National Academies Press: OpenBook

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

Chapter: National Environmental Goals: Implementing the Laws, Visions of the Future, and Research

« Previous: Part II: Commissioned Papers
Suggested Citation:"National Environmental Goals: Implementing the Laws, Visions of the Future, and Research." National Research Council. 1996. Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5409.
×

National Environmental Goals: Implementing the Laws, Visions of the Future, and Research Priorities1

RICHARD D. MORGENSTERN

Resources for the Future

CONTENTS

1  

Note: A previous version of this paper benefited from comments by Derry Allen, Terry Davis, Devra Davis, Roger Dower, Paul Portney, Peter Truitt, and Elizabeth Farber, who also provided able research assistance.

Suggested Citation:"National Environmental Goals: Implementing the Laws, Visions of the Future, and Research." National Research Council. 1996. Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5409.
×
   

Time frame

 

111

   

Measures of success

 

111

   

Complete metrics for assessing progress toward goals

 

111

   

Clear policy tools for achieving goals

 

111

   

Interim milestones of success

 

111

   

Explicit assessment of tradeoffs in goal choices

 

111

   

Environmental policy analysts as formulators of goals and metrics

 

111

   

THE THREE MAJOR GOALS PROJECTS: A COMPARISON

 

112

   

Goal scope and time frame

 

112

   

Measures of success

 

112

   

Completeness of metrics for progress assessment

 

113

   

Clear policy tools for achieving goals

 

113

   

Interim milestones of success

 

113

   

Explicit assessment of tradeoffs in goal choices

 

113

   

Environmental policy analysts as formulators of goals and metrics

 

114

   

Other observations

 

114

   

KEY ISSUES NOT EMPHASIZED BY THE THREE GOALS PROJECTS

 

115

   

Systematic measurement and monitoring

 

115

   

Program evaluation

 

115

   

Interdisciplinary social science research

 

115

   

Regulatory reform

 

115

   

Devolution to the States

 

116

   

Preservation of nature for its own sake

 

116

   

Public access to environmental information

 

116

   

Acknowledgment of the trade-offs among goals

 

116

   

CONCLUSION

 

116

   

APPENDIX A: Proposed EPA Goals and Milestones

 

119

   

APPENDIX B1: Proposed PCSD National Goals and Indicators

 

126

   

APPENDIX B2: Proposed PCSD Sector Goals and Indicators

 

129

   

APPENDIX C: CENR Goals and Milestones

 

130

Suggested Citation:"National Environmental Goals: Implementing the Laws, Visions of the Future, and Research." National Research Council. 1996. Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5409.
×

Conventional wisdom holds that one of the first steps in developing a government policy or program is to articulate the goals it is supposed to achieve (C.E. Lindblom, The policy-making Process, 1978). Yet, at only slight risk of exaggeration, it can be argued that many of our major environmental statutes contain little more than hortatory phrases that offer scant guidance to the implementing agencies.2 Thus, retrospective program evaluations often mask disputes over what initial program goals should have been.

While the goal of virtually all environmental legislation is to protect human health and the environment, such a broad statement is of little use because it begs various questions, including the following: How much protection is enough; who/what should be protected; and what kind of protection is appropriate? Most statutory provisions contain either acceptable risk goals, pollution reduction goals, or technology requirements. A few, such as the Clean Air Act, contain all three.

Over the past twenty years, considerable progress has been made in reducing risks, reducing pollution (in all media), and promoting diffusion of environmentally sound technologies. Yet the key issues of how much further to go, what to emphasize, and how to determine success remain largely unresolved. Almost without exception, environmental programs have failed to define targets that are both meaningful and measurable.

Within the past few years, a number of agencies have begun to fill that void. Most notably, in 1992, the EPA began a project to develop a set of goals to assist Agency management and the public at large in assessing the nation's future environmental progress. That project has gone through various iterations over the past three years and is now nearing completion. A draft version, referred to as the EPA goals project, is one of the three major projects reviewed in this paper.

Coincident with the question(s) of whether and/or to what extent we are making progress in meeting often vague, legislatively mandated goals, three other concerns have arisen in the policy community.

  • The first involves the question of whether our legislative goals are really the right ones for the present and/or the future. Specifically, many have questioned whether our statutes are driving us to commit our nation's resources to certain high-cost problems/strategies, while at the same time ignoring other important environmental concerns, including some with potentially low-cost solutions.3

  • The second policy issue concerns the absence of a strong linkage between our nation's environmental resource decisions and our economic and social development

2  

Exceptions include provisions of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments for specified reductions in sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and stratospheric ozone depleters by various dates. For each of these pollutants, Congress reviewed analyses concerning the feasibility of attaining these goals prior to enactment of the statutes. In contrast, the Clean Water Act calls for the elimination of all discharges into navigable waters by 1985, which is, effectively, a hortatory goal.

3  

There is a growing literature on this subject. Early work includes Unfinished Business (EPA, 1987) and Reducing Risk (EPA, Science Advisory Board, 1990).

Suggested Citation:"National Environmental Goals: Implementing the Laws, Visions of the Future, and Research." National Research Council. 1996. Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5409.
×

decisions. This is related, in part, to the issue of inconsistent and/or duplicative government programs or policies. It has long been observed, for example, that one agency's pursuit of an environmental goal (e.g., reducing pesticide risks) may be undermined by another agency's pursuit of an agricultural goal (e.g., increasing agricultural output). Inconsistencies, of course, also occur within a single agency; we sometimes create a solid waste problem when we attempt to solve an air or water pollution problem.

  • The third policy concern is focused on the coordination of research activities across the various agencies and subagencies of government. People question, for example, if federal research dollars are supporting an integrated strategy or, rather, if various parochial interests are the driving forces in individual agencies.

The first two concerns form the core of the agenda of the President's Council on Sustainable Development (PCSD). Comprised of leaders from the business, government, and nonprofit sectors, the PCSD was formed in mid-1993 to address a broad range of issues regarding the environment, the economy, and equity within our society. The third concern—pertaining to the integration of federal research efforts—is the province of the Committee on Environment and Natural Resources (CENR) of the National Science and Technology Council. Also established in 1993, CENR consists of representatives of the major environmental and natural resource agencies and key White House offices and is chaired by the Office of Science and Technology Policy.

This paper reviews and compares the three major efforts put forth by EPA, PCSD, and CENR to establish our country's environmental goals. EPA and PCSD goals are still under development; however, draft versions are available to the public. CENR goals are presented in its 1995 strategic planning document. Key conclusions of this paper are as follows:

  1. The three goals reports address three fundamentally different sets of problems.

  2. The three goals projects have different technical approaches including different scopes, time frames, completeness of metrics, clarity of policy tools, and use of interim milestones.

  3. All three projects fail to address a number of important issues.

  4. The state of the art in environmental goal-setting is still in its infancy; however, these three efforts clearly represent a major step forward.

  5. An overwhelming strength common to all three projects is the implicit recognition that our environmental management system is in need of significant reform.

  6. Follow-through is key to success.

Section I of this paper describes the three major projects in some detail. Section II addresses the issue of consistency among the projects. Section III develops a set of eight criteria upon which to compare and evaluate the projects'

Suggested Citation:"National Environmental Goals: Implementing the Laws, Visions of the Future, and Research." National Research Council. 1996. Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5409.
×

various goals and metrics. Section IV compares the goals projects on the basis of the comparison criteria. Section V highlights a number of issues not emphasized by the three goals projects. The final section attempts to draw some overall conclusions.

THE THREE MAJOR GOALS PROJECTS: A DESCRIPTION

The full texts of the projects' goals and metrics are presented in Appendixes A through C.

EPA's Environmental Goals for the Year 2005

As of this writing the EPA has not yet issued its final report, titled Environmental Goals for America with Milestones for 2005. EPA proposes 15 long-range environmental goals for the nation:

  1. clean air;

  2. climate change risk reduction;

  3. stratospheric ozone layer restoration;

  4. clean waters;

  5. healthy terrestrial ecosystems;

  6. healthy indoor environments;

  7. safe drinking water;

  8. safe food;

  9. safe workplaces;

  10. preventing spills and accidents;

  11. toxic-free communities through pollution prevention;

  12. safe waste management;

  13. restoration of contaminated sites;

  14. reducing global environmental risks; and

  15. better information and education;

and clarifies each goal by providing

  1. a one- or two-sentence description of the long-range goal (usually without a specified year for attainment);

  2. a series of "ambitious but realistic" quantitative milestones, usually for the year 2005.

In total, there are 65 EPA milestones. Some of them are tied to specific outcomes, while others are necessary but not sufficient conditions for the realization of the outcomes. Some of the milestones are results-based performance measures, while others are emission or technology based. Some are national in scope, while others are regional. For expository purposes, it is useful to consider in detail several individual goals and their corresponding milestones:

Suggested Citation:"National Environmental Goals: Implementing the Laws, Visions of the Future, and Research." National Research Council. 1996. Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5409.
×
EPA Goal: Clean Air

By 2010 and thereafter, the air will be safe to breathe in every city and community and it will be clearer in many areas. Life in damaged forests and polluted waters will rebound as acid rain is reduced.

The first milestone for "safe" air in 2005 is the reduction in the number of metropolitan non-attainment areas to six from the current level of 60. That is, "safe" air will have the effect of reducing the number of people living in areas that do not meet the ambient standards to 45 million from today's level of 120 million. Implicit in this first milestone is the notion that safety levels are defined as the national ambient air standards established under the Clean Air Act. "Safe," of course, does not really mean "no risk.'' Also implicit in this milestone and consistent with the Air Act is the notion that success—for the year 2005—does not necessarily mean that all Americans will live in areas meeting the ambient standards.

The second milestone for clean air uses an emissions goal from a large source category as a measure of success. It addresses one particular pollutant, volatile organic compounds, from the largest known source category, motor vehicles, and calls for a 65 percent reduction by the year 2005. The milestone description also calls for meeting the relatively prescriptive fuel and vehicle requirements of the Clean Air Act. However, no milestones are established for NO x reduction or for stationary sources in general. Also, no specific emissions goals (other than a general call to meet existing ambient standards) are given for pollutants associated with other ambient air quality standards (e.g., particulates).

The third milestone for clean air on vehicle miles traveled is still under development. The fourth milestone addresses toxic emissions, as opposed to "conventional" pollution. It is a combined emissions-technology goal, calling for 174 categories of major industrial facilities, such as large chemical plants, oil refineries, and municipal waste incinerators, to meet toxic air emission standards. Unlike the second milestone which measures success by reductions in emissions of a particular pollutant, this milestone addresses "toxics" in general and does not specify how different toxics will be compared to one another (e.g., by volume or toxicity). In addition, unlike the second milestone, but consistent with the formulation in the Clean Air Act, success is measured in terms of compliance with a technology-based standard rather than on an output basis. Since not all the standards have been promulgated, the amount of toxics reduction has not been specified.

The fifth milestone focuses on the issue of acid rain and uses an emissions approach that includes virtually all source categories. Consistent with the CAA, it calls for a reduction in SO2 by 32 percent from the 1994 level of 22 million tons.

The sixth milestone concerns the clearness of the air. Like milestone one, it is output based, specifying that annual average visibility in the eastern U.S. will

Suggested Citation:"National Environmental Goals: Implementing the Laws, Visions of the Future, and Research." National Research Council. 1996. Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5409.
×

improve by 10 to 30 percent. Further, it states that the greatest improvement will be found in a particular area, the central Appalachian region.

EPA Goal: Climate Change Risk Reduction

The United States and other nations will stabilize atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations at a level that prevents dangerous interference with the climate system. The level should be achieved within a time frame that allows ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, that ensures food production is not threatened, and that enables economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner.

The single milestone for this goal states that U.S. emission of greenhouse gases—carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and halogenated fluorocarbons—will be reduced to 1990 levels by the year 2000. This is an emissions goal that President Clinton has endorsed, although it was originally established as a non-binding target in the Framework Convention on Climate Change (1992). However, it is not clear how this goal relates to the larger goal of "… prevent(ing) dangerous interference with the Earth's climate system." Nor is there any linkage in the milestone between U.S. actions and those of other nations, as suggested in the goal statement.

EPA Goal: Safe Waste Management

The wastes produced by every person and business will be stored, treated, and disposed of in ways that prevent harm to people and other living things.

The first milestone for safe waste management involves an emissions goal for dioxin emissions from hazardous, medical, and municipal solid waste incinerators. The second waste milestone concerns emissions of mercury and other harmful pollutants from the same source categories. Unlike the other milestones for safe waste management, which are primarily concerned with contamination of land, these milestones focus on releases into the air. These sources, which are subject to federal permit requirements managed by EPA's waste programs, represent an estimated 80 to 90 percent of known dioxin and mercury emissions.

Milestone three concerns confirmed releases from underground storage tanks. Milestone four involves toxic wastewater injected into deep Class I wells, while milestone five focuses on so-called high-risk wastewater injection in shallow Class V wells. All three utilize emissions goals and/or federally mandated practices/standards as a means to define "safe." In all cases, the emissions goals are quantitative. In one case, injection of toxic wastewater in high-risk shallow wells, the practice is to be eliminated. The notion of high risk, of course, is subject to further clarification.

Suggested Citation:"National Environmental Goals: Implementing the Laws, Visions of the Future, and Research." National Research Council. 1996. Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5409.
×
PCSD's Eight National Goals to Put the U.S. on a Path Toward Sustainable Development

The following discussion is based on the PCSD interim report dated June 28, 1995.

The PCSD proposes eight "priority national goals" designed to "put the U.S. on a path toward sustainable development":

  1. prosperity,

  2. a healthy environment,

  3. conservation of nature,

  4. responsible stewardship,

  5. sustainable communities,

  6. cooperative democracy,

  7. stable populations, and

  8. international leadership.

For each goal, the PCSD provides

  1. a one-sentence clarification of the goal; and

  2. a number of possible indicators of progress, which are quantitative in nature and designed to measure the movement toward achievement of the goals.

In addition, the PCSD intends to propose policy recommendations for achieving each goal. (As of this writing, recommendations have not yet been released.)

In general, PCSD's priority national goals are broadly defined and long-term in nature. Moreover, the goals are oriented toward the basic objectives of promoting efficiency, protecting the environment, and ensuring equity. This subsection explores three of these goals and their corresponding "indicators of progress" in an attempt to highlight some basic themes and characteristics of the PCSD's vision:

PCSD Goal: Economic Prosperity

Achieve long-term economic growth and prosperity that provides opportunity, meaningful jobs, and better living conditions for all Americans.

Four of the six indicators of progress toward this goal (economic performance, savings rate, productivity, and environmental wealth) are designed to reflect the country's production and maintenance of wealth, and two indicators (income equity and poverty) are designed to reflect the country's distribution of income.

  • The first indicator is the growth in GDP per capita and is designed to reflect economic performance.

Suggested Citation:"National Environmental Goals: Implementing the Laws, Visions of the Future, and Research." National Research Council. 1996. Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5409.
×
  • The second and third indicators, income equity and poverty, are measures of current income distribution.

  • The fourth indicator, savings rate, is a key factor in assessing long-term economic growth.

  • The fifth indicator, environmental wealth, is based on a new measure of wealth that reflects resource depletion and environmental costs.

  • Finally, the sixth indicator, based on per capita production per hour worked, is designed to measure productivity.

As a group, these represent a balanced and measurable set of indicators. Baseline data for five of the six indicators are readily available. Because of both conceptual and practical problems, developing an indicator on environmental wealth, however, is more problematic. The Commerce Department has been attempting to construct a very similar indicator, often referred to as Green GDP. Currently, work has been halted by Appropriations Committee language, adopted in 1994, barring further development of this indicator.

PCSD Goal: A Healthy Environment

Ensure that every person can enjoy the benefits of clean air, clean water, safe food, and secure and pleasant surroundings.

Indicators of progress toward this goal are not all currently measurable:

  • The first indicator, toxic materials per capita, is based on measures of long-lived and other toxic materials released into the environment as pollutants or waste; it does not consider distribution of toxic pollution across the U.S. population.

  • The second indicator, life expectancy, is based on measures of expected life span covering various economic and demographic groups.

  • The third indicator, infant mortality, is based on measures of infant mortality rates developed for various economic and demographic groups.

  • The fourth indicator, safe drinking water, is based on measures of the percentage of the population whose safe drinking water does not meet safe drinking water standards. This indicator assumes the accuracy of the SDWA's definition of "safe."

  • The fifth indicator, clean air, is based on a measure of the percent of U.S. population that lives in cities where air quality standards for one or more pollutants are not met. This indicator is consistent with the ambient standards of the Clean Air Act.

These five indicators cover a broad range of issues, yet they do so in a fairly general matter. In many respects, they correspond to the EPA milestones. However, EPA has a total of 65 milestones (the great majority of which are health related). The PCSD has clearly opted for breadth over specificity.

Suggested Citation:"National Environmental Goals: Implementing the Laws, Visions of the Future, and Research." National Research Council. 1996. Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5409.
×
PCSD Goal: Sustainable Communities

Strengthen communities' capacity to engage their citizens in actions to enhance fairness, provide economic opportunity, and maintain a safe and healthy environment.

Indicators of progress attempt to "allow for the cultural diversity among communities while recognizing key national trends":

  • The first indicator, violent crime, is based on measures of the number of people who feel safe walking through their neighborhood in the evening. Establishing a baseline may be difficult for this indicator.

  • The second indicator, community design, is based on measures of access to jobs, shopping, services, and recreation, nearby transportation choices, and housing through "alternative land designs." This indicator attempts to reflect a community's economic opportunity, one of the multiple components of the goal. In a world of advanced telecommunications, however, it is not clear that traditional measures of economic opportunity are accurate. Moreover, it is questionable whether additional access routes, shopping centers, recreation centers, etc., enhance or threaten the health of the environment (another component of the goal). Finally, it is not clear how this indicator is calculated.

  • The third indicator, public parks, is based on the amount of urban green space or park space.

  • The fourth indicator, public participation, is based on the percentage of registered voters who cast ballots in the past two national elections and the percentage of individuals within a community who participate in social, recreational, charitable, and other civic activities. This indicator attempts to measure the extent to which citizens are "engaged" in the maintenance/betterment of their communities; it does not address the effectiveness of such efforts.

  • The fifth indicator, investment in future generations, is based on the amount of community resources dedicated to its children, including maternal care, childhood development, and K-12 education. How the amount of resources dedicated to children is determined is not clear (e.g., is time spent by parents at home somehow included in this calculation?).

  • Finally, the sixth indicator, transportation patterns, is based on the average mass transit miles, vehicle miles traveled per person, and the number of trips made possible by alternatives to personal motor vehicles. Weighting of the four subindicators and interpretation problems may be issues for this indicator.

Unlike the literature on either economic or health-related issues, the literature on sustainable communities is not well developed. Thus, in many ways, the authors are breaking ground with these measures. While such measures represent a solid effort, issues related to baseline data availability and metric comprehensiveness and specificity are apparent.

Suggested Citation:"National Environmental Goals: Implementing the Laws, Visions of the Future, and Research." National Research Council. 1996. Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5409.
×

The PCSD also proposes goals and indicators specific to the energy, transportation, and agriculture sectors.

CENR's Environmental and Natural Resource Goals for Research for Fiscal Year 1996

CENR's goals for environmental and natural resource research are presented in the context of five overall goals for Science and Technology:

  • improved environmental quality;

  • a healthier, safer America;

  • a stronger economy;

  • enhanced national security; and

  • improved education and training.

CENR's goals for improved environmental quality cover seven areas:

  1. air quality;

  2. biodiversity and ecosystem dynamics;

  3. global change;

  4. natural disaster reduction;

  5. resource use and management;

  6. toxic substances/hazardous and solid waste; and

  7. water resources and coastal and marine environments.

For each of the seven goal areas, CENR provides a description of the current state of understanding; a characterization of the themes of the current research; proposed areas of enhanced emphasis; selected milestones for 1995–1998; and a proposed budget for fiscal year 1996, reflecting the Administration's priorities. Five of the seven research areas show at least slight budget increases. Two of the areas (resource use and management and natural disaster reduction) show slight declines from the previous year.

In addition to the seven research areas, CENR presents five crosscutting topics for Integrated Environmental Research and Development:

  1. ecosystem research;

  2. observations and data management;

  3. social and economic dimensions of environmental change;

  4. environmental technology; and

  5. science policy tools: integrated assessments and characterizations of risks.

These crosscutting topics span the seven environmental research areas. Each topic, in turn, has an environmental goal, key policy objectives, areas of enhanced emphasis, and selected milestones, 1995–1998. No separate budgets are presented for the crosscutting topics.

The expository material emphasizes the process by which strategic planning

Suggested Citation:"National Environmental Goals: Implementing the Laws, Visions of the Future, and Research." National Research Council. 1996. Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5409.
×

and coordination of environmental research and development occurs across a dozen cabinet level agencies, several of which subsume strong subagency activities, as well as a number of separate White House offices. In developing FY 1996 goals, CENR sought extensive consultation from outside the Executive Branch (e.g., from Congress, from interest groups, from the public at large). The whole report was subject to outside peer review. Such consultations emphasized the need for competitive awards, strengthened academic research, merit review, and international cooperation.

For our purposes it is useful to examine several of the individual research areas:

CENR Goal: Air Quality

The goal of the federal air quality research program is to help protect human health and the environment from air pollution by providing the scientific and technical information needed to evaluate options for improving air quality in timely and cost-effective ways.

The discussion of air quality begins with reference to the legislated mandates to produce assessments and make important policy and regulatory decisions within the coming years. Emphasis is given to ground-level ozone, acidic deposition, airborne particles, toxic compounds, and visibility. In addition, concerns are raised about the quality of indoor air.

The current research program is characterized as including

  1. long-term observations and analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of recent regulatory initiatives;

  2. identification of emerging health or environmental problems;

  3. characterization of the processes involved in air quality changes; and

  4. assessment of the state of knowledge on air quality issues.

Two topics are listed as areas for enhanced emphasis:

  1. understanding the formation of ground-level ozone in urban and rural areas and

  2. characterizing the health impacts of airborne fine particles.

Seven milestones are listed for the period 1995–1998. These typically involve completing particular studies ranging from on-the-ground efforts to national assessments. Overall, CENR proposes that air quality research receive an increase in funding for FY 1996.

CENR Goal: Global Change

The goal of global change research is to observe and document global environmental changes and identify their causes, predict the responses of the

Suggested Citation:"National Environmental Goals: Implementing the Laws, Visions of the Future, and Research." National Research Council. 1996. Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5409.
×

earth system, determine the ecological and socioeconomic consequences of these changes, and identify strategies for adaptation and mitigation that will most benefit society and the environment.

CENR describes the policy context for global change as including the Framework Convention on Climate Change, the Montreal Protocol, the Clean Air Act Amendments, and various conventions related to global environmental issues (e.g., forestry, desertification, protection of oceans, and biodiversity). Research issues concern the ultimate impact of the current buildup of greenhouse gases on climate, as well as the effects of stratospheric ozone depletion on humans and ecosystems.

The current research program is characterized as including

  • climate change and greenhouse effect research;

  • stratospheric ozone and UV effects research;

  • seasonal to interannual climate fluctuations research; and

  • large-scale ecosystem productivity research.

Research areas designated for enhanced emphasis are

  • evaluating the socioeconomic driving forces of global change;

  • understanding the consequences of global environmental change;

  • developing adaptation and mitigation options; and

  • conducting integrated assessments.

Six milestones are listed for the period 1995–1998, the topics of which range from completing individual studies, to making certain scientific measurements, to fulfilling U.S. commitments to participate in various international cooperative research programs. Overall, CENR proposes that climate change research receive a slight increase in funding for FY 1996.

CENR Goal: Toxic Substances, Hazardous and Solid Waste

The goal of federal toxic substances and hazardous and solid waste research is to prevent or reduce human and ecological exposure to toxic materials, such as pesticide residues, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and lead, and their adverse consequences by providing the scientific and technical information needed for informed decisionand policy-making and effective problem solving.

CENR describes the policy context for toxic substances and hazardous and solid waste as including nine major statutes, including TSCA, RCRA, and CERCLA, among others. The overall goal of the federal research programs in this area is to provide the scientific and technical information needed for informed decision and policy-making to prevent or reduce human and ecological exposure

Suggested Citation:"National Environmental Goals: Implementing the Laws, Visions of the Future, and Research." National Research Council. 1996. Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5409.
×

to toxic materials. Current research can be segmented into the categories of risk assessment and risk management. Future research is designed to enhance capabilities in both areas. Five specific milestones are listed for 1995–1998, including the completion of specific studies, the conduct of cooperative research with industry partners, and the implementation of a national program for verifying performance of innovative environmental technologies. Overall, CENR proposes that research in this area increase in FY 1996.

CONSISTENCY AMONG GOALS PROJECTS

This paper cannot compare every aspect of each of the goals projects for technical consistency. In broad terms, the three projects are roughly consistent. However, as would be expected in undertakings of this magnitude, there are some apparent inconsistencies. Reducing airborne exposures to fine particles, for example, is not emphasized in either the EPA or the PCSD efforts, but is an area of priority in the CENR plan. In contrast, global warming is a key issue in both reports sponsored by the Administration (EPA and CENR), yet it is not accorded major importance in the more broadly based PCSD report. The same general pattern holds for toxic wastes, which are emphasized in both the EPA and CENR reports but treated somewhat less prominently in the PCSD effort.

There are good explanations for some, if not all, of these differences. In the area of fine particles, recent research has raised questions about the potential for serious health effects at relatively low concentration levels. It is thus appropriate that the research agenda (CENR) focus on this question, but it is not appropriate that EPA make it a priority for implementation beyond compliance with the current standard. While revising its ambient standard on fine particles could be an EPA objective, it perhaps is too specific an issue to appear in the goals project as a major milestone.

In the case of global warming, the Administration has clearly made this issue a priority both in terms of meeting its goal of holding greenhouse gas emissions in the year 2000 to 1990 levels and in terms of conducting more research on the issue, including mitigation research. In contrast, many of the members of the PCSD, especially those from the business sector, have not fully embraced global warming as a problem that merits major action at this time. Thus, it is not surprising that the PCSD has only addressed the global warming issue in very general terms.

Differences in the area of toxic wastes are analogous to those in the area of global warming. Consistent with current laws, both the EPA and the CENR give considerable emphasis to the problem. Yet, over the longer term it is not at all clear how much emphasis to accord the issue. While the PCSD does propose a specific indicator on toxic accumulation (the amount of long-lived and other toxic materials released into the environment), toxic wastes do not loom as a major part of its goals or indicators.

Suggested Citation:"National Environmental Goals: Implementing the Laws, Visions of the Future, and Research." National Research Council. 1996. Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5409.
×

CRITERIA FOR COMPARISON AND EVALUATION

In order to compare these various goal schemes, it is helpful to develop and apply some uniform criteria. This section briefly outlines eight comparison criteria.

Scope of goals—Goals are relatively broad or focused, depending on their scope.

Time frameShort-term goals are characterized as those with a 3-year-or-lesstime frame, medium-term goals as those with a 3-to-25-year time frame, and long-term goals as those with a 25-plus-year time frame.

Measures of success—An organization's goals typically target resources expenditures (inputs), qualitative performance (outcomes), and/or quantitative performance (outputs). Measures of success are thus characterized as either input based, outcomes based, or output based .4 Input-based measures of success are commonly criticized for their inability to reflect results. Outcomes-based measures are often difficult to track over time. Output-based measures are typically criticized as lacking clear measures of effort and accountability.

Completeness of metrics for assessing progress toward goals (high, medium, or low)—Arguably, progress assessment is as important as goal-setting itself. Metrics chosen for progress assessment, however, may be problematic for a number of reasons. First, target levels may be unrealistic. Second, metrics chosen may not be appropriate, reliable means for assessing progress toward a particular goal. Third, because multiple metrics may be designated to assess progress toward a single goal, how to interpret them collectively may not be clear.

Clear policy tools for achieving goals (yes or no)—Some schemes for achieving goals are clearly regulatory in nature, while others prescribe grant-giving, direct action, or other policy mechanisms. At the same time, however, some goal schemes do not prescribe any specific approaches to achieve desired results.

Interim milestones of success (yes or no)—Goal schemes with metrics for progress assessment may or may not specify interim milestones of success. Without such concrete milestones, it is generally difficult to evaluate strategies and make necessary midcourse corrections.

Explicit assessment of trade-offs in goal choices (yes or no)—An effective goal scheme must be grounded in reality and at the same time directed toward ideals. Most goal statements reflect ideals. However, many fail to address the real trade-offs that must be confronted in order to reach the ideals.

Environmental policy analysts as formulators of goals and metrics (yes or no)—Goals and metrics may be formulated by expert environmental policy analysts and then reviewed by interest groups or the general public. Alternatively, they may be formulated by interest groups and the public and then reviewed by the

4  

These performance measurement terms are defined in an OMB memo dated September 23, 1994.

Suggested Citation:"National Environmental Goals: Implementing the Laws, Visions of the Future, and Research." National Research Council. 1996. Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5409.
×

experts, interest groups, and the public. Use of the latter approach may reflect the degree of ''hands-on" involvement of those outside the community of environmental experts.

THE THREE MAJOR GOALS PROJECTS: A COMPARISON

Table 1 characterizes EPA, PCSD, and CENR goal schemes according to the eight comparison criteria introduced in the previous section. The following discussion highlights significant differences.

Goal Scope and Time Frame

The missions of EPA, PCSD, and CENR vary considerably: CENR seeks to conduct relevant and useful research for the achievement of environmental goals; the EPA aims to protect the environment (principally as mandated by governing statutes and treaties); and the PCSD attempts to enhance the public welfare (including the environment). As a result, the goal scopes and time frames differ. CENR goals are focused and very short term; EPA goals are focused and generally medium term; PCSD goals are broadly defined and long-term.

Measures of Success

CENR, EPA, and PCSD utilize different measures of success. CENR defines success in terms of its participation in international cooperative research programs

TABLE 1 A Comparison of EPA, PCSD, and CENR Goals Projects

 

EPA

PCSD

CENR

1. Scope of goals

focused: environmental protection

broad: public welfare

focused: environmental research

2. Time frame

medium term

long-term

short term

3. Measures of success

outcomes or output based

outcomes based

input or output based

4. Completeness of metrics for assessing progress toward goals

medium

low

high

5. Clear policy tools for achieving goals?

Yes

noa

yes

6. Interim milestones of success?

yes

no

N/A

7. Explicit assessment of trade-offs in goal choices?

no

no

no

8. Environmental policy analysts as formulators of goals and metrics?

yes

no

yes

a Expected, not yet available.

Suggested Citation:"National Environmental Goals: Implementing the Laws, Visions of the Future, and Research." National Research Council. 1996. Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5409.
×

(input) and in another case defines success in terms of its completion of specific studies (output). Similarly, EPA sets both technology (outcome) and ambient (output) milestones for clean air, and PCSD suggests public participation and violent crime (outcome) indicators for sustainable communities.

Completeness of Metrics for Progress Assessment

The completeness of metrics for progress assessment appears to vary inversely with goal time frame. PCSD goals are longest in time frame and the least complete in metrics; CENR goals are the shortest in time frame and the most complete in metrics; and EPA lies somewhere in between:

  • PCSD provides multiple indicators for single goals, but does not explain how to combine them; numerous PCSD indicators are not clearly measurable; and some indicators only partially assess progress toward desired goals.

  • Progress toward EPA's milestones is measurable, but when all milestones are met, it is not clear how much further effort is required to achieve the overall goals of "clean air," "safe drinking water," etc.

  • CENR progress is easily measurable due to the explicit and short-term nature of its goals.

Clear Policy Tools For Achieving Goals

EPA sets out to achieve its goals through various methods, many of them regulatory; CENR attempts to meet its objectives through proposed budgets. The policy mechanisms for achieving PCSD goals currently are not specified. However, PCSD has indicated that policy recommendations are forthcoming.

Interim Milestones of Success

Probably because of the short-term nature of its goals, CENR does not develop interim milestones. EPA provides some measures of expected progress over time in most cases and has stated its intention of issuing updates over time. PCSD mentions neither interim nor final milestones of success.

Explicit Assessment of Trade-offs in Goal Choices

None of the goal schemes prioritize individual goals or acknowledge the basic trade-offs between desired outcomes. PCSD, for example, fails to describe an optimal mix of biological diversity and meaningful jobs (components of conservation and prosperity goals, respectively). EPA does not state whether it is more important to prevent oil spills or achieve stratospheric ozone layer restoration. CENR only implicitly acknowledges trade-offs through its budget decisions.

Suggested Citation:"National Environmental Goals: Implementing the Laws, Visions of the Future, and Research." National Research Council. 1996. Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5409.
×
Environmental Policy Analysts as Formulators of Goals and Metrics

EPA and CENR goals and metrics were designed primarily by expert environmental policy analysts, whereas PCSD goals and metrics were designed by professionals with more diverse backgrounds from the government, business, and nonprofit sectors. The "hands-on" involvement of leaders from the government (not limited to environmental agencies), business, and nonprofit sectors is a key element of the strategy to establish broad "ownership" of the PCSD conclusions.

Other Observations

Viewed through one set of lenses, clear and explicable differences among the three goals projects are apparent. The CENR strategy—which addresses research as opposed to policy goals—is clearly the most focused effort. Goals and time frames are established with clear metrics. Budgets are proposed to accomplish those goals. The EPA goals—which roughly follow statutory mandates and current or proposed program activities—are somewhat less focused, but do contain a number of key metrics with specific time frames. Like the EPA plan, the PCSD proposal addresses policy goals. Unlike the EPA plan, the PCSD proposal is not constrained by statutes or ongoing programs and therefore is able to focus on broader societal questions. Not surprisingly, the PCSD is less precise, and contains fewer metrics, time frames, and implementing mechanisms.

Viewed through another set of lenses, some potentially significant shortcomings are evident. Some participants in the CENR effort, for example, have complained that the effort is little more than a "stapling together" of agency initiatives with little top-down direction or priority setting—more akin to a budget "crosscut" than a meaningful exercise in prioritization. Similarly the public participation process has been criticized as "show and tell'' with little opportunity for informed discussion. Defenders of the CENR project note that it is the first attempt to conduct such a government-wide environmental research exercise and therefore it should not be judged too harshly. Breaking down agency barriers, they claim, is a difficult process that should be evaluated over a several-year period.

EPA's effort has also been criticized. Commenting on an earlier draft of the report, the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee have expressed concern that "instead of setting priorities, the … plan appears to include almost everything of interest in the agency." Outside reviewers of the earlier draft have raised questions about the rationale for setting targets at specific levels, about the mechanisms for reaching the targets, about the costs and benefits of the goals, about who will pay to reach the goals, and about the need to address special populations (e.g., Native Americans). Also, various questions have been raised about specific metrics and, more importantly, about the overall vision implied by the effort. Several reviewers have questioned

Suggested Citation:"National Environmental Goals: Implementing the Laws, Visions of the Future, and Research." National Research Council. 1996. Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5409.
×

whether these goals are really consistent with notions of sustainable development. Agency defenders note that this project is a first effort and that many of the criticisms are also criticisms of the way the Agency has done business over the past twenty-five years. EPA has responded constructively to these criticisms by making major revisions to reflect the various concerns, and by seeking review by the Agency's Science Advisory Board.

Critics of the PCSD project complain that the process has been too long and complex, has involved too many stakeholders, and has taken on too grand an agenda to expect concrete results. Moreover, critics are concerned that goals are being defined at too high a level of generality to be operational. Others complain that economic assessment has not been performed and goal-achievement mechanisms have not been specified. Defenders argue that the scope of the problems facing the environmental agenda is so great that a major review is needed. Further, they point out that if the key stakeholders are not involved there is no hope of solving these long-run problems. One of the innovations of the PCSD is the bringing together of stakeholders to formulate the goals and metrics. Thus, the process is a key part of the project. Also, they note that the PCSD was first established two years ago when there appeared to be a broader set of constituencies prepared to consider more sweeping pro-environmental changes.

KEY ISSUES NOT EMPHASIZED BY THE THREE GOALS PROJECTS

While the scope of the three goals projects is certainly broad, there are, nonetheless, some issues not emphasized. Eight such issues are as follows:

  1. Systematic measurement and monitoring: There is widespread agreement among experts that one of the greatest impediments to environmental progress is our lack of detailed measurement and monitoring information. The EPA report has highlighted this issue, but the others have not made it a priority.

  2. Program evaluation: A number of experts have called for independent studies to evaluate past program successes and failures in order to better design future programs. In general, agencies have been reluctant to undertake such evaluations for a variety of reasons, including budgetary constraints. None of the projects makes review of past efforts a priority, although EPA does call for periodic updates of progress toward attaining goals.

  3. Interdisciplinary social science research: Various expert groups, including EPA's Science Advisory Board in the 1990 Reducing Risk report, have called for greater emphasis on interdisciplinary social science research to increase understanding of the behavioral and institutional aspects of environmental protection. Heretofore, such research has received little priority in federal budgets. None of the projects reviewed makes this a priority.

  4. Regulatory reform. While many recent public policy discussions have

Suggested Citation:"National Environmental Goals: Implementing the Laws, Visions of the Future, and Research." National Research Council. 1996. Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5409.
×

focused on issues of regulatory reform, none of the three goals reports has given priority to this issue. Among the three, only the PCSD has emphasized economic growth and the use of market mechanisms as goals. In general, discussions of economic efficiency, the use of benefit-cost analysis, and review of past as opposed to future regulatory decisions are either absent from or not emphasized by the three reports.

  1. Devolution to the states: While not usually seen as a goal in and of itself, devolution of responsibilities to state or local governments can have significant implications for environmental goals. The Administration, Congress, and various experts have called for greater responsibilities to flow to the states as a way to tailor both goals and program design to local needs. None of the three goals reports has formally incorporated state or local decision-makers into its vision for the future, although EPA does acknowledge the need to do so.

  2. Preservation of nature for its own sake: A number of environmental organizations advocate environmental protection for "biocentric" or "ecocentric" reasons as opposed to the generally "anthropocentric" basis implicit in the three goals projects. Various economic studies have demonstrated through both survey techniques and the presence of citizen-supported environmental groups, that there is some "willingness to pay" for such efforts. None of the goals projects emphasizes this issue, although the PCSD emphasizes ecosystem protection with a nonanthropocentric orientation.

  3. Public access to environmental information: There is widespread belief among experts that responsible reporting of scientifically sound environmental information can be a powerful influence in bringing about desired changes in behavior by individuals and by firms. The EPA report has highlighted this issue but the others have not made it a priority.

  4. Acknowledgment of the trade-offs among goals: Certainly there are tradeoffs among environmental goals themselves and among the environmental, economic, and equity goals of the PCSD. Yet none of these reports has articulated what the key trade-offs are, and none has really spelled out how or on what basis some of the key decisions were made in the individual reports.

CONCLUSION

The task of this paper has been to compare and contrast the three most recent efforts to establish environmental goals and thereby to assess the present "state of the art" in environmental coal-setting. A number of conclusions can be draw n from this effort.

  1. The three goals projects address three fundamentally different sets of problems. The EPA project is oriented to implementation of current environmental statutes and treaties and it begins to look longer term. A great deal of emphasis is placed on measurable results. The PCSD tries to fashion a vision for the next

Suggested Citation:"National Environmental Goals: Implementing the Laws, Visions of the Future, and Research." National Research Council. 1996. Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5409.
×

century by incorporating the themes of environment, economy, and equity, and by encouraging better integration of the different segments of society in pursuit of environmental management. In bringing together the government, business, and nonprofit sectors for the actual formulation of goals and metrics, the process itself becomes a key part of the strategy for obtaining "ownership" of the conclusions. The CENR project is fundamentally different in that it is a research strategy rather than a game plan for environmental policy. It seeks to improve coordination among federal agency research budgets and to balance competing bureaucratic agendas.

  1. The three goals projects have different technical approaches including different scopes, time frames, completeness of metrics, clarity of policy tools, and use of interim milestones. The CENR project is the most focused, shortest in time frame, and most complete in metrics. The EPA project is also focused, yet somewhat longer in time frame and less clear about priorities among goals. The PCSD project is broad in scope, long in time frame, and incomplete in metrics. As indicated, the participatory nature of the process is integral to the PCSD project. The PCSD is expected to design policy tools for achieving its goals; however, such recommendations are not yet available. PCSD provides no interim milestones for assessing progress.

  2. All three projects fail to address a number of important issues. The PCSD and EPA fail to develop a clear rationale for achieving their stated goals; benefit-cost assessment and specific strategy articulation—two crucial steps for goal achievement—are not emphasized. With regard to the CENR project, questions have been raised about the extent of top-down integration of goals and activities, as opposed to a "stapling together" of individual agency programs. In general, the projects fail to highlight the need for program evaluation of past as well as future activities, interdisciplinary social science research, regulatory reform, and public reporting of information, as well as the need to assess trade-offs among goals. Only EPA emphasizes the need for systematic measurement and monitoring.

  3. The state of the art in environmental goal-setting is still in its infancy; however, these three efforts clearly represent a major step forward. Despite serious concerns about the rigor, completeness, clarity, and vision of these projects, it is clear that all three goal-setting efforts are groundbreaking. The federal government has never been so explicit about what it is trying to accomplish in the environmental arena, either in terms of measurable environmental results or in terms of specific research outputs. Similarly, although multi-stakeholder efforts have been assembled previously, none has incorporated such a broad set of constituencies or taken on so bold an agenda as the PCSD.

  4. An overwhelming strength common to all three projects is the implicit recognition that our environmental management system is in need of significant reform. A common denominator to all efforts is a less hortatory and more pragmatic framework than is evident in may of our basic environmental statutes. After 25 years of a growing federal role in environmental protection and with

Suggested Citation:"National Environmental Goals: Implementing the Laws, Visions of the Future, and Research." National Research Council. 1996. Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5409.
×

environmental programs that account for more than 2 percent of GDP, we are currently grappling with tough management issues. Such difficulties are consistent with the observation that environmentalism is in transition from a social movement to an accepted component of our society and economy. The notion that "we're all environmentalists now" implies that the key issue is no longer to win over the hearts and minds of the American public, but to deliver on now-widely-held expectations, and to do so in an efficient and equitable manner. Collectively, these three diverse reports implicitly acknowledge the problems of the current system. They should be viewed as early steps down a long road of redesigning and reshaping environmental programs and policies over the coming years.

  1. Follow-through is the key to success. Almost twenty years ago, President Carter's zero-based budget engendered much discussion about change in the federal government—both policy and process change. There were, in fact, many virtues in the zero-based budgeting idea, yet in the absence of strong follow-through, the effort faded quickly. The CENR needs to generate periodic report cards of agencies' progress in meeting their research goals, with both timing and content geared to the ongoing federal budget process. Similarly, EPA needs to finalize its goals and then move quickly to set up internal as well as public progress reports. In both cases there is a strong need to institutionalize the efforts so they can be better insulated from the political process. Perhaps the economic statistics agencies are a useful model for such efforts. The PCSD has an even greater challenge. The entire activity is largely a voluntary enterprise involving literally hundreds of participants from government, business, and the nonprofit sector. Clearly, strong, organized follow-through is critical to the realization of the PCSD goals.

Suggested Citation:"National Environmental Goals: Implementing the Laws, Visions of the Future, and Research." National Research Council. 1996. Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5409.
×

APPENDIX A
PROPOSED EPA GOALS AND MILESTONES

Long-range Goal

Milestone(s)

Clean Air: By 2010 and thereafter, the air will be safe to breathe in every city and community, and it will be clearer in many areas. Life in some forests and polluted waters will rebound as acid rain is reduced.

• By 2005, the number of metropolitan areas not meeting air quality standards will be reduced from 60 in 1995 to 6, which corresponds to reducing the number of Americans living in non-attainment areas to 45 million.

• By 2005, emissions in smog-causing volatile organic compounds (VOCs) will fall 65 percent per automobile from 1990 levels.

Vehicle miles traveled milestone being developed.

• By 2005, all 174 categories of major industrial facilities, such as large chemical plants, oil refineries, and municipal waste incinerators, will meet toxic air emission standards.

• By 2005, sulfur dioxide emissions, the primary cause of acid rain, will be reduced from the 1994 level of 22 million tons.

• By 2005, annual average visibility in the eastern United States will improve from 10 to 30 percent from 1995 levels.

Climate Change Risk Reduction: The United States and other nations will stabilize atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations at a level that prevents dangerous interference with the climate system. The level should be achieved within a time frame that allows ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, that ensures food production is not threatened, and that enables economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner.

• By 2000, total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions—carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and halogenated fluorocarbons—will be reduced to the 1990 level.

Stratospheric Ozone Layer Restoration: By 2045, stratospheric ozone concentrations will return to the levels found prior to the discovery of the "ozone hole" over Antarctica.

• By 2005, ozone concentrations in the stratosphere will have stopped declining and slowly begun the process of recovery.

• By 2005, adjusted chlorine concentrations in the stratosphere will be reduced from 1995 levels of 4.1 parts per billion (ppb) to [4.0?] ppb.

• By 2005, atmospheric concentrations of the ozone-depleting substances CFC-11 and CFC-12 will peak at no more than x and y parts per trillion, respectively.

• By 2005, U.S. production of all ozone-depleting substances, except HCFCs, will be eliminated.

 

Source: EPA Draft Goals Report dated July 19, 1995.

Suggested Citation:"National Environmental Goals: Implementing the Laws, Visions of the Future, and Research." National Research Council. 1996. Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5409.
×

Clean Waters: Our waters will support human health and uses such as swimming, fishing, drinking water supply, agriculture, and industry. Our waters will also support ecosystem health by sustaining healthy communities of plants, fish, insects, and other animals that depend on the aquatic environment. We will conserve remaining wetlands and restore others to health.

• By 2005, there will be no overall net loss of wetlands.

• By 2005, half of the aquatic species currently designated as threatened or endangered will have stable or increasing populations.

• By 2005, 65 percent of rivers and streams and 80 percent of estuaries will support healthy biological communities.

• By 2005, 89 to 93 percent of the nation's surface waters will support aquatic life.

• By 2005, 88 to 98 percent of the nation's fish and shellfish harvest areas will provide food safe to eat.

• By 2005, 93 to 95 percent of the nation's surface waters will be safe for recreation.

• By 2005, 50 percent of the wells monitored for ground water quality will fully support each state's intended uses of the water, such as for drinking water, agricultural irrigation, or industrial processing.

• By 2005, the annual rate of sediment erosion from agricultural croplands will be reduced 20 percent from 1992 levels to a total of 950 million tons per year.

• By 2005, annual discharge of pollutants of concern to surface waters will be reduced by 1,668 million pounds from CSO's by 19 million pounds from sewage treatment plants, and by 700 million pounds from industrial sources.

Healthy Terrestrial Ecosystems: The United States will maintain a mosaic of lands capable of sustaining existing or greater numbers and diversity of indigenous plants and wildlife, and providing ecological, economic, and recreational benefits.

• By 2005, the current acreage of American lands that are managed with good conservation practices that protect soil, native vegetation, and wildlife will double from [?] to [?].

• By 2005, ecological restoration will generate at least one significant improvement per major U.S. region in terrestrial ecosystem function, total area, or other measure of quality.

• By 2005, ecosystem protection efforts will eliminate area loss of ecosystem types considered critically endangered and will reduce the net area loss rates and increase the total protected acreage of the most highly beneficial terrestrial ecosystem types.

• By 2005, 45 percent of the terrestrial species currently designated as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act will have stable or increasing populations.

• By 2005, the number of migratory bird species with increasing populations will grow by _ percent.

Suggested Citation:"National Environmental Goals: Implementing the Laws, Visions of the Future, and Research." National Research Council. 1996. Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5409.
×

Healthy Indoor Environments: The environment inside every home, school, and office will be healthy, comfortable, and productive.

• By 2005, the total number of children in the United States between 6 months and 5 years old whose blood lead levels exceed 10 mg/dL will be no more than 730,000, compared to approximately 1.7 million children in the late 1980s. By 2005, the total number of children in the United States between 6 months and 5 years old whose blood lead levels exceed 15 mg/dL will be no more than 250,000, compared to approximately 500,000 in the late 1980s.

• By 2005, 27 million homes will have been voluntarily tested for radon with corrective actions taken in 1 million homes, and 1.5 million new homes will have been built with radon-resistant features.

• By 2005, children's exposure to environmental tobacco smoke will decrease through voluntary actions in the home. The proportion of households in which young children are regularly exposed to smoking will be reduced to 15 percent from over 39 percent in 1986.

• By 2005, EPA will have reached agreements with manufacturers to substantially reduce emissions from 10 or more products whose emissions create a relatively high adverse impact on indoor air quality and public health.

• By 2005, 3,000 or more of commercial and school buildings will have building air quality management plans promoted by EPA.

Safe Drinking Water: Every public water system will consistently provide water that is safe to drink.

• By 2005, 95 percent of people served by drinking water systems will be provided water that meets health requirements throughout the year.

• By 2005, 90 percent of the nation's rivers, streams, lakes, and reservoirs designated as drinking water supplies will provide water that is safe to use as a source for drinking water.

• By 2005, 50 percent of community water systems will have surface and ground water protection programs.

Safe Food: Chemical residues can be introduced into foods at any point in their production, procession, marketing, storage, transportation, and preparation for consumption. Protection of the food supply for consumers is a stated federal policy and goal in EPA programs.

 

Safe Workplaces: All people will work in places that are safe from exposure to hazardous chemicals.

 

Suggested Citation:"National Environmental Goals: Implementing the Laws, Visions of the Future, and Research." National Research Council. 1996. Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5409.
×

Preventing Spills and Accidents: Accidental releases of substances that endanger our communities or wildlife will be reduced to as near zero as possible, and those that do occur will cause negligible harm to humans, animals, and plants.

• By 2005, there will be 25 percent fewer accidental releases of oil, chemicals, and radioactive substances than in 1993.

• By 2005, there will be a 50 percent increase over 1993 levels in the number of industrial facilities in high-risk areas that have reduced hazardous substance inventories to minimum levels or eliminated them altogether.

Toxic-Free Communities Through Pollution Prevention: Our communities will grow increasingly clean as people learn how to efficiently produce, use, and recycle materials in ways that do not damage the environment.

• By 2005, pollution prevention practices will contribute to a 25 percent reduction from 1992 levels of toxic wastes reported by industrial facilities to the Toxic Chemicals Release Inventory.

• By 2005, more than 99 percent of new chemicals approved during the previous ten years will be shown to have been safe.

• By 2005, 10 percent of public and private consumer purchases will be for environmentally preferable products and services.

• By 2005, the generation of municipal waste per capita will be reduced to 4.3 pounds per day, and 30 percent of the municipal solid waste generated will be recycled.

• By 2005, the presence of the most persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic constituents in hazardous waste will be reduced by 50 percent from 1991 levels.

• By 2005, essential toxicity test data will be available for 30 percent of the major production chemicals in commerce. In addition, by 2005, the amounts and types of data available on chemicals in commerce will be more than double those available in the early 1980s.

• By 2005, capital investments in prevention technologies will grow from 20 percent of environmental investments in 1992 to 50 percent.

• By 2005, the number of commercial chemicals determined to be safe for use by industry and consumers will double from 13,000 in 1995 to 26,000.

Suggested Citation:"National Environmental Goals: Implementing the Laws, Visions of the Future, and Research." National Research Council. 1996. Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5409.
×

Safe Waste Management: The wastes produced by every person and business will be stored, treated, and disposed of in ways that prevent harm to people and other living things.

• By 2005, dioxin emissions from hazardous, medical, and municipal solid waste incinerators will be reduced 97 percent from 1994 levels.

• By 2005, emissions of mercury and other harmful pollutants from hazardous, medical, and municipal solid waste incinerators, will be reduced by at least 60 percent from 1994 levels.

• By 2005, confirmed annual releases from underground storage tanks will be 80 percent lower than in 1994.

• By 2005, the amount of toxic wastewater injected into deep Class I wells will be reduced by 75 percent from 1988 levels.

• By 2005, new high-risk wastewater injection in shallow Class V wells will be eliminated.

• By 2005, 100 percent of municipal solid waste management facilities will have approved controls in place to prevent releases of harmful pollutants to soil and ground water.

• By 2005, 100 percent of hazardous waste facilities will have approved controls in place to prevent releases of harmful pollutants to soil and ground water.

• By 2005, 100 percent of hazardous wastes disposed of on land will be treated to make them less harmful prior to their disposal.

• By 2005, 95 percent of known underground storage tank systems to be replaced, upgraded, or closed.

Suggested Citation:"National Environmental Goals: Implementing the Laws, Visions of the Future, and Research." National Research Council. 1996. Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5409.
×

Restoration of Contaminated Sites: Places currently contaminated by hazardous or radioactive materials will no longer endanger public health or the natural environment, and they will be restored to uses desired by surrounding communities.

• By 2005, 70 percent of the 1,300 contaminated sites on the EPA's National Priorities List will be cleaned up, have the contamination contained, or have cleanup or containment work under way.

• By 2005, 80 percent of the estimated 5,000 sites that warrant further EPA action will have contamination removed or cleanup completed.

• By 2005, at least 10 percent of contaminated federal lands will be cleaned up and restored to uses desired by surrounding communities.

• By 2005, actions to stabilize the further spread of contamination and/or protect people from further exposure to contamination will be under way at 1,275 industrial waste facilities (32 percent). These actions will be under way at 100 percent of facilities where actual human exposure have been identified.

• By 2005, cleanups will be completed at 200,000 leaking underground storage tank sites.

• By 2005, radioactivity will be cleaned up or contained at 6 percent of radioactively contaminated sites.

• By 2005, the 10 percent most severely contaminated sediment sites in 1995 are to have point sources of contamination controlled.

• By 2005, Responsible Parties will continue conducting 70 percent or more of the remedial work and percent of the removal work at Superfund sites.

• By 2005, 99 percent of the currently known universe of potential Superfund sites (38,000) will have had an assessment decision made to determine whether the site will require federal action.

Reducing Global Environmental Risks: Global and transboundary environmental threats to U.S. interests will be eliminated.

 

Suggested Citation:"National Environmental Goals: Implementing the Laws, Visions of the Future, and Research." National Research Council. 1996. Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5409.
×

Better Information and Education: All people will be informed and educated stakeholders in environmental quality and active participants in environmental decisions at the personal, local, national, and global levels.

• By 2005, information will be available on toxic chemical releases into the environment from all major industrial pollution sources.

• By 2005, the public will have access to comprehensive, integrated environmental information on individual facilities.

• By 2005, information on environmental programs will be available through electronic means that citizens and local organizations can access in homes, schools, and libraries.

• By 2005, EPA will make available comprehensive and integrated information and statistics on national, regional, and local environmental conditions and trends.

• By 2005, there will be substantial growth in the number of environmental education programs in schools, colleges, and communities. The communities will teach educators, students, and the general public how to make informed and responsible decisions about their actions that impact the environment.

Suggested Citation:"National Environmental Goals: Implementing the Laws, Visions of the Future, and Research." National Research Council. 1996. Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5409.
×

APPENDIX B1
PROPOSED PCSD NATIONAL GOALS AND INDICATORS

National Goal

Possible Indicators of Progress

Prosperity: Achieve long-term economic growth and prosperity that provides opportunity, meaningful jobs, and better living conditions for all Americans.

• Economic Performance: Growth in GDP per capita.

• Income Equity: Ratio of the income of the top 20 percent compared with the bottom 20 percent of the United States population.

• Poverty: Number of children living below the poverty line.

• Savings Rate: Per capita savings rate.

• Environmental Wealth: New measures that reflect resource depletion and environmental costs.

• Productivity: Th : level of per capita production per hour worked.

A Healthy Environment: Ensure that every person can enjoy the benefits of clean air, clean water, safe food, and secure and pleasant surroundings.

• Toxic Materials: Measures of long-lived and other toxic materials released into the environment as pollutants or waste.

• Life Expectancy: Measures of expected life span covering various economic and demographic groups.

• Infant Mortality: Measures of infant mortality rates, developed for various economic and demographic groups.

• Safe Drinking Water: Measures of the percentage of the U.S. population whose drinking water does not meet safe drinking water standards.

• Clean Air: Percentage of population that lives in cities where air quality standards for one or more pollutants are not met.

Conservation of Nature: Protect and seek to restore the health and biological diversity of ecosystems.

• Vulnerable Ecosystems: Measures of the vulnerability of natural ecosystems to degradation from present land use patterns, involving such resources as forests, grasslands, wetlands, and coastal lands.

• Conservation Status: Measures of lost natural systems or species (incorporating measures for soil loss, wetland loss, threatened and endangered species, remaining old growth forests, threatened and endangered rivers).

• Nutrients and Toxics: Measures of nutrients and toxic pollutants that endanger or harm waters.

• Exotic Species: Measures of ecological risk due to the introduction and spread of exotic species.

 

Source: PCSD report dated June 28, 1995.

Suggested Citation:"National Environmental Goals: Implementing the Laws, Visions of the Future, and Research." National Research Council. 1996. Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5409.
×

Responsible Stewardship: Create an ethic of stewardship and community that encourages Americans to reduce resource use and take responsibility for the environmental and social consequences of their actions.

• Material Consumption: Consumption per capita by type of material.

• Toxics Accumulation: Amount of long-lived and other toxic materials released into the environment.

• Virgin Material Use: Raw or virgin material input, per dollar of GDP output, by sector.

• Renewable Material Use: Market share of renewable, recoverable, and recycled material inputs.

• Water Use: Net amount of water used, compared with its recharge capacity.

Sustainable Communities: Strengthen communities' capacity to engage their citizens in actions to enhance fairness, provide economic opportunity, and maintain a safe and healthy environment.

• Violent Crime: Number of people who feel safe walking through their neighborhood in the evening.

• Community Design: Measures of the access in rural and urban areas to jobs, shopping, services, and recreation, nearby choices for transportation, and housing through alternative land designs.

• Public Parks: Amount of urban green space or park space.

• Public Participation: Percentage of registered voters who cast ballots in the past two national elections and the percentage of individuals within a community who participate in social, recreational, charitable, and other civic activities.

• Investment in Future Generations: Amount of community resources dedicated to its children, including maternal care, childhood development, and K-12 education.

• Transportation Patterns: Average mass transit miles, vehicle miles traveled per person, and the number of trips made possible by alternatives to personal motor vehicles.

Cooperative Democracy: Change the process of government to involve more fully citizens, businesses, and communities in collaborative resolution of natural resource, environmental, and economic decisions that affect them.

• Social Capital: Measures of social capital, such as investment in education, and civic awareness.

• Citizen Participation: Voter turnout and community participation in such civic activities as professional organizations, PTA, sporting leaques, and charity work.

• Collaborations: Measures of characteristics that contribute to successful collaboration.

Suggested Citation:"National Environmental Goals: Implementing the Laws, Visions of the Future, and Research." National Research Council. 1996. Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5409.
×

Stable Populations: Move toward stabilization of U.S. population.

• Population Growth: Rate of population growth in the United States and the world.

• Status of Women: Measures of the national and global social/economic status of women.

• Unintended Pregnancies: Number of unintended pregnancies in the United States.

• Teen Pregnancies: Number of teenage pregnancies in the United States.

International Leadership: Practice globally the values of sustainability we espouse as a nation.

• Treaty Commitments: Adherence to U.S. commitments under international environmental treaties, such as those signed in Agenda 21.

• International Assistance: Level of U.S. international assistance, including Official Direct Assistance as a percentage of GDP.

• Environmental Assistance: U.S. contribution to the Global Environmental Facility and other environmentally targeted development aid.

Suggested Citation:"National Environmental Goals: Implementing the Laws, Visions of the Future, and Research." National Research Council. 1996. Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5409.
×

APPENDIX B2
PROPOSED PCSD SECTOR GOALS AND INDICATORS

Sector Goal

Possible Indicators Of Progress

Energy: Improve the economic and environmental performance of energy use to enhance national competitiveness and social well-being.

• Energy Use: Amount of energy input per dollar of GDP output by sector.

• Renewable Energy: Share of renewable and non-renewable energy use in U.S. energy supply.

• Electric Efficiency: Average efficiency of electricity generation.

• Greenhouse Gas Emissions: U.S. annual emissions of greenhouse gases.

Transportation: Provide a U.S. transportation system that optimizes the performance and use of each type of transportation and enables access to regional and public transit that is reliable, affordable, and convenient.

• Congestion: Congestion levels in urban areas.

• Oil Imports: Oil dependency.

• Transportation Emissions: Rates of annual greenhouse and other pollutant emissions (including carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen oxides, small particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, and volatile organic compounds) from transportation.

• Transportation Patterns: Average mass transit and personal vehicle miles traveled per capita per year.

Agriculture: Achieve long-term social and economic viability of farm communities and ensure a healthy and affordable supply of food and fiber.

• Average percentage of household income spent on food and fiber.

• Percentage of GDP spent on food production and distribution.

• Level of concentrations of nutrients and pesticides in ground and surface water.

• Trade balance in agricultural products.

• Comparison of the per capita income and wealth of rural populations with national and non-rural averages, adjusted for differences in cost of living.

• Comparison of unemployment rates among rural population groups, with national and non-rural averages.

 

Source: PCSD report dated June 28, 1995.

Suggested Citation:"National Environmental Goals: Implementing the Laws, Visions of the Future, and Research." National Research Council. 1996. Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5409.
×

APPENDIX C
CENR GOALS AND MILESTONES

Research Goal

Selected Milestones, 1995–1998

Air Quality: The goal of the federal air quality research program is to help protect human health and the environment from air pollution by providing the scientific and technical information needed to evaluate options for improving air quality in timely and cost-effective ways.

• Provide scientific input to air quality management planning for the highly stressed Great Smoky Mountains National Park by completing an extensive field study with diagnostic modeling to understand the extent, causes, and processes involved in local visibility problems.

• Characterize the roles of production and movement of ground-level ozone formation in a region of high natural hydrocarbon emissions and a region of high complexity (Nashville Field Campaign-Southern Oxidants Study) to help formulate more effective emission abatement applications for specific regions of the country.

• Quantitatively compare the effects of anthropogenic fine particles to those of coarse, windblown dust particles on human health.

• Conduct a National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program (NAPAP) assessment of (1) the reduction in deposition rates necessary to prevent adverse ecological effects and (2) the costs, benefits, and effectiveness of the current acid deposition control strategies mandated under Title IV of the CAAA of 1990.

• Create Great Waters and Urban Toxics Inventories to characterize the major risks faced by Native Americans from their basic fish stocks and by inner-city individuals from airborne toxics in the urban environment.

• Conduct a comprehensive state-of-science assessment of surface ozone that is summarized in policy-useful terms and that is prepared by the broad scientific community as well as other communities, sponsored by the relevant agencies, reviewed by peers and stakeholder communities, and timed to aid decisions associated with midcourse corrections in the state implementation plans required by the CAAA.

• Standardize indoor air tests, develop instrumentation, and evaluate standard procedures that will lead to commercialization of monitoring equipment to improve the ''health" of the nation's residential and commercial buildings.

 

Source: CENR Strategic Planning Document dated March 10, 1995.

Suggested Citation:"National Environmental Goals: Implementing the Laws, Visions of the Future, and Research." National Research Council. 1996. Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5409.
×

Biodiversity: The goal of federal research on biodiversity and ecosystem dynamics is to ensure the sustainability of the ecological systems and processes that support our social needs in areas such as agriculture, forestry, fisheries, recreation, medicine, and the preservation of natural areas.

• Publish common standards and protocols needed to classify and map ecological units and their biological and physical attributes.

• Publish an ecosystem map for the United States at a scale that allows land-use planners, resource managers, industry, the public, and policy-makers to incorporate spatially explicit social, economic, and environmental factors into urban planning and resource management decisions.

• Complete establishment of a network of representative long-term sites to determine how various ecosystem management approaches can be achieved.

• Calculate the social and economic impacts (local, regional, and national) of alternative management scenarios; track cumulative social and economic effects of various ecosystem management regimes, such as impacts on fishery management and agricultural programs.

• Determine the functional characteristics to be used to group species so that data essential to successfully maintaining or restoring the population of a species can be extrapolated from studies of a few representative species to entire groups of species.

Suggested Citation:"National Environmental Goals: Implementing the Laws, Visions of the Future, and Research." National Research Council. 1996. Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5409.
×

Global Change: The goal of global change research is to observe and document global environmental changes and identify their causes, predict the responses of the earth system, determine the ecological and socioeconomic consequences of these changes, and identify strategies for adaptation and mitigation that will most benefit society and the environment.

• Contribute to the international effort to develop a long-term comprehensive global earth observation system by launching the first in a series of earth observing system satellites, and establish a global change data and information system to make high-quality global change data accessible to researchers worldwide.

• Incorporate new understanding of atmospheric radiation processes (including the role of clouds and aerosols), ecosystem processes, and social and economic driving forces into improved coupled ocean-atmosphere-land surface models to predict future long-term changes in climate.

• Observe and document changes in the earthls stratospheric ozone layer through both space- and surface-based observation systems, and observe and document corresponding changes in UV radiation at the earth's surface through development of an intercalibrated network for monitoring radiation. Observe changes in human and ecosystem health related to changes in surface UV radiation and evaluate processes leading to health and environmental changes from UV radiation. Evaluate the effects on the ozone layer and the health and environmental risks of alternatives to CFCs and other halons.

• Provide regular forecasts of the timing and distribution of extreme climatic events (flooding, droughts, etc.) related to seasonal to interannual climate variability (from such phenomena as the El Niño-Southern Oscillation) to communities to assist them in developing plans for preventing damage from climate-related disasters.

• Develop regional assessments of vulnerability to climate change and evaluate the potential social, economic, and human health effects on communities, and the effects on local natural ecosystems, agricultural, forest, fishery, and water supply resources, that would occur if climate changes consistent within the range predicted by the IPCC were to occur.

• Fulfill the U.S. commitment to establish strong international cooperation on global change research by supporting credible, internationally developed research programs (e.g., the International Geosphere-Biosphere Program, World Climate Research Program, and Human Dimensions of Global Environmental Change Program), the development of regional research institutes (such as the Inter-American Institute and the System for Analysis, Research, and Training), and international assessments (such as that of the IPCC).

Suggested Citation:"National Environmental Goals: Implementing the Laws, Visions of the Future, and Research." National Research Council. 1996. Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5409.
×

Natural Disaster Reduction: The goal of federal research in natural disaster reduction is to provide the scientific information necessary to make our society resilient to natural disasters by reducing the loss of life, property damage, and economic disruption caused by earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, fires, and volcanoes.

• Make publicly available through Internet an information system to support the National Mitigation Strategy.

• Identify weather-sensitive industries, and work collaboratively with them to assess the economic impacts of severe weather; implement a framework under the U.S. Weather Research Program for increasing the benefit of severe weather forecasts to these industries.

• Complete a plan for national risk assessment that will guide U.S. planning for natural disaster avoidance and response.

• Develop and distribute improved hazard warnings, and increase the effectiveness of hazard warnings in ensuring human safety through mechanisms for stakeholder feedback (including policy-makers, community planners, emergency response personnel, the general populace, and special populations).

• Develop new technologies and engineering techniques for the seismic safety of new and existing buildings and lifelines, and implement new guidelines to enhance public safety and building resilience.

• Develop an interagency system to provide real-time, accurate, and reliable observations of geomagnetic storms and solar wind, which can seriously compromise satellite operations and electric power delivery, and develop the capability to make 10-year geomagnetic storm forecasts.

Resource Use and Management: The goal of federal R&D on resource use and management is to promote the management, conservation, and use of natural resources in ways that sustain and enhance terrestrial and marine ecosystems and the quality of life. This broad goal has three subcomponents: (1) link research to resource management at various temporal and spatial scales; (2) develop the science base and the technologies for determining the mix of resources that will promote sustainability; and (3) determine how best to sustain and use a given resource across landscapes and the seascape.

• Define the protocols and techniques needed for integrated resource assessments.

• Establish an integrated data base that links socioeconomic factors to measures of natural resource conditions and trends.

• Define and implement site-specific and regional natural resource condition indicators that reflect the local and regional impacts of management activities.

• Provide new or modified methods and management systems, for both renewable and nonrenewable resources, that are cost-effective and that minimize environmental damage associated with consumptive and non-consumptive uses.

• Determine ways to extend the service life of materials, or improve recycling technologies to reduce consumptive use of renewable and nonrenewable resources.

Suggested Citation:"National Environmental Goals: Implementing the Laws, Visions of the Future, and Research." National Research Council. 1996. Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5409.
×

Toxic Substances and Hazardous and Solid Wastes: The goal of federal toxic substances and hazardous and solid waste research is to prevent or reduce human and ecological exposure to toxic materials, such as pesticide residues, PCBs, and lead, and their adverse consequences by providing the scientific and technical information needed for informed decision- and policy-making and effective problem solving.

• Produce a national research strategy on endocrine-disrupter chemicals.

• Finalize the reassessment of the health and ecological effects from exposure to dioxin and related compounds.

• Conduct cooperative research with industry partners to develop technological improvements to reduce inefficiency, substitute cleaner and less toxic chemicals, reduce costs, and improve environmental performance.

• Provide improved exposure models for hazardous air pollutants.

• Improve ecological risk characterization by better defining the responses of communities and ecosystems to toxic chemical stresses.

• Implement a national program to verify performance of innovative environmental technologies.

Water Resources and Coastal and Marine Environments: The goal of research on water resources and coastal and marine environments is to provide the scientific basis for managing water resources and aquatic environments to ensure adequate, quality water resources for domestic, industrial, agricultural, fishery, transportation, recreation, and other uses to meet equitably and efficiently the needs of present and future generations and to ensure the integrity, productivity, diversity, and vitality of lake, stream, estuary, and ocean coastal ecosystems.

• Complete mapping and change detection of coastal land cover for all major coastal areas of the United States, including the coordinated management and dissemination of the change-detection data sets and management applications derived from them

• Complete data collection, interpretation, and report preparation for the first 20 National Water-Quality Assessment Program sites, and initiate detailed planning for the final 20 sites.

• Provide new, regional algorithms for remotely monitoring water mass movement, algal pigments, and productivity in coastal and estuarine water from satellites and aircraft.

• Complete a peer-reviewed, comprehensive national assessment of the U.S. coastal environment that integrates evaluations of the state of the natural environment with assessments of the effectiveness of current governance mechanisms and structures and the social and economic effects of environmental change.

• Provide improved assessment and field tools for predicting the cumulative effects of multiple stressors and carrying capacities in U.S. coastal and estuarine systems.

Suggested Citation:"National Environmental Goals: Implementing the Laws, Visions of the Future, and Research." National Research Council. 1996. Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5409.
×
Page 97
Suggested Citation:"National Environmental Goals: Implementing the Laws, Visions of the Future, and Research." National Research Council. 1996. Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5409.
×
Page 98
Suggested Citation:"National Environmental Goals: Implementing the Laws, Visions of the Future, and Research." National Research Council. 1996. Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5409.
×
Page 99
Suggested Citation:"National Environmental Goals: Implementing the Laws, Visions of the Future, and Research." National Research Council. 1996. Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5409.
×
Page 100
Suggested Citation:"National Environmental Goals: Implementing the Laws, Visions of the Future, and Research." National Research Council. 1996. Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5409.
×
Page 101
Suggested Citation:"National Environmental Goals: Implementing the Laws, Visions of the Future, and Research." National Research Council. 1996. Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5409.
×
Page 102
Suggested Citation:"National Environmental Goals: Implementing the Laws, Visions of the Future, and Research." National Research Council. 1996. Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5409.
×
Page 103
Suggested Citation:"National Environmental Goals: Implementing the Laws, Visions of the Future, and Research." National Research Council. 1996. Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5409.
×
Page 104
Suggested Citation:"National Environmental Goals: Implementing the Laws, Visions of the Future, and Research." National Research Council. 1996. Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5409.
×
Page 105
Suggested Citation:"National Environmental Goals: Implementing the Laws, Visions of the Future, and Research." National Research Council. 1996. Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5409.
×
Page 106
Suggested Citation:"National Environmental Goals: Implementing the Laws, Visions of the Future, and Research." National Research Council. 1996. Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5409.
×
Page 107
Suggested Citation:"National Environmental Goals: Implementing the Laws, Visions of the Future, and Research." National Research Council. 1996. Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5409.
×
Page 108
Suggested Citation:"National Environmental Goals: Implementing the Laws, Visions of the Future, and Research." National Research Council. 1996. Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5409.
×
Page 109
Suggested Citation:"National Environmental Goals: Implementing the Laws, Visions of the Future, and Research." National Research Council. 1996. Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5409.
×
Page 110
Suggested Citation:"National Environmental Goals: Implementing the Laws, Visions of the Future, and Research." National Research Council. 1996. Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5409.
×
Page 111
Suggested Citation:"National Environmental Goals: Implementing the Laws, Visions of the Future, and Research." National Research Council. 1996. Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5409.
×
Page 112
Suggested Citation:"National Environmental Goals: Implementing the Laws, Visions of the Future, and Research." National Research Council. 1996. Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5409.
×
Page 113
Suggested Citation:"National Environmental Goals: Implementing the Laws, Visions of the Future, and Research." National Research Council. 1996. Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5409.
×
Page 114
Suggested Citation:"National Environmental Goals: Implementing the Laws, Visions of the Future, and Research." National Research Council. 1996. Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5409.
×
Page 115
Suggested Citation:"National Environmental Goals: Implementing the Laws, Visions of the Future, and Research." National Research Council. 1996. Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5409.
×
Page 116
Suggested Citation:"National Environmental Goals: Implementing the Laws, Visions of the Future, and Research." National Research Council. 1996. Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5409.
×
Page 117
Suggested Citation:"National Environmental Goals: Implementing the Laws, Visions of the Future, and Research." National Research Council. 1996. Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5409.
×
Page 118
Suggested Citation:"National Environmental Goals: Implementing the Laws, Visions of the Future, and Research." National Research Council. 1996. Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5409.
×
Page 119
Suggested Citation:"National Environmental Goals: Implementing the Laws, Visions of the Future, and Research." National Research Council. 1996. Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5409.
×
Page 120
Suggested Citation:"National Environmental Goals: Implementing the Laws, Visions of the Future, and Research." National Research Council. 1996. Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5409.
×
Page 121
Suggested Citation:"National Environmental Goals: Implementing the Laws, Visions of the Future, and Research." National Research Council. 1996. Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5409.
×
Page 122
Suggested Citation:"National Environmental Goals: Implementing the Laws, Visions of the Future, and Research." National Research Council. 1996. Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5409.
×
Page 123
Suggested Citation:"National Environmental Goals: Implementing the Laws, Visions of the Future, and Research." National Research Council. 1996. Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5409.
×
Page 124
Suggested Citation:"National Environmental Goals: Implementing the Laws, Visions of the Future, and Research." National Research Council. 1996. Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5409.
×
Page 125
Suggested Citation:"National Environmental Goals: Implementing the Laws, Visions of the Future, and Research." National Research Council. 1996. Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5409.
×
Page 126
Suggested Citation:"National Environmental Goals: Implementing the Laws, Visions of the Future, and Research." National Research Council. 1996. Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5409.
×
Page 127
Suggested Citation:"National Environmental Goals: Implementing the Laws, Visions of the Future, and Research." National Research Council. 1996. Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5409.
×
Page 128
Suggested Citation:"National Environmental Goals: Implementing the Laws, Visions of the Future, and Research." National Research Council. 1996. Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5409.
×
Page 129
Suggested Citation:"National Environmental Goals: Implementing the Laws, Visions of the Future, and Research." National Research Council. 1996. Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5409.
×
Page 130
Suggested Citation:"National Environmental Goals: Implementing the Laws, Visions of the Future, and Research." National Research Council. 1996. Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5409.
×
Page 131
Suggested Citation:"National Environmental Goals: Implementing the Laws, Visions of the Future, and Research." National Research Council. 1996. Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5409.
×
Page 132
Suggested Citation:"National Environmental Goals: Implementing the Laws, Visions of the Future, and Research." National Research Council. 1996. Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5409.
×
Page 133
Suggested Citation:"National Environmental Goals: Implementing the Laws, Visions of the Future, and Research." National Research Council. 1996. Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/5409.
×
Page 134
Next: Measurement of Environmental Quality in the United States »
Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals Get This Book
×
Buy Hardback | $75.00 Buy Ebook | $59.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Where should the United States focus its long-term efforts to improve the nation's environment? What are the nation's most important environmental issues? What role should science and technology play in addressing these issues? Linking Science and Technology to Society's Environmental Goals provides the current thinking and answers to these questions.

Based on input from a range of experts and interested individuals, including representatives of industry, government, academia, environmental organizations, and Native American communities, this book urges policymakers to:

  • Use social science and risk assessment to guide decision-making.
  • Monitor environmental changes in a more thorough, consistent, and coordinated manner.
  • Reduce the adverse impact of chemicals on the environment.
  • Move away from the use of fossil fuels.
  • Adopt an environmental approach to engineering that reduces the use of natural resources.
  • Substantially increase our understanding of the relationship between population and consumption.

This book will be of special interest to policymakers in government and industry; environmental scientists, engineers, and advocates; and faculty, students, and researchers.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!