Albert Einstein’s years of daydreaming wrought a simple formula that rocked the world. E=mc2, his special theory of relativity, defined energy in mathematical terms.

The United States government also has defined energy by the numbers: 23.4 billion of them. That’s the proposed budget, in dollars, of the U.S. Department of Energy for fiscal year 2004.

Secretary Spencer Abraham has requested a 25 percent increase over the last budget presented by the Clinton administration in 2001.

There is no money in Abraham’s spending plan for research and development of solar- and wind-power technology. Not 1 cent.

But the budget humbly requests $8.8 billion for nuclear weapons.

Of that, $6.4 billion would ensure the safety, security and reliability of the nation’s stockpile. That includes $320 million to make plutonium pits, which are used to trigger nuclear weapons. It also includes $467 million for the Inertial Confinement Fusion Ignition and High Yield Campaign, which aims to simulate nuclear explosions, among other things.

Then there’s the environmental request, a whopping $8 billion. Sound good? The bulk of that request, $7.2 billion, is for cleanup of Department of Energy waste sites. Another $90 million would be used to dispose of depleted uranium hexafluoride, a toxic byproduct of uranium processing.

So, here’s the formula: nearly $17 billion for nuclear proliferation and cleanup, $5.8 billion for clean energy and research.

That equation doesn’t balance. In fact, it’s shameful to put weapons of mass destructive and poisonous byproducts in an energy department. The research portion of the budget includes money – $197 million – for “nano-science,” described as the study of matter at the atomic and molecular level. We doubt such research is designed to decrease our reliance on fossil fuels.

But these budget items may: emissions-free cars and trucks, low-income weatherization assistance, “clean coal” power and the capture and storage of greenhouse gases.

Those are laudable proposals. It’s too bad they don’t rank higher on the spending scale. Perhaps if we as a nation spent more time and money on energy solutions, we wouldn’t want to spend so much on so-called nuclear security.

We think Einstein would agree. He regretted that his theory cracked atoms for explosive energy. A week before he died in 1955, Einstein signed a manifesto urging all nations to ban nuclear weapons.

We call that an act of genius.


New order
Where would Congress find the extra money for the Department of Energy? Could be, in part, from cuts to the Environmental Protection Agency. That proposed budget of $7.6 billion is $500 million less than the 2002 funding level.

Specifically, the Bush administration wants to cut money from clean water and wetlands preservation programs.

Congress should reorder these priorities.


[email protected]