A bureau of environmental statistics In the winter 1988 edition of Issues in Science and TechnoZogy, Paul R. Portney proposes a quasi-independent Bureau of Environmental Statistics within EPA to “oversee the collection, analysis, and publication of important measures related to the quality of the environment” (National Academy of Sciences: Washington, DC, 12(2), 74-81). Portney, director of the Center for Risk Management at Resources for the Future (in Washington, DC) points out that those who work in the environmental field do not have at their disposal data banks such as one finds in the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Bureau of Economic Analysis. To illustrate this point, Portney discusses the bleak situation that exists for those who wish data on air or water quality; on pesticide residues in soil and foodstuffs; on toxic substances in human tissues; and a host of other areas. Those who have been involved in projects requiring data collection from a variety of sources will appreciate these arguments and will wholeheartedly agree with the need for a central repository of environmental statistics. There are essentially two problems here. First, there is simply not enough data being collected on a systematic, quality-assured basis. Second, the data that are available are not being compiled and made accessible to potential users in a friendly fashion. Both problems are due to the lack of resources in agencies with mandates in the environmental field, and they are compounded by the lack of coordination between those agencies. For example, when one is interested in obtaining regional data on ground or surface water quality, one must deal with several federal and state agencies. Often one must rely on an individual’s memory of where such data are housed. When data are obtained, there is little assurance that their breadth or quality will satisfy the purposes required. All of this leads to an immense waste of energy, decision making without the
0013-938)(18810922-1115$01.50/0 0 1988 American Chemical Society
best information available, and, in a subtle way, to deterioration of the quality of life for people on this planet. One element of Portney’s plan that many would question is that EPA should be responsible for a bureau of environmental statistics. Given EPA’s structure as a regulatory agency, it appears that it would have trouble marshalling the energy or incentive to take on such a large and different role. The agency’s record in keeping centralized data repositories does not indicate that it would be a good place to establish such a bureau. The dilemma is that there does not appear to be a better place at this time. For this and many other good reasons, many people believe that what is really needed is a Department of Environmental Protection, combining all of EPA and selected functions of Interior, Agriculture, and other departments. Surely it is now time for our government to have such a department to symbolize and unify our goal of a cleaner and safer environment for all. Granted, there will be problems in the creation of such a new department, limitations in funding it, and immense hurdles in the execution of its duties. Still, we must have a more centralized and effective voice for the environment at the highest level possible-a role EPA has never had, and is unlikely to have, given its mandate and its current place in the government structure. The creation of a Bureau of Environmental Statistics is a noble goal, but we need much more. The executive branch must be restructured to give protection of the environment a more important place-a place that will ensure that data will be collected, stored, and used for the protection of our planet.
Environ. Sci. Technol., Vol. 22, No. 10, 1988 1115
