In April, Congress finally passed the fiscal year (FY) 2011 budget, more than halfway into the budget-year. They agreed on unprecedented cuts—$39 billion—the largest one-time federal spending reduction in history. Still, the cuts represent less than 3% of the $1.5 trillion deficit. Unfortunately, the U.S. budget is so far out-of-whack that the cuts are only a scratch on a seemingly dying patient.

Where do these cuts hurt the environment most? The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was one of the agencies hardest hit. They suffered a 16% reduction from a $10 billion budget. A cut of $1.6 billion in the middle of the fiscal year comes from the marrow of EPA’s activities and not from the fat. And the largest fraction of it, $1.19 billion, came from State and Tribal Grants (STAG) for water treatment plants and water pollution control. Passing on the problem to the states seems to be the strategy, but states do not have any money either, so the environment suffers.

Climate change research was hurt also. Cut by $49 million (13%) compared to the 2010 FY budget, the climate change budget is $116 million below the President’s FY 2011 request. Funding for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the Framework Convention narrowly escaped death by rider, but Carol Browner’s position did not fare so well. Browner resigned as chief advisor to the White House on climate change in January, and the vacant position has now been eliminated.

This year’s EPA budget continues a slow but inexorable decline for ecosystems. In FY 2004 it stood at $108 million for the Office of Research and Development (ORD) ecosystems research, and now it is roughly $61 million. That represents about 10% of the EPA ORD budget. At this low proportion, perhaps the name of the Agency should be changed to the Human Health Protection Agency—we’re giving up on ecosystems.

With seven billion people on earth and a $62 trillion dollar gross world product (and growing) the need for agencies like the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to perform global research is greater than ever. Yet, NOAA lost roughly $1 billion from their budget which will delay the launch of the polar satellite Joint Polar Satellite System (JPSS) and jeopardize weather forecasting, long-term predictions, and search and rescue operations.

The good news, if there is any, is that research funding is relatively favored compared to the rest of the FY 2011 budget. This is in keeping with President Obama’s emphasis on science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) initiatives to improve education and competitiveness. Funds for Science and Technology (S&T) are cut much less than the rest of EPA. S&T is down 3.9% compared to an 8.8% decline in environmental programs and the 16% cut overall at EPA. All of these changes reflect also the President’s budget priorities for next year (FY 2012), which contain big cuts but prioritize research over other EPA programs.

Let's face the music. Maybe we can no longer afford to protect the environment; the budget is so badly out of kilter. On the other hand, society can't exist without healthy ecosystems and the fisheries, water, air, and pollination services provided. Shouldn't we look to increase revenues and decrease costs in other ways? U.S. military expenditures are nearly equal to those from all other countries combined, and the U.S. has one of the lowest personal income tax rates of all developed countries. Isn't it time to expect more from the wealthiest citizens who built their fortunes upon the backs of others? Already, lower-income taxpayers pay far more income taxes than General Electric and the Bank of America combined (each pay zero).

So where does it hurt? It hurts all over. It hurts states and water infrastructure, tribes and regional water quality programs. It hurts climate change and ecosystems. And like many trends in society today, it affects the future and our ability to adapt to a changing planet. There is a huge environmental debt that grows day-by-day with the deficit, one of accumulating greenhouse gases, acidifying oceans, and declining species that is not being addressed by any party in government.

Cited By