Sather 1

The Goldilocks Principle: Government Spending on Environmental Research and Protection

Jamieson Sather
Karen C. Holt
English 252
16 October 15

Sather 2
Introduction of Issues
In 2014 the US federal government spent 44.8 billion dollars on environmental issues,
enough money to pay for the average 4 year college education for over 638,260 people every
year (Roberts 4). With such large amounts of government resources at stake, citizens are
justifiably concerned about the attention given to environmental research and preservation, and
this concern has led to a drop in the funds and attention given to the subject. This can be
worrying for many concerned with the environment, especially for an aspiring biologist such as
me. I have had the uncommon circumstance of having known what I want to be since I was 4
years old. My mother still has drawings from my kindergarten class of me, in a lab coat,
studying a whale, with a poorly scribbled b-i-o-l-o-g-i-s-t on the bottom. This has been my
passion and my drive for the last 20 years. Growing up in California, I had the wonderful
opportunity to be raised in some beautiful and diverse landscapes. My family spent summers
surfing and hiking the state beaches of central California, and the redwoods were practically the
backyard of my Boy Scout troop. As a child, Saturday morning was spent watching half a dozen
different shows dedicated to animals and the natural world.
Then, somewhere along the way, things seemed to change. Many of the old state beaches
we frequented have closed due to lack of funds. The trails we hiked and places we visited slowly
fell into disrepair, and were deemed dangerous. Even the educational and inspirational shows of
my youth were eventually replaced with more entertaining programs. It seems that the
importance of preserving and studying our environment has declined in the minds of people, and
has definitely lost attention and funding from local, state, and national governments (Lee 41;
McCright 253). I will show why this had changed, and demonstrate that in a world where there

Sather 3
never seems enough to go around, that the environment is worth investing our time and our
money in.
Presentation of My Proposition
Since becoming a biologist is my goal, I clearly have a vested interest is furthering the
attention placed on the environment. However, I recognize that there are also many other
worthwhile causes and a limited amount of resources, hence there will have to be prioritization in
the allotment of those resources. But, for some reason, the support for environmental issues has
waned ever since the 1990s (McCright). Something changed what was once considered to be an
important and essential topic into a near legislative pariah. What I am advocating for is not a
simple raise in the funding for environmental issues, but a change in how we value and invest in
it. I am not calling for full access to the treasury for all environmental groups, and many
subjects do, and should, come first. My modest proposal is simply that the environment warrants
more than it currently receives.
While government backing for environmental issues has fallen (Lee), so has public
support (McCright, Liam, Pompt), and the responsibility to solve the issue falls on both. While
the government may have more control over the fiscal aspect, the power of public support cannot
be overstated. When people, average citizens like you and I, invest out time, skills, and effort in
preserving, learning about, and educating others about our environment, there are drastic
improvements in preservation and research (Wills). We each need to develop in our homes a
sense of responsibility to care for our world, and develop a respect and understanding of what it
has to offer us.
Offering of Opposing Viewpoints

Sather 4
Opponents of this issue find it simple to attack this increasingly unpopular viewpoint. It
is often seen as fiscally irresponsible (Pompt). Often they claim that environmental issues have
no solid evidence, or that the evidence is so weak that it does not warrant any further attention
(McCright). However, the most common argument is simply that there are too many more
important issues that deserve more financial attention. All of these arguments have been used by
opponents of Conservationalsim (McCright) at one time or another, and all have some amount
of validity. Nevertheless, all of these arguments still have vital flaws that are often unseen, but
which destroy them quickly when recognized.
Another argument might be that the environment simply does not hold any value for your
average citizen. Why should tax dollars, time, or attention be given to something that has such
an indirect impact in our lives? This is of course a very valid question. The basic idea is that we
dont want to allocate resources when we cant see a result, development, or improvement.
However, this form of thinking is short sighted and egocentric. When we begin to operate under
the impression that we are not a part of this world, or that in some way we stand above it, we
disconnect with reality. This leads to dangerous negligence of the consequences of our actions.
This idea, too has simple flaws which quickly puts an end to the argument.
My Response
The issue of economic practicality is probably the largest opponent of environmental
conservatism. The idea being that with so many social and economic issues plaguing a city,
state, or nation, that the environments priority quickly falls to the bottom of the list. The 44.8
billion dollars the U.S. federal government has budgeted for 2015 may seem like a lot of money,
but in reality it is the 2nd lowest allocated topic in the budget (see chart 1). It is behind almost

Sather 5

Figure 1. Total Federal Spending for 2015 from "Federal Spending: Where Does the Money Go."
National Priorities Project. Office of Management and Budget, n.d. Web. 21 Oct. 2015.
any other topic concerning the national government. In this sense, it is difficult to imagine
spending any less on these issues. The governments budget reflects a sense of the attention
policy makers feel is deserves, and support for environmental law has drastically dropped in the
last 40 years (see figure 2).

Sather 6

Figure 2. Environmental bills introduced in the US congress

Source: Lee, Jongkon. "Environmental Legislative Standstill And Bureaucratic Politics In The
USA." Policy Studies 35.1 (2014): 40-58. EconLit with Full Text. Web. 30 Sept. 2015.
One of the main issues that people have with allocating more funds to environmental
issues is that there is no return on investment. In many other government funded projects, there
is an expected return of some sort, and at first glance it can be difficult to see how environmental
protection can actually save money. Jeffery R. Pomp, Professor of Business and Economics at
the John Sparrow Institute, addresses this issue in his book entitled, Environmental conflict: in
search of common ground. He informs the reader of the apparent conflict between fiscal
practicality and environmental protection, and through several points shows the economic value
of investment in the environment. In it he provides the example of how a 660 million dollar
investment to protect the Catskills Watershed would enable New York City to save around 4.4
billion dollars over the next decade. There have even been articles published that state that many
forests have the ability to generate more income while standing than logged. Logged they will of
course provide valuable lumber, taxes, and paying jobs for lumberjacks. However, standing they
provide recreation for hunters, hikers, and campers. They also provide oxygen, watershed
protection, soil erosion defense, not to mention habitat for many species of plant and animals

Sather 7
which may be economically valuable (63). Through simple cost-benefit analysis we can
determine if the environment is worth more than we invest into it, and history has shown that it
often is (Lerner, Jane, Stamou).
We can clearly conclude that we are not independent from our environment, and that it
has the ability to improve our everyday lives. However, they also have an intrinsic value.
Anyone who has ever had a pet did not purchase it expecting the cat, dog, or fish to make money.
It was purchased with the idea that they would get something out of it that could not be
quantified. We gain something from the world around us, whether that is peace, or inspiration,
or wonder, it gives us something, and we have a responsibility to give back. As Henry David
Thoreau wrote, We need the tonic of wildness...At the same time that we are earnest to explore
and learn all things, we require that all things be mysterious and unexplorable, that land and sea
be indefinitely wild, unsurveyed and unfathomed by us because unfathomable. We can never
have enough of nature (83). We need nature, and it needs us to give back to it.
Conclusion
The concept that investing in the environment is a bad idea is simply a misinformed one.
The truth is that communities that have access to environmental areas are generally happier and
healthier (Klyza, Lerner). The environment is often a sound financial investment, and even has
the opportunity to turn a profit in many locations. If these ideas are communicated clearly then
the logical choice is one of reform and re-evaluation of the way we interact with our
environment.
Perhaps if people understood these ideas more clearly, the beaches and forests of my
childhood would never have closed down or fallen apart in the first place. Our planet has
amazing value, and we have only begun to understand just how prized it is. Having the

Sather 8
opportunity to enjoy the land and creatures that dwell on it is the right of all people. Children
today and in future generations deserve to be able to have the same opportunities and advantages
that we have today. We owe it, both to them and to ourselves, to make the smart investment and
spend the green it takes to, go green.

Sather 9
Works Cited
"Federal Spending: Where Does the Money Go." National Priorities Project. Office of
Management and Budget, n.d. Web. 21 Oct. 2015.
Harris, Frances. Global Environmental Issues. [Electronic Resource]. n.p.: Hoboken, NJ: WileyBlackwell, 2012, 2012. Print.
Klyza, Christopher McGrory, and David J. Sousa. American Environmental Policy: Beyond
Gridlock. n.p.: Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press, [2013], 2013. Print.
Lee, Jongkon. "Environmental Legislative Standstill And Bureaucratic Politics In The
USA." Policy Studies 35.1 (2014): 40-58. EconLit with Full Text. Web. 30 Sept. 2015.
Lerner, K. Lee, and Brenda Wilmoth Lerner. Environmental Issues. [Electronic Resource]:
Essential Primary Sources. n.p.: Detroit, Mich.: Gale, c2006, 2006. BYU-Idaho Catalog.
Web. 1 Oct. 2015.
Liem, Gregory Arief D., and Andrew J. Martin. "Young Peoples Responses To Environmental
Issues: Exploring The Roles Of Adaptability And Personality." Personality And
Individual Differences 79.(2015): 91-97. ScienceDirect. Web. 1 Oct. 2015.
McCright, Aaron M., Chenyang Xiao, and Riley E. Dunlap. "Political Polarization On Support
For Government Spending On Environmental Protection In The USA, 1974
2012." Social Science Research 48.(2014): 251-260. ScienceDirect. Web. 30 Sept. 2015.
Pompe, Jeffrey J., and James R. Rinehart. Environmental Conflict. [Electronic Resource]: In
Search Of Common Ground. n.p.: Albany: State University of New York Press, c2002,
2002. Print.
R. K., Jain. Contemporary Issues In Environmental Assessment. n.p.: McGraw-Hill Professional,
2002. AccessEngineering. Web. 1 Oct. 2015.

Sather 10
Roberts, Jane. Environmental Policy. [Electronic Resource]. n.p.: Milton Park, Abingdon:
Routledge, 2011, 2011. BYU-Idaho Catalog. Web. 1 Oct. 2015.
Stamou, George P. Populations, Biocommunities, Ecosystems. [Electronic Resource]: A Review
Of Controversies In Ecological Thinking. n.p.: [Oak Park, Ill.]: Bentham eBooks, [2012],
2012. BYU-Idaho Catalog. Web. 30 Sept. 2015.
Suter, Glen W., II, and Rebecca A. Efroymson. "Controversies In Ecological Risk Assessment;
Assessment Scientists Respond." Environmental Management [New York] 21.6 (1997):
819-822. GeoRef. Web. 30 Sept. 2015.
Thoreau, Henry David, and Henry David Thoreau. Walden ; And, Civil Disobedience. Belmont,
CA: Thomson Wadsworth, 2005. Print.
Tuckwell, Erin. "Science In Dispute: Debating The Authority Of Knowledge In An
Environmental Contestation."Oceania 82.3 (2012): 308-322. Academic Search Premier.
Web. 30 Sept. 2015.
Wills, John. US Environmental History. [Electronic Resource]: Inviting Doomsday. n.p.:
Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2013., 2013. BYU-Idaho Catalog. Web. 1 Oct.
2015.