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
348
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

Third, and more fundamental, is the fact that budgetary data are an imperfect indicator of priority. The spending levels of different federal programs do indicate that society (through its government) has decided to allocate more money for one than the other, which can be construed as an indicator of preference, or a measure of priority. Yet some things cost more by nature. Launching a satellite to monitor conditions in the upper atmosphere may be considerably more expensive than a project that involves conducting national field studies of water quality. Their costs may differ by a factor of ten or even 100. This does not necessarily mean that one is 100 times more important than the other.

Fourth, in judging the relations between environmental budgets and statements of environmental goals there is the problem of whose goals are "national goals." In our pluralistic society, there may be numerous conflicting views of what constitutes an appropriate set of national goals for the environment. Indeed, the very existence of the Forum for which this paper has been prepared, is evidence of the lack of consensus on such goals.

Finally, it should be remembered that the federal government is not the only source of funds for environmental programs. State and local governments as well as the private sector expend considerable sums on programs and activities related to the environment. None of these are included in the present analysis. The federal government may choose to spend more or less on a particular activity not because it is more or less important, but because others are already covering it adequately.

ENVIRONMENTAL PRIORITIES AND TRENDS IN THE FEDERAL BUDGET

EPA—A First Approximation

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the federal government's flagship agency for environmental regulation, for mitigation and remediation of problems caused by environmental pollution, for environmental monitoring, and for R&D related to these missions. It was formed in 1970 by bringing together units from several different federal departments and agencies, including components of the Department of the Interior and the then-Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. EPA's responsibilities include administration of programs under the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Toxic Substances Control Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and several other major pieces of environmental legislation. Although most definitions of environmental programs include a considerable number of other federal activities, the level of funding for EPA and trends in the agency's budget are useful indicators of the priority of environmental protection at the federal level.

Page
348
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)