National Academy of Sciences | 150 Year Anniversary

Questions? Call 800-624-6242

| Items in cart [0]

The National Academies Press

HARDBACK
price:$74.95
add to cart

Rights & Permissions

topleft topright

Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals (1996)
Policy Division (PD)

Citation Manager

. "The Federal Budget and Environmental Priorities." Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 1996.

Please select a format:

BibTeX EndNote RefMan


Page
347
bottomleft bottomright

The following HTML text is provided to enhance online readability. Many aspects of typography translate only awkwardly to HTML. Please use the page image as the authoritative form to ensure accuracy.


Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals

INTRODUCTION

Focus

The federal budget is the central process of American government. Through the budget process, incommensurable quantities are compared, priorities are set, and the plans of federal agencies are laid out for Congress and the public to review, approve, modify, or reject. If one is to ask, therefore, what are the nation's priorities with regard to the environment, the federal budget is an obvious place to look for the answer. This paper is an attempt to take a rough first cut at examining national environmental priorities using federal budget data as its primary source. Specifically, it will attempt to respond to several questions:

  • How are federal environmental priorities reflected in budgetary patterns and trends?

  • How have these priorities shifted over the past several years?

  • What part does environmental R&D play in overall federal funding for environmental programs?

  • How does funding for environmental R&D compare to overall federal R&D funding?

  • What can be said about the relation between funding for environmental programs and current statements of environmental goals?

Caveats Regarding the Analysis

Budget analysis is a complex and tedious undertaking. Time and resource constraints limit this paper to no more than a first approximation at responding to the above questions. In addition, several conceptual and practical issues that may limit the utility of the analysis should be noted.

First is the difficulty of defining environmental programs in an unambiguous manner. A huge variety of government activities impact the environment and could be classified as environmental programs. These range from energy production and conservation programs to agricultural efforts (e.g., promotion of integrated pest management) to outdoor recreation programs. At some level, it is necessary to make fairly arbitrary distinctions in order to limit the scope of "environmental." The umbrella covering environmental programs is discussed below. Differing definitions will, of course, yield different results.

Second is the difficulty of obtaining budget data at an appropriate level of aggregation. Extracting information about individual programs from federal budget documents is an arduous task when the subject is the current year's budget. The job is made infinitely more difficult in looking at trend data, as the budget documents tend to be ephemeral and organizational changes often make it difficult to track programs from year to year.

Page
347
Front Matter (R1-R12)
Part I: Committee Report (1-2)
Summary (3-14)
Society's Environmental Goals (15-26)
Use Social Science and Risk Assessment to Make Better Societal Choices (27-36)
Focus on Monitoring to Build Better Understanding of Our Ecological Systems (37-50)
Reduce the Adverse Impacts of Chemicals in the Environment (51-60)
Develop Environmental Options for the Energy System (61-72)
Use a Systems Engineering and Ecological Approach to Reduce Resource Use (73-80)
Improve Understanding of the Relationship Between Population and Consumption as a Means to Reducing the Environmental Impacts of Population Growth (81-86)
Set Environmental Goals Via Rates and Directions of Change (87-90)
Bibliography (91-94)
Part II: Commissioned Papers (95-96)
National Environmental Goals: Implementing the Laws, Visions of the Future, and Research (97-134)
Measurement of Environmental Quality in the United States (135-178)
Attitudes Toward the Environment Twenty-Five Years After Earth Day (179-190)
Environmental Goals and Science Policy: A Review of Selected Countries (191-242)
Can States Make a Market for Environmental Goals? (243-280)
Setting Environmental Goals: The View from Industry. A Review of Practices from the 1960s (281-326)
Status of Ecological Knowledge Related to Policy Decision-Making Needs in the Area of (327-344)
The Federal Budget and Environmental Priorities (345-398)
Part III: Keynote Addresses and Presentations (399-400)
D. James Baker, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (401-406)
Thomas Grumbly, U.S. Department of Energy (407-412)
Barry Gold, U.S. Department of the Interior (413-418)
Harlan Watson, House Committee on Science (419-422)
David Garman, Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources (423-430)
John Wise and Peter Truitt, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (431-436)
Judith Espinosa and Peggy Duxbury, President's Council on (437-448)
Gilbert S. Omenn, University of Washington (449-462)
Part IV: Appendixes (463-464)
A Committee Member and Staff Biographical Information (465-470)
B Forum Agenda (471-474)
C Forum Participants (475-482)
D Summary of Responses to Call for Comments (483-488)
E Respondents to Call for Comments (489-496)
F Summary of Breakout-Group Discussions (497-500)
G Detecting Changes in Time and Space (501-504)
H Contents and Executive Summary of a Report of the Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology, and Government (505-516)
Index (517-530)