1.8: Natural Resources and the Environment

Responsible Stewardship of Natural Resources and the Environment

Other Information:

Responsible stewardship of our natural resources and the environment encompasses some of the nation’s most challenging issues. (See fig. 30.) Balancing the demands of often-competing objectives—economic growth for today versus protection of our natural resources and the environment for the future—will entail difficult decisions affecting fundamental human needs, such as air, food, and water. Moreover, many of these decisions are linked; for example, our choices about how we produce food and use energy affect our climate and are altering the land and water we depend on for survival. As a result of our choices, many of the nation’s natural resources and the systems associated with their use are under widespread and increasing stress. The increasing globalization of natural resource issues adds another layer of complexity, and addressing transboundary issues such as climate change will be increasingly important. GAO’s work on natural resources in the coming 3 to 5 years will include a focus on these key concerns. Energy: Energy is a key force in our modern economy but raises difficult questions about how to resume and sustain economic growth when the engines of that growth—factories, automobiles, fertilizers, and electricity-generating plants—can adversely affect air and water quality, potentially changing the climate in catastrophic ways. For decades, businesses and consumers have been able to depend on plentiful, inexpensive energy to maintain our nation’s global competitiveness and way of life. Although the United States accounts for about 4.5 percent of the world’s population, it consumes about 20 percent of the primary energy produced worldwide. Energy demand has nearly tripled in the past 50 years and is projected to continue to grow, resulting in a more precarious market balance. Concerns about volatile prices, overreliance on oil, and the impacts of energy use on climate and the environment have driven interest in reducing demand, promoting energy-efficiency, and shifting supplies toward renewable energy sources and modified use of traditional sources, such as clean coal and advanced nuclear technologies. Such a shift could have far-reaching effects on land and water use, trade and transportation patterns, national security, and energy prices. Further, the energy sector is responsible for a large share of greenhouse gas emissions; as such, efforts to decrease greenhouse gas emissions face competing and complementary concerns about energy security and impacts on fuel prices. At the same time, the nation’s extensive energy infrastructure, which includes hundreds of thousands of miles of transmission lines and pipelines, is also showing signs of strain and may require new investment to update and secure. Finally, the Congress is concerned that growth in renewable energy initiatives—and the consequent growth in federal funding and agencies responsible for regulating this industry—could allow for regulatory gaps and wasteful duplication that hinder progress. Land and water resources: Management of the nation’s land and water resources is characterized by the struggle to accommodate competing—sometimes incompatible—demands and the need to balance their use in the short term with their preservation over the long term. The resources owned and managed by the federal government are vast, including about 700 million acres of federal land, or almost 30 percent of the nation’s land surface; rights to minerals underlying more than 700 million acres of both federal and nonfederal land; almost 1.8 billion acres of the Outer Continental Shelf; and fisheries as far as 200 miles offshore. The debates over oil development on federal lands illustrate the challenge of balancing demand for resources today with preservation for the future. These resources are also showing increasing signs of stress—more catastrophic wildfires, such as the one shown below; shrinking aquifers; destruction of wildlife habitat; and the collapse of many fisheries. At the same time, competition for water is growing among various interests, including agriculture, communities, and energy providers. Shortages could lead to severe economic, environmental, and social consequences. Finally, multiple federal agencies are engaged in resource management research, raising questions about the efficiency of these efforts. Environment: Protecting the environment and human health has become increasingly complex. For example, although nationwide air quality has improved steadily over the past few decades, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reports that approximately 138 million people live in areas that do not meet health-related national air quality standards for ozone, particulate matter, or both. In addition, according to EPA, about 44 percent of the nation’s 3.5 million miles of rivers and streams are impaired. Further, climate change could threaten coastal areas, alter agricultural productivity, and increase the intensity and frequency of floods and tropical storms. Efforts to address these consequences domestically and internationally are increasingly important. Moreover, although scientific understanding of the effects of toxic chemicals has improved, information on the toxicity of many chemicals is insufficient, and EPA cannot make informed decisions on how best to protect the public. As a result, GAO added EPA’s processes for assessing and controlling toxic chemicals as a high-risk area in January 2009. Hazardous and radioactive waste sites: Significant challenges remain in cleaning up the country’s hazardous and radioactive waste sites—including more than 1,200 Superfund sites nationwide. EPA estimates that one in four Americans live within 3 miles of a hazardous site, posing potential health and safety problems. Further, federal efforts to dispose of high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel are in flux, and inventories are increasing. The nation’s current inventory of about 70,000 metric tons of high-level radioactive waste, mostly generated by the nation’s nuclear power reactors, is likely to more than double to about 153,000 metric tons by 2055. Moreover, radioactive waste from weapons production still needs to be cleaned up at Department of Energy (DOE) sites in 13 states. While DOE has made improvements recently, environmental cleanup contracts and projects managed by DOE’s Office of Environmental Management remain on GAO’s High-Risk List. Food and agriculture: Challenges persist in the way the nation produces and protects its food supply. Fragmentation in U.S. food safety laws—with 15 agencies administering more than 30 laws—has caused inconsistent oversight, ineffective coordination, and inefficient use of resources, leading GAO to add the federal oversight of food safety to its High-Risk List in 2007. Addressing this problem is even more pressing because the volume of imported foods is increasing, and shifting demographics mean that more of the U.S. population is, and increasingly will be, susceptible to food-borne illnesses. Moreover, diseases that spread between livestock and humans, such as influenzas, have the potential to seriously compromise our daily lives, and given the potential for and the consequences of bioterrorism, food security continues to pose serious concerns. In addition, while U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) programs provide about $16 billion annually to subsidize crop production and farm conservation practices and to supply disaster assistance, the integrity and equity of these programs are in question. Further, pressures to minimize the environmental impact of the $200 billion agricultural sector are likely to intensify. Finally, USDA also faces major management challenges to provide fair and equitable services to all of its customers and to uphold the civil rights of its employees. GAO’s past and forthcoming work can help federal leaders reconcile competing demands for our natural resources and achieve a balance that will meet the country’s needs in the 21st century. To support efforts by the Congress and the federal government to address these issues, we will use the following performance goals:

Indicator(s):

Indicator:1

Content