Extended Commentary: Envisioning a Changed Environmental Policy.

• Author: Amoroso, Alexander

It is painful to see the United States squandering its vast but not unlimited financial resources on projects that are not helping society. The most poignant example: The United States currently spends billions of dollars ($35.4 billion in 2019 with forecasts showing that number dramatically increasing through 2028) maintaining its arsenal of 4,600 nuclear warheads while having no intention of using them, for fear of setting into motion the mutual destruction policy of our nuclear strategies. (1) If the United States shifted those billions spent on nuclear weapons into environmentally friendly programs, the benefits would be momentous. Varied and necessary fields of research could move forward--the possibilities are endless, but to use one small but impactful example--further study into the use of soil macrofauna on soil structures in agriculture could be funded. With funding that many now consider wasted in areas such as keeping nuclear weapons, soil engineers could oversee the implementation of new soil products leading to ecological and financial benefits for farmers and growers. (2) This is but one small element of a potential sustainable American environmental policy if the U.S. moved proper funding into this area.

A well-funded environmental policy would also make social scientists more relevant in both the private and the public sector. Professor Ronald Inglehart notes that social scientists will need to research--and influence--the changes in the economies, militaries, and social environments, and it is advised that those same social scientists manage government grant programs, providing the manpower behind instituting these changes. (3) The overall evidence sums up that the reality of our changing environmental policy will require great risks and hard work to undertake, but the benefits drastically outweigh the risks.

GDP alone is no longer enough when trying to gauge the success of the American economy. Measuring economic growth in comparison to energy usage needs to become a key indicator. The inverted U-Shape Method can help monitor the relationship between economic growth and energy usage. The U-Shape Method accounts for the fact that more energy will have to be expended to change our current overall energy output and reduce our carbon dioxide levels initially to balance out economic growth, but then energy output would curve downward with the use of natural practices being stabilized with a modern economy. (4) One study concluded that, due to the use of biomass products being implemented into the U-Shape Method, canola farming produces higher yields, better sales, and lower energy costs by percentages going from 3.8 percent to 1 percent on the farms where the practices were instituted. (5)

W there is clearly wasteful spending in the military when it comes to weapons (not just nuclear, but that is the most blatant example) and cutting the budget in these areas could fund better environmental policies, the aim is not to cast the military as a villain. The American military has made strides in the areas of training, recruiting, and adjusting personnel to the priorities of...