Reading through President Obama's FY 2010 budget today, I was reminded of a thought that I've had for several years now: Why don't we have a Department of the Environment? We have a defense department for fighting wars. We have a treasury department to handle our country's banking system and currency. And now we even have a department of homeland security to "protect us" from terrorists. So why don't we have a department that protects us from what many scientists see as today's greatest threat to mankind?!?
Looking at President Obama's Budget, I see environmental money spread out all over the place. The Environmental Protection Agency definitely is the most prominent of environment-related agencies, and has it's own cabinet member and it's own section of the budget. I was very grateful to see they got a significant increasing in funding from the President's Budget, with an increase from $7.5 billion in 2008 to a requested $10.5 billion in 2010..
But using the name "Agency" implies a diminished level of importance when compared to a "Department". Why do you think the Republican Congress insisted on calling Homeland Security a Department? And then there's the fact that we have all these environmentally significant agencies spread out through several departments. Namely,
- The
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), mentioned above
- The
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which is in Commerce
- The
National Park Service (NPS), which is in Interior
- The
US Forest Service (USFS), which is in Agriculture
- The
US Geological Survey (USGS), Interior, responsible for the
"volcano monitoring" Bobby Jindal was complaining about.
- The
Bureau of Logging and Mining, er...Land Management (BLM), which is in Interior
-
NASA could arguably be included in a Department of Environment.
- A new National Climate Service, which could be under NOAA in a new Environment Department
There are probably a few agencies I've left out, too.
Actually, in a way, I sort of agreed with the concept of Department of Homeland Security (aside from the Orwellian name); it streamlined things a lot and got rid of many interagency barriers. I mean, when you think about it, what is NOAA doing the Department of Commerce, along with the Census Bureau?!? Maybe it made sense in the 19th century, but it sure doesn't make sense now.
If we could accomplish this kind of streamlining with Homeland Security, why can't we organize our environmental efforts into a robust Department of the Environment?
What do you all think?