Ivan Oelrich, vice president of the FASStrategic Security Program, stated that, “theratification of the Comprehensive Test BanTreaty will be the biggest single thing thatwe can do early on in the next administra-tion.”

Throughout the ratification process of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty(CTBT), the United States has questioned the verification process. Raymond Jeanlozreported that the international organizationcharged with the verification of the treaty isnow making the monitoring system a reality.

“The system has been successfully used

to analyze the North Korean test. And so infact it has been tested by a real event. Butanother way it’s been tested is with the hun-dreds of academic instruments, seismome-ters and tsunami observations and the like,that complement the international treatymonitoring system,” said Jeanloz. “If some-thing happens that isn’t picked up by theinternational system and is picked up by theresearcher working late at night, we’ll knowabout that. And vice versa. If the internation-al monitoring system comes up with a falla-cious and invalid result, it will be corrected.”

Shultz added, “There is in a sense a feel-ing that the Comprehensive Test Ban Treatyis a test. If we can’t ratify that then whereare we?”

In addition to verification, the otheressential part of the CTBT is the certificationof the nuclear stockpile.

“I think one of the things I would tell apresident to do right away is to fund scienceadequately. If we don’t have a stream of tal-ented scientists coming into our labs, they’re

not going to be able to do that job,” saidShultz. “They’re laying people off at the labs.That’s not the atmosphere in which you’regoing to attract bright young people to comework.”

U.S. – India Nuclear Deal and the

Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT)

“I am strongly opposed to the deal thatthe Bush administration made with India,which overturns almost 40 years of restric-tions,” said Joseph Cirincione. “We bannedthe export of nuclear technology to countriesthat had not signed up to the NuclearNonproliferation Treaty and were not part ofglobal efforts to reduce and restrict nuclearweapons. We’re now saying to India, you cankeep your nuclear weapons, you don’t haveto sign the treaty, and we will still sell younuclear materials and will encourage othersto as well.”

Cirinione thinks the deal is a body blow tothe nuclear nonproliferation regime.

Oelrich agrees that this path is fraughtwith peril and the United States will come toregret in the long term.

“There’s a synthesis coming out of thisIndia deal that could lead to a very hopefulconclusion, namely a new and better, moreup-to-date, enforceable, verifiableNonproliferation Treaty,” said Harold PalmerSmith, Jr.

The acknowledged five countries withnuclear weapons have not lived up to theNonproliferation Treaty. Smith thinks it istime to rewrite the NPT to include allnuclear weapon states and a date to bringnuclear arsenals down to specific levels, asopposed to the more vague conditions of thepresent treaty.

Internationalization of the

Nuclear Fuel Cycle

Concerns about climate change andenergy prices are driving a resurgence of

Path to Zero, from p. 17

From left to right: Ivan Oelrich, George Shultz, Gloria Duffy, and Raymond Jeanloz.

19


interest in nuclear power. There is an over-lap with nuclear power technology —whether it’s enriching uranium or extractingplutonium from used reactor fuel. Theseprocesses can be used to nuclear weapons.

“Science can contribute a great deal inthe analysis of the international fuel cycle. I don’t know if we’ll have a nuclear renais-sance but clearly there’s going to be a con-tinuation of expansion of nuclear power,”said Oelrich. “We have to have a real, practi-cal scheme for providing people with thebenefits of nuclear power, although thoseare themselves controversial, without therisks of nuclear weapons.”

Shultz agreed. “Everyone can see thepotential importance of nuclear powerplants. But if we don’t get control of thenuclear fuel cycle in some effective way,we’re asking for trouble.”

There are two parts to the internationalfuel cycle, enrichment and disposal. The firstpart, the enrichment, involves the creation ofnuclear materials, the enriched uranium orin the case of reprocessing, of plutonium.The international community also has graveconcerns about stably handling nuclearwaste. Though there are a number of tech-nical options, there are no easy solutions.

“It’s essential if there’s going to be a sus-tainable, stable situation in the future, that it be one that everyone essentially buys into.The United States, the then president ofRussia, also the head of the InternationalAtomic Energy Agency, each have very sincerely proposed various ideas, conceptsfor an internationalized fuel cycle,” saidJeanloz. “There’s not yet a consensus thathas emerged and more than that very fewhave even asked the client nations, whatthey think.”

Global Nuclear Energy

Partnership

The United States government has introduced the Global Nuclear Energy

the year 2100 imagine that we will have aplutonium-based economy. So the last thingwe should do is burn that seed fuel today sothat in the year 2100 when we want thesebreeder reactors we won’t have any plutoni-um to fuel them.”

These are complex problems and majorissues in the expansion of nuclear power.The decision-making in terms of the civiliannuclear power industry is more diffuse thanthe decision-making on nuclear weapons. To watch the entire discussion, co-sponsoredby the Federation of American Scientists and the Commonwealth Club, please visithttp://www.fas.org/press/events/2008sept_hansbetheaward.html. FAS

Partnership (GNEP), which involves a pro-posal to separate plutonium from used spentfuel. According to Oelrich, while this mayone day be a good idea, economically itdoesn’t work right now. The world reservesof cheap uranium, where cheap is defined ascheaper than getting the plutonium out ofthe used fuel, will last through 2070 at thevery minimum.

“These schemes only make sense if wehave fast neutron reactors that can burn theplutonium. And we don’t have any of thosethat are currently available commercially,”said Oelrich. “The American proposal is toburn up plutonium in breeder reactors. Mostpeople who look forward to nuclear power in

By Steven Aftergood

James C. Warf, Manhattan Project Chemist, Author, Activist

20


Prof. James C. Warf, a veteran of theManhattan Project and an earlymember of the Federation of

American Scientists, died last November 7 at age 91.

nuclear reactor safety. He authored an intel-ligent layman's guide to the subject, entitled"All Things Nuclear."

Over the course of 40 years, he madeaudio recordings of chemistry textbooks for Reading for the Blind and Dyslexic. Hisfamily suggested that contributions in hisname be made to that organization atwww.rfbd.org. FAS

During World War II, he led the analyticalchemistry section of the Manhattan Project.He held multiple patents on the separationof plutonium from high-level nuclear waste.

"This was a matter of some regret to himbecause the technology was then used toproliferate nuclear weapons worldwide,"Daniel Hirsch of the Committee to Bridgethe Gap told the Los Angeles Times (Nov. 9,2008). "He spent much of his life trying toreduce the risks that erupted when the geniewas let out of the bottle."

Dr. Warf taught chemistry at theUniversity of Southern California for fortyyears, specializing in rare earth metals. He

also taught for ten years in Indonesia andBrunei and, his son recalled, he wrote thefirst textbooks on organic and inorganicchemistry in the Indonesian language. Hewas a skilled amateur vintner and happilygave away samples of his product.

Dr. Warf also gave generously of his timeand expertise to public interest groups con-cerned with controlling nuclear weapons and

James C. Warf in 1988. Photo courtesy of the Warf family.

By Monica Amarelo

Congress Launches the First National Research

Program Focused on Technology and Learning

21


Congress has authorized a major new research center, the NationalCenter for Research in Advanced

Information and Digital Technologies, thatwill bring the same focused, sustainedresearch funding to technology and learningthat the federal government has funded foryears in technology for health care at theNational Institutes of Health and technologyfor energy at the Department of Energy.

“This new National Center will help moveschools, universities, and training facilitiesnationwide into the 21st century,” saidSenator Chris Dodd of Connecticut, one ofthe proposal’s original sponsors. “America’sreputation as an international leader rests inthe hands of our youth, and it should beamong our top priorities to provide our stu-dents with the tools they need to maintainand build upon this standing. The NationalCenter will help future American workerscompete in the global marketplace.”

“The National Center couldn’t come at amore critical time,” said Congressman JohnYarmuth of Louisville, Kentucky, who spear-headed efforts to move the bill through theHouse. “American businesses know thatthey need a well-educated workforce to facegrowing competition from China, India, andEurope. Americans need to constantlyupgrade their skills to keep pace with tech-nology and international competition, andpeople who are losing their jobs often needto acquire new skills to rejoin the work-force.”

Learning scientists and educators haveknown for years that people learn faster ifeducation can be personalized, and if stu-dents are motivated by seeing how theirknowledge can help them solve problemsthey, and their future employers, actuallycare about. These new technologies can

help deliver on this promise. Students intoday’s schools were born into a digitalworld -- able to gather information, commu-nicate and collaborate using the constantlyexpanding tools of the internet and the com-puters, wireless devices, game devices alsoattached to it.

“This initiative is built on historical prece-dents. Once each century, during a time ofnational crisis, our country has made atransformative investment in education – theNorthwest Ordinance brought public educa-tion in the 18th century; the Land GrantColleges Act brought public higher educationin the 19th century; and the GI Bill of the20th century. Creating the National Centerwill bring learning and skills training intothe 21st century,” said the co-chairs of theDigital Promise Project, former president ofPBS and NBC News Lawrence K. Grossman,

former chairman of the FCC and PBSNewton N. Minow, and former AmericanArts Alliance president Anne G. Murphy.

This new National Center will do researchthat is essential for the United States in thisdigital age. The creativity that developedextraordinary new information technologieshas not focused on finding ways to makelearning more compelling, more personal,and more productive in our nation’s schools.People assumed that the explosion of inno-vation in information tools in business andservice industries would automatically moveinto classrooms.

The National Center is unique not only inits mission but in the way it will be managed.This will not be another government bureau-cracy but a not-for-profit organization with

See Research Program, p. 22

YES! I want to join the thousands of FAS members working to ensure that science and technology is used for the benefit of humankind.

Email Jeff Aron at [email protected] to update your records

and learn how YOU can make a difference!

• Become a member• Renew your membership• Make a tax-deductible contribution

To update your membership online, please visit the FAS homepage(www.fas.org).

Or mail this form (below) with a check to:

MembershipFederation of American Scientists1725 DeSales Street, NW6th FloorWashington, DC 20036

EMAIL

First Name Last Name

Address 1

Address 2

City State Zip Code

Telephone Number Fax Number

Membership Type: (check one)

■■ Regular Member $ 50.00

■■ Premier Member $ 250.00

■■ Lifetime Member $1,000.00

Become a Member and Support FAS

22


Research Program, from p. 21

an independent Board that will include educators, scientists, people from business,and professionals familiar with managingresearch that has transformed the way businesses use information technology.

“For the first time education researchwill benefit from the kinds of creativeresearch management that has been soeffective in driving innovation in other partsof the economy. It will be able to focusresearch talent across the nation – in manyfields and many institutions on one of thenation’s most pressing problems,” saidHenry Kelly, president of the Federation ofAmerican Scientists.

Initial funding will come from theDepartment of Education but the NationalCenter will be able to take funds from otheragencies – including the Departments ofDefense and Homeland Security that have anenormous interest in education and training.It will also be able to receive funds fromcompanies and other private donors inter-ested in supporting research that can benefitthe nation as a whole. It will be a uniquepublic private partnership. The goal is tokeep the National Center’s staff small sothat the bulk of the funds will go toresearchers nationwide capable of focusingthe best of emerging technologies on whatsurely is one of the nation’s most pressingchallenges.

The National Center is part of the reau-thorization of the Higher Education Act,approved by Congress on July 31, 2008, andsigned into law by President Bush on August14, 2008. The National Center will be organ-ized as a Congressionally originated501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation located withinthe Department of Education. Supportersare seeking a $50 million appropriation forthe National Center for FY 2009.

To learn more about the National Center,please visit http://www.fas.org/press/faq/nationalcenter.html. FAS

By Jeff Aron

Membership: Help FAS Make the World a More Secure Place

23


Entering our 64th year, the Federationof American Scientists continues topursue the best use of science and

technology for the benefit of mankind.

In the next three years, the StrategicArms Reduction Treaty (START) with its criti-cally important verification procedures willexpire, the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)will come up for international review, andthe Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT)may be resubmitted to the United StatesSenate for ratification. All of this will occurin a new political environment that includesan ever growing momentum for workingtoward the global abolition of nuclearweapons. At no time since the end of theCold War has there been a greater need for

the sound scientific, technical, and policyanalysis provided by FAS.

The Learning Technologies Program con-tinues to advance the goals of learning andprofessional training. FAS advances educa-tion from the archaic methods of the past totake advantage of the techniques and tech-nologies of the 21st century. The progress in commercial video game technology willcreate a humanities and a science focusedlearning experience for middle and highschool students. Ongoing research is con-ducted into the benefits of computer gamesand online environments, such as virtualworlds, as tools for learning and training.

The Building Technologies Program usesinnovative building design and constructionto improve quality, affordability, energy effi-ciency and hazard protection while loweringconstruction and operating costs. Since itsinception, the Building Technologies projecthas combined the talents of renowned archi-tects and engineers along with the nation’s

leading energy experts to embark uponhousing issues in U.S. and abroad.

In the normal sense it is difficult to quantify or benchmark FAS’s impact on thereduction of nuclear weapons in the arse-nals of the world – but we can show we’vemade a difference. We can provide metricsabout the number of schools, children andscholars that are using our research. Withregard to building technologies, FAS is col-laborating with groups to revise codes andstandards. Our demonstration houses standas a testament that the FAS way is the rightway to build.

The question then is: If you do believethat your support of FAS makes the world a better place, then please contribute andrenew your membership. If you wish, youcan designate your gift go to the project ofyour choice.

Visit us online at: http://www.fas.org/member/member_contribute.html. FAS

Call for Articles

Attention FAS Members

In our continuing effort to provide theFAS community with timely articlesabout national security policy, learningtechnologies and other areas of scienceand technology policy, we are invitingmembers to submit proposals for arti-cles maximum of 1,500 words).Selection of articles is at the discretionof the editor and completed articles willbe peer-reviewed.

Proposals should be sent to:

Editor, PIRFederation of American Scientists

1725 DeSales Street, NWWashington, DC 20036

Or email [email protected].

Board of Directors

CHAIR: Arthur H. RosenfeldVICE CHAIR: Steven WeinbergSECRETARY-TREASURER: Rosina BierbaumPRESIDENT: Henry Kelly

MEMBERS:

Philip B. Carter Vice Adm J. KevinEsther Dyson Moran (Ret)Lee Fikes Norman NeureiterCol. David R. Franz (Ret.) Kumar PatelNathaniel Goldhaber Shankar SastryLawrence Grossman Maxine SavitzEamon Kelly Richard WaldNeal Lane Irving Wiadawsky-Berger

EX OFFICIO: Carl KaysenRobert SolowFrank von Hippel

Board of Sponsors* Peter Agre * Sidney Altman

Bruce Ames * Philip W. Anderson * Kenneth J. Arrow * David Baltimore

Paul Beeson * Baruj Benacerraf * Paul Berg * J. Michael Bishop * Gunther Blobel * Nicolaas Bloembergen * Norman E. Borlaug * Paul Boyer

Anne Pitts Carter Morris Cohen

* Stanley Cohen Mildred Cohn

* Leon N. Cooper * E.J. Corey

Paul B. Cornely * James Cronin * Johann Deisenhofer

Carl Djerassi Ann Druyan

* Renato Dulbecco John T. Edsall Paul R. Ehrlich George Field

* Val L. Fitch Jerome D. Frank

* Jerome I. Friedman * Robert Furchgott * Riccardo Giacconi * Walter Gilber * Alfred G. Gilman * Donald Glaser * Sheldon L. Glashow

Marvin L. Goldberger * Joseph L. Goldstein * Roger C.L. Guillemin * Leland H. Hartwell * Herbert A. Hauptman * Dudley R. Herschbach

Frank von Hippel * Roald Hoffmann

John P. Holdren * H. Robert Horvitz * David H. Hubel

* Eric R. Kandel * Jerome Karle

Carl Kaysen * Wolfgang Ketterle

Nathan Keyfitz * H. Gobind Khorana * Arthur Kornberg * Edwin Krebs * Willis E. Lamb Jr. * Leon Lederman * William Lipscomb * Roderick MacKinnon * Eric S. Maskin

Jessica T. Mathews Roy Menninger Matthew S. Meselson

* Mario Molina Stephen S. Morse

* Ferid Murad Joseph E. Murray Franklin A. Neva

* Marshall Nirenberg * Douglas D. Osheroff * Arno A. Penzias * Martin L. Perl

Paul Portney Mark Ptashne

* Norman F. Ramsey George Rathjens

* Burton Richter * Richard J. Roberts

Vernon Ruttan Jeffrey Sachs

* J. Robert Schrieffer Andrew M. Sessler

* Phillip A. Sharp * K. Barry Sharpless

Stanley K. Sheinbaum Neil Smelser

* Robert M. Solow * Jack Steinberger * Joseph Stiglitz * E.Donnall Thomas * Charles H. Townes * Daniel Tsui * Harold E. Varmus

Myron Wegman Robert A. Weinberg

* Steven Weinberg * Eric F. Wieschaus * Torsten N. Wiesel * Frank Wilczek * Nobel Laureate

Non-ProfitU.S. Postage

PAIDRockville, MD

Permit No. 5832

The Federation of American Scientists

1725 DeSales Street, NW, 6th FloorWashington, DC 20036

Public Interest Report

Documents

Transcript of Public Interest Report