research on environmental protection

• Current Issue
• Archived Issue
• Submission Guidelines
• Editorial Board
• Aims & Scope
• Journal History

Environmental Protection Research

Environmental Protection Research (EPR) offers a platform for environmentalists and researchers throughout the world to publish new findings that cover the relationships between environmental sciences and protection research. EPR aims to become a multidisciplinary journal for publication of research on the scientific aspects of environmental protection, which interfaces the prevention and control of air, water, soil, noise and other pollution.

Manuscripts are evaluated based on established guidelines, including novelty, significance of research, and relevant nature of the study, aiming to enrich communication in this rapidly evolving field. Original research articles and critical reviews that cover broadly relevant and generalizable research with a clear...

Announcement

Call for Papers: Volume 4 Issue 2 (2024) - No Article Processing Charge

Celebrating Excellence! Top 2% Scientist (2023)

Information

Latest articles, open access article.

by Sehrish Fatima, Naeem Abbas, Javed Iqbal, Misbah Irshad, Muhammad Ahazz Khan

ABSTRACT: One among the Global challenges of 21 st century is inaccessibility of clean water. In this concern, nanotechnology is rising as one of the most advanced processes for wastewater treatment...

by Godwin Asukwo Ebong, Idongesit Bassey Anweting, Inemesit Ndarake Bassey, Edidiong Emmanuel Ikpe

ABSTRACT: The generation, transmission, and distribution of power have both positive and negative effects. However, this has not been effectively assessed and documented in the study area. Hence, this...

Further Information : Article Processing Charge | Open Access Policy | Privacy Policy | Terms and Conditions

Contact Email：[email protected]

Copyright 2022 Universal Wiser Publisher Pte.Ltd. All rights reserved

Information

• Author Services

Initiatives

You are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader.

All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess .

Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications.

Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers.

Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal.

Original Submission Date Received: .

• Active Journals
• Find a Journal
• Proceedings Series
• For Authors
• For Reviewers
• For Editors
• For Librarians
• For Publishers
• For Societies
• For Conference Organizers
• Open Access Policy
• Institutional Open Access Program
• Special Issues Guidelines
• Editorial Process
• Research and Publication Ethics
• Article Processing Charges
• Testimonials
• Preprints.org
• SciProfiles
• Encyclopedia

Article Menu

• Subscribe SciFeed
• Google Scholar
• on Google Scholar
• Table of Contents

Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website.

Please let us know what you think of our products and services.

Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI.

JSmol Viewer

Environmental protection and economic development: research progress of eco-efficiency.

1. Introduction

2. accepted papers, list of contributions.

• Zhang, W., Hu, H., Xu, Y. Does Stronger Environmental Regulation Promote Firms’ Export Sophistication? A Quasi-Natural Experiment Based on Sewage Charges Standard Reform in China.
• Mao, H-Y., Lu, W-M., Shieh, H-Y. Exploring the Influence of Environmental Investment on Multinational Enterprises’ Performance from the Sustainability and Marketability Efficiency Perspectives.
• Zhu, Z., Zhang, X., Xue, M., Song, Y. Eco-Efficiency and Its Evolutionary Change under Regulatory Constraints: A Case Study of Chinese Transportation Industry.
• Xia, C., Zhao, Y., Zhao, Q., Wang, S., Zhang, N. Exact Eco-Efficiency Measurement in the Yellow River Basin: A New Non-Parametric Approach.
• Zhou, P., Li, H. Carbon Emissions from Manufacturing Sector in Jiangsu Province: Regional Differences and Decomposition of Driving Factors.

Conflicts of Interest

• Vásquez-Ibarra, L.; Rebolledo-Leiva, R.; Angulo-Meza, L.; González-Araya, M.C.; Iriarte, A. The joint use of life cycle assessment and data envelopment analysis methodologies for eco-efficiency assessment: A critical review, taxonomy and future research. Sci. Total Environ. 2020 , 738 , 139538. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Luo, Y.; Lu, Z.; Muhammad, S.; Yang, S. The heterogeneous effects of different technological innovations on eco-efficiency: Evidence from 30 China’s provinces. Ecol. Indic. 2021 , 127 , 107802. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Matsumoto, K.; Chen, Y. Industrial eco-efficiency and its determinants in China: A two-stage approach. Ecol. Indic. 2021 , 130 , 108072. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Elkhwesky, Z. A systematic and major review of proactive environmental strategies in hospitality and tourism: Looking back for moving forward. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2022 , 31 , 3274–3301. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Kuo, F.-I.; Fang, W.-T.; LePage, B.A. Proactive environmental strategies in the hotel industry: Eco-innovation, green competitive advantage, and green core competence. J. Sustain. Tour. 2022 , 30 , 1240–1261. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fang, W.; Liu, Z.; Putra, A.R.S. Role of research and development in green economic growth through renewable energy development: Empirical evidence from South Asia. Renew. Energy 2022 , 194 , 1142–1152. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Chai, J.; Hao, Y.; Wu, H.; Yang, Y. Do constraints created by economic growth targets benefit sustainable development? Evidence from China. Bus. Strategy Environ. 2021 , 30 , 4188–4205. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Yu, S.; Liu, J.; Li, L. Evaluating provincial eco-efficiency in China: An improved network data envelopment analysis model with undesirable output. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2020 , 27 , 6886–6903. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ]
• Wang, X.; Ding, H.; Liu, L. Eco-efficiency measurement of industrial sectors in China: A hybrid super-efficiency DEA analysis. J. Clean. Prod. 2019 , 229 , 53–64. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Demiral, E.E.; Sağlam, Ü. Eco-efficiency and Eco-productivity assessments of the states in the United States: A two-stage Non-parametric analysis. Appl. Energy 2021 , 303 , 117649. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]
• Fukuyama, H.; Tan, Y. Implementing strategic disposability for performance evaluation: Innovation, stability, profitability and corporate social responsibility in Chinese banking. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 2022 , 296 , 652–668. [ Google Scholar ] [ CrossRef ]

Share and Cite

Fukuyama, H.; Tan, Y. Environmental Protection and Economic Development: Research Progress of Eco-Efficiency. Sustainability 2023 , 15 , 14309. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151914309

Fukuyama H, Tan Y. Environmental Protection and Economic Development: Research Progress of Eco-Efficiency. Sustainability . 2023; 15(19):14309. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151914309

Fukuyama, Hirofumi, and Yong Tan. 2023. "Environmental Protection and Economic Development: Research Progress of Eco-Efficiency" Sustainability 15, no. 19: 14309. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151914309

Article Metrics

Article access statistics, further information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi.

Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals

Warning: The NCBI web site requires JavaScript to function. more...

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it's official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you're on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• Browse Titles

NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; Division on Earth and Life Studies; Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology; Committee on the Review of Environmental Protection Agency's Science to Achieve Results Research Grants Program. A Review of the Environmental Protection Agency's Science to Achieve Results Research Program. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2017 Jun 15.

A Review of the Environmental Protection Agency's Science to Achieve Results Research Program.

• Hardcopy Version at National Academies Press

4 Research for Addressing the Environmental Protection Agency's Priority Scientific Questions

Environmental research has led to technologic advances and improved policies that have resulted in enormous improvements in environmental quality and public health which may have saved lives and reduced healthcare costs nationwide. However, many complex environmental challenges remain, and new ones are emerging that are associated with interacting technologic, sociologic and economic factors, including changes in energy production and use, development of new chemicals and nanomaterials, geographic shifts in the US population, the growth of metropolitan areas, and demands for affordable agricultural products.

Major research challenges involve understanding the potential responses of environmental systems and effects on public health that might occur on various spatial scales (from local to global) and temporal scales (from acute to chronic). Stemming from discussions presented in Burke et al. (2017) and NRC (2012a , 2013a ), examples of environmental research challenges include:

• How would the wide-scale use of new energy options and emerging technologies affect water availability and quality, land use patterns, and air quality?
• How would ecosystems services (for example, buffering against coastal storms and pollinating food-bearing plants) be affected by habitat losses resulting from supplying the resource demands of a dynamic population?
• How would changes in biogeochemical cycles resulting from agricultural nutrient runoff affect aquatic ecosystems and human well-being?
• How could adverse health effects from exposure to hazardous chemicals and other materials be avoided through safe product design and appropriate consumer use?
• What societal abilities are needed to respond quickly to address environmental consequences of disasters arising from natural events (such as storms), accidents at major industrial facilities (such, mines and wells), and terrorism events?

Does the Science to Achieve Results (STAR) program contribute to shedding light on those problems? The discussion of the STAR program's public benefits in Chapter 3 suggests that it can, but could the program have been doing more? To answer that question, the committee first considered what scientific disciplines are needed to produce knowledge for addressing important scientific issues related to protecting human health and the environment. The disciplines include the more basic subjects—such as the earth sciences, atmospheric sciences, life sciences, ecology, and toxicology—and the more applied domains, such as environmental engineering, sustainable energy, human exposure and health effects, and human behavioral studies.

Figure 4-1 provides a layered view of the contributing fields of knowledge, from basic research along the bottom row (in yellow) to the kinds of scientific considerations that are integrated into environmental management, public policy, and decision-making, including considerations such as innovative technologies, innovative strategies for risk management, and innovative approaches to communication and citizen participation along the top row (in green). As suggested by the arrow on the left in Figure 4-1 , knowledge from the fundamental domains is adapted and refined as it moves upward to practical application, building environmental science capacity. Similarly, knowledge gaps and research needs identified in the applied fields inform and motivate new directions in fundamental research, as suggested by the arrow on the right.

The diverse aspects of basic and applied science and technology that support scientifically informed environmental management and public policy. Source: Adapted from McDaniels and Small 2004.

The committee found that STAR has supported almost all of these disciplines. The subjects of requests for applications (RFAs) were in almost every discipline with the exception of those in the bottom row ( Appendix C ). Human exposure and health effects, toxicology, risk analysis, innovative risk management, and systems modeling and decision support were some of the fields most commonly represented by the RFAs. The committee also noted that the RFA topics were highly interdisciplinary and few fell neatly into a single category. Examples of subjects in RFAs that arguably fell into a single field were valuation for environmental policy, case studies and experimental testbeds in environmental economics (environmental trading programs and methodologic advances in benefit-transfer methods), the development of environmental health outcome indicators, and sources and atmospheric formation of organic particulate matter ( Appendix C ).

STAR-supported research also contributed to a wide variety of these fields. The committee categorized the papers that it identified as having been cited more than 100 times in Google Scholar according to the fields of knowledge in Figure 4-1 ( Appendix D ). The papers extended across a wide spectrum of basic to applied fields needed for the generation and application of environmental knowledge; only the field of earth sciences was not covered. Some of the most common fields addressed by the papers were ecology, atmospheric sciences, climate sciences, human exposure and health effects, risk analysis, systems modeling and decision support, environmental economics, environmental engineering, and innovative risk management. The results of the categorization of papers identified funding in fields that often provided a clear pathway toward protecting human health and the environment—including the development of innovative technology (for example, Lee and Sigmund 2003 ; Cao et al. 2005 ; Karnik et al. 2005 ), innovative methods for risk management (for example, Salzman et al. 2001 ; Cason and Gangadharan 2004 ; Weber and Matthews 2008 ; Plevin et al. 2010 ), and innovative methods for communication and public participation (for example, Anton et al. 2004 ; Gunningham, et al. 2005 ; Teisl et al. 2008 ).

• DISTINCTIVE NATURE OF SCIENCE TO ACHIEVE RESULTS RESEARCH

The committee found that STAR's distinguishing characteristics lie not in the research topic areas that it supports, but that the program is used strategically by EPA to address critical gaps in knowledge related to human and ecosystem health issues. This strategic focus is important because the challenges associated with environmental protection comprise many interacting factors, on various spatial and temporal scales, often characterized by being difficult to define, and socially complex ( NRC 2012a ). Therefore addressing those challenges requires multi-disciplinary research that strives to understand social, economic, and environmental drivers that inform the approaches needed to devise optimal solutions. STAR has been distinctively targeted on these research needs.

Two major STAR supported efforts that have been used by EPA to address critical knowledge gaps are the various Air Research Centers ( Box 4-1 ) and the Children's Environmental Health and Disease Prevention Research Centers ( Box 4-2 ). Both of these research endeavors began in response to a critical research need having been identified by Congress or Federal Executive Order and have evolved over time as a result of the changing understanding of these topic areas. For example, the Air Research Centers began with looking at the health effects of exposure to airborne particulate matter, then expanded to evaluating exposure-response relationships to different concentrations of particulate matter, multi-pollutant interaction (such as particulate matter and gaseous pollutants), and are now looking at the influence of broad factors on local air quality and health. The Children's Environmental Health and Disease Prevention Research Centers began with examining at the influence of the chemical-physical environment on asthma and neurodevelopment, but over time many of the centers investigated new questions about possible relationships between environmental factors and other health outcomes such as obesity ( NIEHS/EPA 2013 ). The flexibility of the STAR program allowed EPA to address these critical research gaps.

Air Research Centers.

Children's Environmental Health and Disease Prevention Research Centers.

In addition to these large sustained efforts, STAR has been used by EPA to fill many other scientific knowledge gaps. An example occurred in 2006 when the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) recommended changing the indicator in the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) from PM 10 (PM <10 µm) to PM 10-2.5 (PM 10µm-2.5 µm) ( CASAC 2006 ). However, significant uncertainties were identified in understanding the links between PM 10-2.5 exposure and adverse health effects. As a result, EPA released a STAR RFA on the Source, Composition, and Health Effects of Coarse Particulate Matter in 2006, which awarded five grants which compared the heterogeneity, composition, sources and toxicity of PM 10-2.5 .

STAR research helped address scientific issues identified in an international public health effort in 2012. In 2010, the United Nation's Alliance, with backing from the U.S. government, launched the Global Alliance for Clean Cookstoves, which aimed to foster the adaptation of clean cookstoves and fuels in 100 million households by 2020 ( Martin et al. 2011 ). However, as more investment was being made in cookstove interventions, there were significant uncertainties about the feasibility of decreasing overall emissions and the real-world benefits of interventions for health and climate ( Hanna et al. 2012 ). STAR responded to these questions with the 2012 RFA, Measurements and Modeling for Quantifying Air Quality and Climatic Impacts of Residential Biomass or Coal Combustion for Cooking, Heating, and Lighting. As a result of the RFA, STAR is currently funding 6 research teams led by U.S. institutions working with a variety of academic, community, and government organizations in Alaska, China, India, Nepal, Mongolia, Ghana, Uganda, and Honduras. This research aims to generate technologies that will inform global efforts to decrease the impacts of household air pollution on health and the role of climate on as a modifying factor. Moreover, understanding cookstoves and residential energy demands may help answer questions about broader issues of sustainable energy development and consumption in the United States and in the developing world ( EPA 2015a ).

STAR has also addressed how new and emerging technologies may impact human health and the environment. For example, in the early 2000s, as the use of engineered nanoparticles became more prevalent, STAR, in collaboration with other federal research programs, released several RFAs aimed at understanding the potential health effects of the new materials. From 2003 to 2015, STAR released 9 RFAs on this topic which supported 78 grants. The research funded by these grants has evaluated the impacts of engineered nanoparticles very broadly in different environments, such as soil, water (aquifers), the food chain, and wastewater, and how alterations in the chemistry of engineered nanoparticles influence the potential for adverse human health and ecosystem impacts ( NRC 2013b ; EPA 2017 ).

STAR also has addressed new technologies through the evaluation of air sensors for citizen science. Recently, low-cost, portable sensors to measure air pollutants have allowed individuals and community groups to measure concentrations of various air pollutants. While these sensors can potentially provide helpful information, the accuracy and durability of these sensors have not been widely tested in a community framework ( Vallano et al. 2012 ). In response to this, EPA issued an RFA in 2014 titled Air Pollution Monitoring for Communities and awarded six grants which funded research teams to work with community groups to understand how low-cost, portable air sensors perform in real-world conditions.

The STAR program has addressed knowledge gaps that are identified on the basis of environmental emergencies. For example, after the Deep Water Horizon oil spill in 2010, STAR released an RFA in 2011 on the environmental effects and mitigation of oil spills. EPA has awarded STAR research grants to strengthen public health and ecosystem protection from oil spill contaminants in the Gulf of Mexico. From this RFA, STAR funded four grants, all of which partnered with Gulf state universities. The research teams collaborated with affected communities who helped identify risks posed by oil spills and obtained their input in the design of their research strategy. The goal of this effort was to minimize the risk of delays in treating oil spills and empower Gulf communities to participate in the decision-making process related to mitigation of environmental impacts.

The STAR program has also been used to address exposure science research needs and collaboration among agencies identified in the National Academies Exposure Science in the 21 st Century report ( NRC 2012b ). The STAR program released an RFA that resulted in five grants related to New Methods in 21st Century Exposure Science in 2015. The research supported by these grants is focused on developing new methods to characterize exposure to chemicals associated with consumer products in indoor environments ( EPA 2015b ). This program is complementary to the much larger Exposure Biology and the Exposome program at NIEHS, which has generally focused on creating tools and research capacity for detection of biomarkers and wearable sensor technology ( NIEHS 2016 ).

STAR announced an RFA on Indoor Air and Climate Change RFA announced in 2012 in response to the growing awareness that climate change may both introduce and worsen indoor environmental problems, and that there was a significant gap in knowledge between the intersection of indoor air quality, climate change, and health ( IOM 2011 ). The research supported by the grants awarded under this RFA aims to develop more energy efficient designs and ways to adapt buildings to climatic changes.

To encourage small water systems (systems that serve 10,000 or fewer people) to try novel approaches to addressing drinking water challenges, STAR has released two RFAs focused on innovation in small drinking water systems, Research and Demonstration of Innovative Drinking Water Treatment Technologies in Small Systems (2011) and National Centers for Innovation in Small Drinking Water Systems (2013). Research and Demonstration of Innovative Drinking Water Treatment Technologies in Small Systems led to 11 different grants which aimed to develop technologies that are sustainable and able to treat or mitigate groups of contaminants or contaminant precursors in drinking water sources and systems. The RFA National Centers for Innovation in Small Drinking Water Systems led to the creation of two National Research Centers which aim to develop and demonstrate innovative technologies to better reduce, control, and eliminate chemical or microbial contaminants in small water systems ( EPA 2016 ).

STAR research can also evaluate the possible adverse consequences of resource conservation practices aimed at environmental protection; in 2014, STAR released an RFA on human and ecologic health effects associated with water reuse and conservation practices. From this RFA, STAR awarded five grants; the goals of the grants are to measure health and ecological impacts of water conservation practices such as potable reuse and agricultural water reuse ( EPA 2014 ).

The examples show how EPA uses the STAR program to address important environmental challenges facing the nation. While other federal agencies can and have supported research in disciplines and topic areas that are somewhat similar to STAR, that research is often not directed toward addressing scientific questions related to clean air and drinking water, toxic substances, and ecosystem health. The ability of EPA to use STAR to address a variety of important research questions has decreased in recent years because STAR has not had the ability to release as many RFAs. In 2003, STAR released 12 individual investigator grant RFAs and one center RFA. In 2013 and 2014, STAR released five individual-investigator RFAs and two center RFAs each year. In 2015, it released only one individual-investigator RFA. Additionally, EPA reported instances in recent years where an RFA was developed, but grants were not awarded due to lack of available funds. Examples include an RFA titled “Children's Environmental Health and Disease Prevention Research Centers: understanding environmental factors to improve children's health in child care environments” (RFA developed in 2010 but never released), Developing the Next Generation of Air Quality Measurement Technology (RFA released in 2011, but cancelled during grant award phase), and Air Pollution Meteorology (RFA announced as upcoming on EPA website in 2012, but cancelled before applications were received). This lack of funding clearly limits the number of topics in which the STAR program can invest.

• CONCLUSIONS

EPA's mission to protect human health and the environment allows the agency to identify address complex questions about human health and the environment. STAR has been used strategically to support multidisciplinary research which addresses these questions. However, given the declining budget of STAR noted above and in Chapter 1 , its ability to support research is being diminished. For example, STAR has released fewer RFAs in recent years and thus not been able to address as many knowledge gaps. The committee is concerned this may impair our nation's ability to tackle important persistent and emerging complex environmental challenges.

• Anton WRQ, Deltas G, Khanna M. Incentives for environmental self-regulation and implications for environmental performance. J. Environ. Econom. Manage. 2004; 48 (1):632–654.
• Breysse PN, Delfino RJ, Dominici F, Elder ACP, Frampton MW, Froines JR, Geyh AS, Godleski JJ, Gold DR, Hopke PK, Koutrakis P, Li N, Oberdörster G, Pinkerton KE, Samet JM, Utell MJ, Wexler AS. U.S. EPA particulate matter research centers: Summary of research results for 2005-2011. Air Qual. Atmos. Health. 2013; 6 (2):333–355.
• Burke TA, Cascio WE, Costa DL, Deener K, Fontaine TD, Fulk FA, Jackson LE, Munns WR, Orme-Zavaleta J, Slimak MW, Zartarian VG. Rethinking environmental protection: Meeting the challenges of a changing world. Environ. Health Perspect. 2017; 125 (3):A43–A49. [ PMC free article : PMC5332174 ] [ PubMed : 28248180 ]
• Cao J, Elliott D, Zhang W. Perchlorate reduction by nanoscale iron particles. J. Nanopart. Res. 2005; 7 (4):499–506.
• CASAC (Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee). Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee Recommendations Concerning the Final National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC; Sep 29, 2006. 2006. [April 27, 2017]. Memo to Stephen Johnson, Administrator. https://yosemite ​.epa ​.gov/sab/sabproduct.nsf ​/1C69E987731CB775852571FC00499A10 ​/$File/casac-ltr-06-003 ​.pdf . EPA-CASAC-LTR-06-003.
• Cason TN, Gangadharan L. Auction design for voluntary conservation programs. Am. J. Agricult. Econ. 2004; 86 (5):1211–1217.
• EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). Human and Ecological Health Impacts Associated with Water Reuse and Conservation Practices. 2014. [April 27, 2017]. https://cfpub ​.epa.gov ​/ncer_abstracts/index ​.cfm/fuseaction/recipients ​.display/rfa_id/591 .
• EPA. STAR Measurements and Modeling for Quantifying Air Quality and Climatic Impacts of Residential Biomass or Coal Combustion for Cooking, Heating and Lighting Kick-off Meeting. 2015a. [April 27, 2017]. https://www ​.epa.gov/research-grants ​/star-measurements-and-modeling-quantifying-air-quality-and-climatic-impacts .
• EPA. STAR New Methods in 21st Century Exposure Science Kick-off Meeting. 2015b. [April 27, 2017]. https://www ​.epa.gov/research-grants ​/star-new-methods-21st-century-exposure-science-kick-meeting .
• EPA. STAR Clean Air Research Centers (CLARCs) Final Progress Review Webinar, June 6, 2016. 2016. [April 27, 2017]. https: ​//19january2017snapshot ​.epa.gov/researchgrants ​/star-clean-air-research-centers-clarcs-final-progress-review-webinar_html .
• EPA. Increasing Scientific Data on the Fate, Transport and Behavior of Engineered Nanomaterials in Selected Environmental and Biological Matrices. Extramural Research, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; 2017. [April 27, 2017]. https://cfpub ​.epa.gov ​/ncer_abstracts/index ​.cfm/fuseaction/recipients ​.display/rfa_id/534 .
• Fanning EW, Froines JR, Utell MJ, Lippmann M, Oberdörster G, Frampton M, Godleski J, Larson TV. Particulate matter (PM) research centers (1999-2005) and the role of interdisciplinary center-based research. Environmental Health Perspect. 2009; 117 (2):167–174. [ PMC free article : PMC2649215 ] [ PubMed : 19270783 ]
• Gauderman WJ, Gilliland GF, Vora H, Avol E, Stram D, McConnell R, Thomas D, Lurmann F, Margolis HG, Rappaport EB, Berhane K, Peters JM. Association between air pollution and lung function growth in southern California children: Results from a second cohort. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2002; 166 (1):76–84. [ PubMed : 12091175 ]
• Gauderman WJ, Urman R, Avol E, Berhane K, McConnell R, Rappaport E, Chang R, Lurmann F, Gilliland F. Association of improved air quality with lung development in children. N. Engl. J. Med. 2015; 372 (10):905–913. [ PMC free article : PMC4430551 ] [ PubMed : 25738666 ]
• Gunningham NA, Thornton D, Kagan RA. Motivating management: Corporate compliance in environmental protection. Law Policy. 2005; 27 (2):289–316.
• Hanna R, Duflo E, Greenstone M. NBER Working Paper 18033. 2012. [May 23, 2017]. Up in Smoke: The Influence of Household Behavior on the Long-Run Impact of Improved Cooking Stoves. http://www ​.nber.org/papers/w18033.pdf .
• IOM (Institute of Medicine). Climate Change, the Indoor Environment, and Health. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2011.
• Jerrett M, McConnell R, Chang R, Wolch J, Reynolds K, Lurmann F, Gilliland F, Berhane K. Automobile traffic around the home and attained body mass index: A longitudinal cohort study of children aged 10-18 years. Prev. Med. 2010; 50 (S1):S50–S58. [ PMC free article : PMC4334364 ] [ PubMed : 19850068 ]
• Karnik BS, Davies SHR, Chen KC, Jaglowski DR, Baumann MJ, Masten SJ. Effects of ozonation on the permeate flux of nanocrystalline ceramic membranes. Water Res. 2005; 39 (4):728–734. [ PubMed : 15707646 ]
• Lee S, Sigmund WM. Formation of anatase TiO 2 nanoparticles on carbon nanotubes. Chem. Commun. 2003; 6 :780–781. [ PubMed : 12703820 ]
• Lu KD, Breysse PN, Diette GB, Curtin-Brosnan J, Aloe C, Williams DL, Peng RD, McCormack MC, Matsui EC. Being overweight increases susceptibility to indoor pollutants among urban children with asthma. J. Allergy Clin. Immunol. 2013; 131 (4):1017–1023. [ PMC free article : PMC3889705 ] [ PubMed : 23403052 ]
• Martin WJ, Glass RI, Balbus JM, Collins FS. A major environmental cause of death. Science. 2011; 334 (6053):180–181. [ PMC free article : PMC5101929 ] [ PubMed : 21998373 ]
• McDaniels TL, Small MJ. Risk Analysis and Society: An Interdisciplinary Characterization of the Field. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2004.
• NIEHS (National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences). Exposure Biology and the Exposome. 2016. [April 27, 2017]. https://www ​.niehs.nih ​.gov/research/supported/exposure/bio/
• NIEHS/EPA. NIEHS/EPA Children's Environmental Health and Disease Prevention Research Centers: Protecting Children's Health for a Lifetime. 2013. [April 27, 2017]. https://www ​.niehs.nih ​.gov/research/supported ​/assets/docs/a_c ​/fact_sheet_niehsepa ​_centers_for_childrens ​_environmental_health ​_and_disease_prevention ​_research_protecting ​_childrens_health ​_for_a_lifetime_508.pdf .
• NRC (National Research Council). Immediate Priorities and Long-Range Research Portfolio. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 1998. Research Priorities for Airborne Particulate Matter: I. [ PubMed : 25101457 ]
• NRC. Science for Environmental Protection: The Road Ahead. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2012a.
• NRC. Exposure Science in the 21st Century: A Vision and a Strategy. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2012b. [ PubMed : 24901193 ]
• NRC. Research Progress on Environmental, Health, and Safety Aspects of Engineered Nanomaterials. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2013.
• Perera FP, Tang D, Wang S, Vishnevetsky J, Zhang B, Diaz D, Camann D, Rauh V. Prenatal polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) exposure and child behavior at age 6-7 years. Environ. Health Perspect. 2012; 120 (6):921–926. [ PMC free article : PMC3385432 ] [ PubMed : 22440811 ]
• Plevin RJ, Jones AD, Torn MS, Gibbs HK. Greenhouse gas emissions from biofuels' indirect land use change are uncertain but may be much greater than previously estimated. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2010; 44 (21):8015–8021. [ PubMed : 20942480 ]
• Salzman J, Thompson BH Jr., Daily GC. Protecting ecosystem services: Science, economics, and law. Stanford Environ. Law J. 2001; 20 :309–332.
• Shankardass K, McConnell R, Jerrett M, Milam J, Richardson J, Berhane K. Parental stress increases the effect of traffic-related air pollution on childhood asthma incidence. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2009; 106 (30):12406–12411. [ PMC free article : PMC2718368 ] [ PubMed : 19620729 ]
• Teisl MF, Rubin J, Noblet CL. Non-dirty dancing? Interactions between eco-labels and consumers. J. Econ. Psychol. 2008; 29 (2):140–159.
• Vallano D, Snyder E, Kilaru V, Thoma E, Williams R, Hagler G, Watkins T. EM (December). 2012. Air pollution sensors: Highlights from an EPA workshop on the evolution and revolution in low cost participatory air monitoring; pp. 28–33.
• Weber CL, Matthews HS. Food-miles and the relative climate impacts of food choices in the United States. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2008; 42 (10):3508–3513. [ PubMed : 18546681 ]
• Cite this Page National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; Division on Earth and Life Studies; Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology; Committee on the Review of Environmental Protection Agency's Science to Achieve Results Research Grants Program. A Review of the Environmental Protection Agency's Science to Achieve Results Research Program. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2017 Jun 15. 4, Research for Addressing the Environmental Protection Agency's Priority Scientific Questions.
• PDF version of this title (9.0M)

In this Page

Related information.

• PMC PubMed Central citations
• PubMed Links to PubMed

Recent Activity

• Research for Addressing the Environmental Protection Agency's Priority Scientifi... Research for Addressing the Environmental Protection Agency's Priority Scientific Questions - A Review of the Environmental Protection Agency's Science to Achieve Results Research Program

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

Connect with NLM

National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894

Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure

Help Accessibility Careers

• News, Stories & Speeches
• Get Involved
• Structure and leadership
• Committee of Permanent Representatives
• UN Environment Assembly
• Funding and partnerships
• Policies and strategies
• Evaluation Office
• Secretariats and Conventions
• Asia and the Pacific
• Latin America and the Caribbean
• New York Office
• North America
• Climate action
• Nature action
• Chemicals and pollution action
• Digital Transformations
• Disasters and conflicts
• Environment under review
• Environmental rights and governance
• Extractives
• Fresh Water
• Green economy
• Ocean, seas and coasts
• Resource efficiency
• Sustainable Development Goals
• Youth, education and environment
• Publications & data

When we protect nature, nature protects us

In early 2019, The United Nations General Assembly declared 2021–2030 the UN Decade on Ecosystem Restoration .

Convened by the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations , the plan is to remove up to 26 gigatons of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere by bringing at least 350 million hectares of degraded landscapes under active restoration by 2030.

So it was with optimism that a September Global Landscape Forum meeting in New York began with Germany’s Director General for Nature Conservation and Sustainable Use of Natural Resources and Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety at the German Ministry (BMU), Christiane Paulus , announcing financial support for the decade’s activities. 

Next, UNEP Executive Director Inger Andersen praised the “phenomenal leadership” that Germany has shown in committing to the decade, and warned that change must be galvanized for action among all for restoration.

“It is so very clear we need to shift our ways and change our interaction with nature,” she said. “In this room you have energy, commitment, solutions. We can do this. Let’s just do this,” she said.

She noted the importance of both conservation of remaining forests and other natural habitat, and the need for restoration: “two hands clapping, both are critical” to take the restoration agenda forward, she said.

“Nature is our greatest ally. Nature is under threat,” she said. Already, 3.2 billion people are affected by land degradation . Every year, 10 per cent of Gross Domestic Product is lost soil erosion, pollution and biodiversity loss, mostly caused by unsustainable agriculture.

There is a human, environmental and economic cost to land degradation, she said, yet nature is also the solution.

“Fasten your seatbelts,” she said. “We hold in our hands this frightening responsibility, this awesome responsibility, to forever change the very trajectory of our planet.”

Planting trees and decarbonizing go together, and action is needed within every sector to green cities and bring down temperatures. “Because when we protect nature, nature protects us,” she said.  

Scientists say that  restoring the world’s forests  by planting a trillion trees is  by far the most promising --and cost-effective--means of tackling climate change. But this has to be done right , with the right trees and the right place and time.

Beyond sequestering carbon, these trees can guard against extreme weather events; protect endangered species; and bring shelter, food, money and cultural preservation to communities around the world.

Yet ecosystems also include wetlands; the  Arctic peatlands , which make up some 30 percent of the Earth’s land surface and store 8 percent of all below-ground carbon, as well as the oceans, mountains and drylands.

Restoration includes creating green jobs

“The decade on restoration must include co-benefits for the Sustainable Development Goals that go way beyond climate change,” said Tim Christophersen, head of UNEP’s Freshwater, Land and Climate Branch and focal point to prepare the UN Decade.

Restoration includes creating green jobs, helping restore biodiversity, helping farmers make better incomes, stabilizing water supply for big cities, and stabilizing food supplies, he said.

“The UNEP Executive Director has made it clear that US$800 billion to restore 350 million hectares sounds like a lot of money, but it really isn’t,” he added, speaking at the Global Landscape Forum.

“It’s two years’ worth of fossil fuel subsidies. So, we have to help countries to redirect public money into this and encourage more private money to flow in the same direction, towards nature and towards restoration.”

“The same could be said for agricultural subsidies. The world spends about 1 million dollars per minute on agricultural subsidies that are often driving biodiversity loss and driving climate change. We can re-programme those subsidies to regenerate agriculture and restoration.

“There is amazing new technology which helps large funds to help small farmers, through blockchain for example. So, we have the architecture now to enable even smallholder farmers to access capital, but all kinds of investments are still needed. The unique power of the UN is to convene, give very clear policy guidance, encourage market signals and the shifting of fiscal policies.”

Philippe Zaouati, Chief Executive Officer of Mirova, an investment banking firm which helps companies target global investment to minimize risk with increased responsibility, said:

“We need to look at the macro and micro level. We used to look at big investments and corporates. In the face of new economic models which have not yet reached the level of maturity… we need public players, private sector to work together.

 “Today, the bulk of money is still going to traditional investments,” he added. “We have to create new indices, new benchmarks and new targets, and invest in the world that want to see in the coming decades.”

Others pointed to massive efforts and action on solutions already under way.  Susan Chomba, a social scientist at the World Agroforestry Centre, said research is needed to provide policymakers with “hard evidence” on restoration potential.

“It’s not just about tree planting, but restoration includes livestock management… to restore degraded land. Land restoration is about people… we can capture their livelihood needs and aspirations… bringing women to the table--or under a tree.”

Stephen Fern, Chairman of the Board of G9 Ark , spoke of the Grand African Savannah green-up programme, a US$85 million project to support two million households to restore two million hectares over the next 5 years – the biggest grassroot restoration project in sub-Saharan Africa.

“Greta [Thunberg] asked my generation to act like the house is on fire,” he said. “Well the fire brigade is here,” he said.

• Agriculture

Further Resources

• Youth shape future of U.N. Decade on Ecosystem Restoration at Global Landscapes Forum
• UNEP Frontiers 2018/19 Chapter 3 Permafrost Peatlands

Related Content

Related Sustainable Development Goals

© 2024 UNEP Terms of Use Privacy   Report Project Concern Report Scam Contact Us

Nature provides many key benefits, from a stable climate to clean air, that may be at risk, a new study warns.

• ENVIRONMENT

Half of all land must be kept in a natural state to protect Earth

New science says land conservation must double by 2030 to prevent dangerous warming and unravelling of ecosystems.

World leaders must increase their commitments to conserving land and water, and quickly, if a stable climate and high quality of life are to be preserved in the near future, a new scientific study argues.

Countries should double their protected zones to 30 percent of the Earth’s land area, and add 20 percent more as climate stabilization areas, for a total of 50 percent of all land kept in a natural state, scientists conclude. All of this needs to be done by 2030 to have a real hope of keeping climate change under the “danger zone” target of 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 degrees Celsius) and to prevent the world’s ecosystems from unravelling—according to an ambitious plan called the Global Deal for Nature.

“The benefits of protecting 50 percent of nature by 2030 are tremendous,” says Eric Dinerstein, director of biodiversity and wildlife solutions at RESOLVE , a non-profit group, and lead author of a new paper published Friday in Science Advances titled “ A Global Deal For Nature: Guiding principles, milestones, and targets .”

This is the first science-based plan with clear milestones on why it’s vital to achieve these goals and how it could be done, says Dinerstein. It’s not widely understood that large areas of forests, grasslands, and other natural areas are needed to soak up carbon emissions , he adds. Intact forests, and especially tropical forests, sequester twice as much carbon as planted monocultures, for example.

Only when 50 percent of the Earth’s terrestrial areas are protected, along with substantial cuts in fossil-fuel use and major increases in renewable energy , will we have a good chance of meeting the Paris climate target of less than 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 degrees Celsius) of warming, the scientists argue. And if warming goes beyond 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit (1.5 degrees Celsius), we lose some of those natural systems and the services they provide humanity, including their ability to absorb carbon, Dinerstein says.

“We can’t have a safer climate without protecting 50 percent of the Earth and vice versa.”

“Without them, there is no us.”

“Every morsel of food, every sip of water, the air we breathe is the result of work done by other species. Nature gives us everything we need to survive,” says Enric Sala , a National Geographic Explorer-in-Residence and lead of the National Geographic Society's work as part of the Campaign for Nature , a partnership with the Wyss Campaign for Nature to inspire the protection of 30 percent of the planet by 2030.

Related: Stunning photos of the Earth

“Without them, there is no us,” said Sala, noting that we are losing “them” at an accelerating rate and are close to a tipping point.

“If we had to manufacture our own oxygen it would cost 1,600 times the entire global GDP—if it were even possible,” said Sala, who is a co-author of the Global Deal for Nature study.

Countries have already committed to protecting 17 percent on land and 10 percent of the oceans by 2020 under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Yet most countries are not on target to meet the 2020 goals. The U.S. is not a signatory to the convention. The head of the CBD, Cristiana Pașca Palmer, has said half of the world must be protected and nations will consider this proposal at a major meeting in China in 2020.

The authors of the new Global Deal for Nature study lay out how the 30 percent protection could be reached in 67 percent of Earth’s 846 terrestrial ecoregions by 2030. Others would need some restoration.

You May Also Like

Coral reefs in the Philippines are some of the world’s most vibrant—but in peril

Palau’s waters are some of the most biodiverse in the world—thanks to its defenders

Meet one face of the climate crisis

Notably, these are not meant to be “no go” areas, but rather areas protected from resource extraction and land conversion. Sustainable uses would be permitted in all but the most sensitive areas. Communities around protected areas are generally better off than those farther away, recent research in 34 developing countries has found .

Saving land for climate

Climate stabilization areas are lands that are currently intact but largely outside of the traditional protected area system. Governments only need to prevent activities that impact their natural function. Since 37 percent of all remaining natural lands are indigenous lands, it is crucial they are supported in the Global Deal for Nature, the study said.

Although the Global Deal for Nature is focused on land, the study authors support the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) and its member organization’s call for 30 percent protection of the oceans by 2030. The world’s coral reefs are already suffering with just 1 C of warming, the team notes. Scientists fear few will survive should temperatures exceed 2 C. Yet corals aren’t just colorful to look at, they are the nurseries for much of the ocean’s fish and other marine life on which one or more billion people depend .

“The Global Deal for Nature is an ambitious, radical call to action to protect nature,” says Justin Winters, executive director of the Leonardo DiCaprio Foundation, who was not involved with the study. However, the goal of protecting half the planet is not going to happen without public understanding and involvement, she adds.

In 2017, the foundation launched One Earth Initiative to help create a vision of the future based on 100 percent renewable energy, protection and restoration of 50 percent of the world’s lands and oceans, and a transition to regenerative agriculture.

The foundation is working on showing how our wellbeing is connected to nature, Winters said. “We hope to inspire people to take action.” Actions can take many forms, she notes, from helping get kids outside to transforming a lawn into a wildlife garden to marching in protests and civil disobedience.

Climate change, loss of species, and ecosystem decline have spawned a new protest movement called Extinction Rebellion . It’s a loosely organized international network using “non-violent direct action to persuade governments to act on the climate and ecological emergency.” Dozens of protests have been held in 25 countries since its launch on October 31, 2018 in London, England.

The costs of conservation

Taking the necessary nature conservation measures to protect half the Earth could cost around $100 billion per year, the study estimates.

The money is there, but only if people understand the need, Sala says. He notes that nearly a billion dollars was pledged to rebuild France’s Notre-Dame Cathedral less than two days after a devastating fire . The U.S. Federal Reserve bank bailout in 2009 amounted to more than $29 trillion , according to one study. A trillion is a thousand billion, so 29 trillion dollars could fund 290 years of conservation efforts that protect half the Earth and help stabilize the climate.

The economic benefits of such an investment in nature could be in the trillions of dollars, studies show. Perhaps more importantly, we don’t really have a choice, says Sala.

“We have just ten years to save ourselves.”

Related Topics

• BIODIVERSITY
• MARINE SANCTUARIES
• CLIMATE CHANGE

Don't cut them down: Letting dead trees rot can help make new life

Streetlights are influencing nature—from how leaves grow to how insects eat

How this ancient dolphin population thrives in one of Italy’s most polluted cities

In the heart of the Amazon, this pristine wilderness shows nature’s resilience

Behold the surreal magic and mystery of slime molds

• Best of the World
• Environment
• Paid Content

History & Culture

• History & Culture
• Out of Eden Walk
• Mind, Body, Wonder
• Here Not There
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• Your US State Privacy Rights
• Children's Online Privacy Policy
• Interest-Based Ads
• About Nielsen Measurement
• Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
• Nat Geo Home
• Attend a Live Event
• Book a Trip
• Inspire Your Kids
• Shop Nat Geo
• Visit the D.C. Museum
• Learn About Our Impact
• Support Our Mission
• Advertise With Us
• Customer Service
• Renew Subscription
• Manage Your Subscription
• Work at Nat Geo
• Sign Up for Our Newsletters
• Contribute to Protect the Planet

Copyright © 1996-2015 National Geographic Society Copyright © 2015-2024 National Geographic Partners, LLC. All rights reserved

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

• Gen Z, Millennials Stand Out for Climate Change Activism, Social Media Engagement With Issue
• 2. Climate, energy and environmental policy

Table of Contents

• 1. Climate engagement and activism
• 3. Local impact of climate change, environmental problems
• Acknowledgments
• Methodology
• Appendix: Detailed charts and tables

A majority of Americans consider climate change a priority today so that future generations can have a sustainable planet, and this view is held across generations.

Looking to the future, the public is closely divided on what it will take to address climate change: While about half say it’s likely major lifestyle changes in the U.S. will be needed to deal with climate change impacts, almost as many say it’s more likely new developments in technology will address most of the problems cause by climate change.

On policy, majorities prioritize the use of renewable energy and back the expanded use of specific sources like wind and solar. Americans offer more support than opposition to a range of policies aimed at reducing the effects of climate change, including key climate-related aspects of President Joe Biden’s recent infrastructure proposal. Still, Americans do not back a complete break with carbon: A majority says oil and gas should still be part of the energy mix in the U.S., and about half oppose phasing out gas-powered vehicles by 2035.

Overall, 64% of U.S. adults say reducing the effects of climate change needs to be “a top priority to ensure a sustainable planet for future generations, even if that means fewer resources for addressing other important problems today.” By contrast, 34% say that reducing the effects of climate change needs to be “a lower priority, with so many other important problems facing Americans today, even if that means more climate problems for future generations.”

There are stark partisan differences over this sentiment. Nearly nine-in-ten Democrats (87%) say efforts to reduce the effects of climate change need to be prioritized today to ensure a sustainable planet. By contrast, 61% of Republicans say that efforts to reduce the effects of climate change need to be a lower priority, with so many other important problems facing Americans today. (Democrats and Republicans include those who lean to each party.)

Asked to look to the future 50 years from now, 51% of Americans say it’s more likely that major changes to everyday life in the U.S. will be needed to address the problems caused by global climate change. By contrast, 46% say it’s more likely that new technology will be able to address most of the problems caused by global climate change.

Most Democrats (69%) expect that in 50 years major lifestyle changes in the U.S. will be needed to address the problems caused by climate change. By contrast, among Republicans, two-thirds (66%) say it’s likelier that new technology will be able to address most climate change problems in the U.S. Among Republicans, this view is widely held (81%) among the majority who do not see climate change as an important personal concern; Republicans who express greater personal concern about climate change are more likely to say major changes to everyday life in the future will be needed to address problems caused by climate change.

Overall, majorities across generations believe that climate change should be a top priority today to ensure a sustainable planet for future generations. Generational divisions are more prominent among Republicans than Democrats, however.

Among Republicans, about half of Gen Zers (49%) and Millennials (48%) give top priority to reducing the effect of climate change today, even if that means fewer resources to deal with other important problems. By contrast, majorities of Gen X (61%) and Baby Boomer and older Republicans (71%) say reducing the effects of climate change needs to a lower priority today, given the other problems Americans are facing.

Generational differences among Democrats on this question are modest, with clear majorities giving priority to dealing with climate change today.

Majority of Americans prioritize developing alternative energy sources, but only a third would phase out all fossil fuels

Burning fossil fuels for electricity and in cars and trucks are among the primary sources of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change. Americans broadly favor increasing the use of renewable energy sources, but a majority reject the idea of phasing out fossil fuel energy sources completely. And Americans are about evenly divided on the idea of phasing out the production of new gasoline cars and trucks by 2035.

There are familiar partisan divisions over nearly every aspect of energy policy, particularly when it comes to fossil fuels. Political divides have widened over the past year as Republican support for alternative energy sources – including wind and solar power – has fallen while support for expanding offshore oil drilling, hydraulic fracturing and coal mining has ticked up.

Within both parties, Gen Zers and Millennials are more supportive of proposals to move away from fossil fuels than their older counterparts.

A majority of Americans (71%) continue to say that the U.S. should prioritize developing alternative energy, while a much smaller share (27%) prioritizes expanding the production of oil, coal and natural gas.

The share of Republicans who prioritize developing alternative energy sources over expanding the production of fossil fuels has fallen 18 percentage points in the past year. As a result, Republicans are now closely divided between these two energy priorities. Democrats remain near consensus levels in their support for prioritizing development of alternative energy levels.

Among Republicans, there are significant generational differences in support for increasing the development of renewable energy sources. Majorities of Gen Z (63%) and Millennial (62%) Republicans prioritize increased development of renewable sources, such as wind and solar. Smaller shares of Gen X Republicans (50%) and just 33% of Baby Boomer and older Republicans prioritize this approach over the expanding of fossil fuel development. For more details, including longer-term trends over time, see the Appendix .

Republicans and Democrats also differ over the best way to encourage reliance on renewable energy sources. Most Democrats (81%) continue to see a need for government regulations to increase reliance on renewable energy. On the other hand, two-thirds of Republicans (67%) say the private marketplace alone will be enough. See the Appendix for details.

In keeping with support for prioritizing the development of renewable energy, most Americans favor expanding solar panel farms (84%) and wind turbine farms (77%). By contrast, majorities oppose more coal mining (61%), more hydraulic fracturing (56%) and more offshore oil and gas drilling (55%).

Americans are divided over expanding nuclear power: 50% favor more nuclear power plants, while 47% are opposed.

Republican support for expanding solar power is down 11 points in the last year (from 84% to 73%), and support for wind power has fallen 13 points (from 75% to 62%). Democrats’ widely held support for increasing both energy sources remains largely unchanged.

In addition, there has been an increase since 2020 in the shares of Republicans who support expanding hydraulic fracturing of natural gas (up 10 points), offshore oil and gas drilling (up 6 points) and coal mining (up 6 points). See the Appendix for details.

Even so, younger Republicans remain less likely than their older counterparts to support expanding fossil fuel sources, consistent with past Center surveys.

For instance, 79% of Baby Boomer and older Republicans support more offshore oil and gas drilling, while roughly half (48%) of Gen Z Republicans say the same (a difference of 31 points). There are similar divides over hydraulic fracturing, the primary extraction technique for natural gas (74% of Baby Boomer and older Republicans favor vs. 44% of Gen Z Republicans).

Nearly two-thirds of Americans support using a mix of fossil fuel and renewable energy sources, younger adults more inclined to phase out fossil fuels completely

While a large share of U.S. adults would prioritize alternative energy development over expanding the use of fossil fuels, most adults are not inclined to give up reliance on fossil fuels altogether.

The survey finds 64% of Americans say they support ongoing use of oil, coal and natural gas as well as renewable energy sources, while a third (33%) say the country should phase out the use of fossil fuels completely.

There are sharp differences of opinion about this issue by party. Most Republicans (86%) say that the U.S. should rely on a mix of fossil fuel and renewable energy sources. Democrats are about evenly divided, with 47% in favor of using a mix of sources and 50% calling for a phase out of fossil fuels. About two-thirds of liberal Democrats (65%) support phasing out fossil fuels but fewer moderate and conservative Democrats say the same (39%).

There are also generational divisions on this issue, with younger generations more likely to support giving up fossil fuel use over time. In fact, majorities of Democratic Gen Zers (60%) and Millennials (57%) support phasing out fossil fuel use completely.

Americans are closely divided over phasing out gas-powered vehicles; Democrats, younger adults are more receptive to the idea

Climate advocates point to electric vehicles as a way to cut down on carbon emissions and reduce climate change. Americans are about equally divided on the idea of phasing out production of gasoline cars and trucks by 2035. A little under half (47%) say they would favor such a proposal, while 51% are opposed.

As with other proposals on climate and energy issues, partisans express opposing viewpoints. About two-thirds of Democrats (68%) support phasing out gasoline cars by 2035, while 76% of Republicans oppose this.

Most U.S. adults oppose oil drilling in ANWR but are more divided over Keystone XL decision

The issue of whether or not to allow oil and gas drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge has long been a controversy in energy policy. Overall, most Americans (70%) oppose the idea, while 27% are in favor.

Nearly all Democrats (89%) say they oppose allowing oil and gas drilling in the ANWR. Republicans are about evenly divided, with half in favor of allowing this and 48% opposed.

One of Biden’s  first actions as president  was revoking the permit for the Keystone XL pipeline. The pipeline would have carried oil from Canada into the U.S.

About half of Americans (49%) say canceling the pipeline was the right decision, while 45% say it was the wrong decision.

Most Democrats (78%) say it was the right decision, while most Republicans (80%) say otherwise. See details in the  Appendix .

But there are also generational dynamics in views about gasoline-powered vehicles, with younger adults more supportive than older adults of phasing out gas cars and trucks. Narrow majorities of Gen Zers (56%) and Millennials (57%) support such a proposal, compared with 38% of Baby Boomer and older Americans. This pattern holds within both parties, though sizable partisan divides remain across all generations. See the Appendix for a look at how these generational and partisan divides compare across measures.

The public is broadly familiar with electric vehicles: About nine-in-ten have heard either a lot (30%) or a little (62%) about them. When it comes to first-hand experience, 7% of adults say they currently have an electric or hybrid vehicle; 93% say they do not.

People who say they have heard a lot about electric vehicles are closely divided over the idea of phasing out gas-powered cars and trucks by a margin of 52% in favor to 48% opposed. Not surprisingly, those who currently own an electric or hybrid vehicle are largely in favor of this idea (68% vs. 31% opposed).

Broad public support for a number of policies to address climate change, including some proposed in Biden infrastructure plan

In late March, the Biden administration announced a $2 trillion infrastructure plan with several elements they argue would help reduce the effects of climate change. The new Center survey finds majorities of Americans support a number of proposals to address global climate change, including three specific elements in Biden’s infrastructure plan.

There are sharp partisan divisions over many of these proposals, as expected. In addition, there are concerns, particularly among Democrats, that Biden’s policy proposals will not go far enough in efforts to reduce the effects of climate change.

Majorities of U.S. adults support a range of approaches to address climate change

The new Center survey finds majorities back three specific elements of Biden’s infrastructure plan. More than seven-in-ten Americans (74%) favor a proposed requirement for power companies to use more energy from renewable sources, such as solar and wind, to reduce carbon emissions. A smaller majority – 62% – favors federal spending to build a network of electric vehicle charging stations across the country in order to increase the use of electric cars and trucks.

And 63% of Americans support the idea of raising corporate taxes to pay for more energy efficient buildings and improved roads and bridges, a key funding mechanism in Biden’s infrastructure proposal.

Biden has closely tied his climate-focused infrastructure proposals with economic and job growth. Half of U.S. adults think that the Biden administration’s plan to rebuild the nation’s infrastructure in ways that are aimed at reducing the effects of climate change will help the economy. Three-in-ten think this will hurt the economy, and 18% say it will make no difference.

Americans continue to broadly support a number of longer-standing proposals to reduce the effects of climate change. Nine-in-ten Americans favor planting additional trees to absorb carbon dioxide emissions. About eight-in-ten (81%) favor providing a tax credit for businesses that develop technology that can capture and store carbon emissions before they enter the atmosphere. Both of these ideas were part of a set of policies supported by congressional Republicans last year .

Large majorities of Americans also favor tougher restrictions on power plant carbon emissions (76%), taxing corporations based on the amount of carbon emissions they produce (70%) and tougher fuel-efficiency standards for automobiles and trucks (70%).

54% of Democrats think Biden administration’s climate policies will not go far enough

Three months into the Biden administration, there is no clear consensus over the administration’s approach on climate change. About four-in-ten Americans (41%) think the Biden administration’s policies to reduce the effects of climate change will not go far enough. Roughly three-in-ten (29%) think the Biden administration will go too far, and a similar share (28%) say the administration’s approach will be about right.

Republicans and Democrats have far different expectations for the Biden’s administration policies on climate change. A narrow majority of Democrats and those who lean to the Democratic Party (54%) –including 63% of liberal Democrats – think the administration’s policies will not go far enough to reduce the effects of climate change.

In contrast, six-in-ten Republicans and Republican-leaning independents say the Biden administration’s policies will go too far, including 74% of conservative Republicans.

There are some generational differences in views on this this issue among Republicans, in line with differences over the importance of addressing climate change. About as many Gen Z Republicans say Biden’s climate policies will not go far enough (35%) as say the policies will go too far (38%). By comparison, a 72% majority of Republicans in the Baby Boomer or older generations think the Biden administration will go too far on climate change.

When it comes to views about proposals aimed at reducing climate change, however, there are few differences of opinion across generations among either party. Yet large differences remain between Republicans and Democrats overall.

Democrats’ views about five proposals aimed at reducing the effects of climate change are uniformly positive. Roughly 85% to 95% of Democrats support each.

Republicans and Republican leaners are most supportive of proposals to absorb carbon emissions by planting large numbers of trees (88%), followed by a proposal to provide a corporate tax credit for carbon-capture technology (73%). A majority of the GOP (58%) favor tougher restrictions on carbon emissions from power plants. About half of Republicans favor taxing corporate carbon emissions (50%) or tougher fuel-efficiency standards for cars and trucks (49%).

There are no divisions within the GOP by generation across these issues, though ideological divides are often sharp. For example, 65% of moderate and liberal Republicans favor tougher fuel-efficiency standards for cars and trucks, compared with 40% of conservative Republicans.

Republicans and Democrats are also deeply divided over climate-focused proposals in the Biden administration’s infrastructure plan.

Large majorities of Democrats favor requiring power companies to use more energy from renewable sources (92%), raising corporate taxes to pay for energy efficient buildings and improved roads (84%) and building a network of electric vehicle charging stations across the country (82%).

About half of Republicans (52%) support requiring power companies to use more energy from renewable sources. There is less support for federal spending to build a nationwide network of electric vehicle charging stations (38%). An equal share of Republicans (38%) support the idea of raising taxes on corporations to pay for more energy efficient buildings and better roads, although more moderates and liberals in the GOP (59%) than conservatives (27%) support this idea.

There is comparatively more support for these proposals among younger Republicans, particularly for federal spending to build electric vehicle charging stations and requirements for power plants to use more renewable sources.

Republicans and Democrats at odds over economic impact of Biden’s infrastructure plan

Democrats are largely optimistic that the Biden administration’s plan to rebuild the nation’s infrastructure in ways aimed at reducing the effects of climate change will help the economy. About eight-in-ten Democrats (78%) say this.

Among Republicans, a majority (59%) thinks this proposed plan will hurt the economy, while only about two-in-ten (18%) say it will help. Conservative Republicans (71%) are especially inclined to say the climate-focused infrastructure proposal will hurt the economy.

Generational differences are largely modest but occur in both parties. Baby Boomer Republicans are the most pessimistic about the plan’s economic impact, while Boomer Democrats are the most optimistic that the plan will help the economy.

What are important considerations to Americans in climate proposals?

When it comes to proposals to reduce the effects of global climate change, protecting the environment for future generations and increasing jobs and economic growth are the top considerations Americans would like to see in policy proposals.

Asked to think about what is important to them in proposals to reduce the effects of climate change, 64% of the public says protecting the quality of the environment for future generations is a very important consideration to them personally; 28% say it’s somewhat important to them and just 6% say it’s not too or not at all important to them.

A majority (60%) also says that increasing job and economic growth is a very important consideration to them personally when it comes to proposals to reduce the effects of climate change.

About half (52%) say keeping consumer costs low is a very important consideration to them personally in climate proposals. Making sure proposals help lower-income communities is seen as a very important consideration by 45% of the public.

About a third (34%) say getting to net-zero carbon emissions as quickly as possible is a very important consideration to them personally. Joe Biden has set a goal for the U.S. to reach net-zero emissions by 2050.

Limiting the burden of regulations on businesses is seen as a very important climate policy consideration by 24% of the public – the lowest share who say this across the six items asked in the survey. However, majorities view all six factors, including limiting the regulatory burden on businesses, as at least somewhat important considerations in climate proposals.

Partisans have differing priorities when it comes to climate change proposals. Among Republicans, increasing job and economic growth (65% very important) and keeping consumer costs low (61%) are their top considerations. Among Democrats, protecting the quality of the environment for future generations is their clear top consideration (79% very important), followed by making sure proposals help lower-income communities (59%) and increasing job and economic growth (58%). About half of Democrats (51%) say getting to net-zero carbon emissions as quickly as possible is very important to them.

Public sees actions from businesses, ordinary Americans as insufficient on climate change

Americans see a range of actors as falling short in efforts to help reduce the effects of global climate change. The public is broadly critical of the lack of action from large businesses and the energy industry – but also views elected officials, as well as ordinary Americans, as failing to do their part.

Nearly seven-in-ten adults (69%) say large businesses and corporations are doing too little to help reduce the effects of global climate change, while just 21% say they are doing about the right amount and very few (8%) say they are doing too much to address climate change. Similarly, a majority of the public (62%) says the energy industry is doing too little to help reduce the effects of global climate change.

The public also extends criticism on climate inaction to Americans themselves and the officials they vote into elected office. Overall, 66% say ordinary Americans are doing too little to help reduce the effects of climate change, and 60% say this about their state’s elected officials. A separate question that asks about the actions of the federal government across a range of environmental areas finds that 59% say the federal government is doing too little on climate change.

Americans are less critical of their own individual actions in helping to address climate change: Roughly half (48%) believe they, themselves, are doing about the right amount to help reduce the effects of climate change. Still, almost as many (47%) say they are doing too little to help.

When it comes to the role of environmental advocacy organizations, 48% say they are doing about the right amount to help reduce the effects of climate change, compared with 29% who say they are doing too little and 22% who say they are doing too much.

There are stark partisan differences in views of the role groups and individuals are playing to help reduce the effects of climate change. Large majorities of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents say large businesses (85%), ordinary Americans (82%), the energy industry (80%) and their state elected officials (79%) are doing too little to help reduce climate change impacts. By contrast, about half of Republicans and Republican leaners or fewer say these actors are doing too little to address climate change. Republicans are much more likely to say most of these groups are doing about the right amount than to say they are doing too much to address climate change.

Generational differences in views are most pronounced on this question within the GOP. In general, Gen Z and Millennial Republicans are more likely than older Republicans to say groups and individuals are doing too little to help reduce the effects of climate change. For instance, 57% of Gen Z and 59% of Millennial Republicans say large businesses are doing too little to help address climate change, compared with 50% of Gen X Republicans and 43% of Baby Boomer and older Republicans.

A 54% majority of U.S. adults see climate scientists’ role on policy as too limited, though some have doubts about scientists’ understanding

As the Biden administration, Congress and state and local governments debate how best to address climate change, 54% of Americans think climate scientists have too little influence on policy debates about climate change. Smaller shares say climate scientists have about the right amount (22%) or too much (22%) influence on climate policy.

At the same time, Americans appear to have reservations about climate scientists’ expertise and understanding. Only about two-in-ten Americans (18%) say climate scientists understand “very well” the best ways to address climate change. Another 42% say climate scientists understand ways to address climate change “fairly well”; 38% say they understand this not too or not at all well.

Public views of climate scientists’ understanding are more positive, if still generally skeptical, on the fundamentals of whether climate change is occurring (37% say scientists understand this very well) and what causes climate change (28%).

Americans’ overall views about climate scientists’ expertise and understanding of what is happening to the Earth’s climate are similar to 2016, the last time Pew Research Center asked these questions.

In keeping with the wide political divisions over climate policy issues, Democrats are far more likely than Republicans to rate climate scientists’ understanding highly. And these partisan divides have widened since 2016. For example, Democrats are 43 percentage points more likely than Republicans to say climate scientists understand very well whether or not climate change is occurring. This gap was 25 points in 2016. See the Appendix for details.

Similarly, far larger shares of Democrats than Republicans believe climate scientists have too little say in climate debates (77% vs. 27%).

Younger generations are especially likely to think climate scientists have too little say on climate policy debates. However, these generational dynamics occur only within the GOP.

Millennial (38%) and Gen Z (41%) Republicans are more likely than Baby Boomers and older generations of Republicans (18%) to think climate scientists have too little influence on related policy debates. About half of older Republicans (53%) say climate scientists have too much influence in these debates.

Roughly three-quarters to eight-in-ten Democrats across younger and older generations think climate scientists have too little say in climate policy debates.

Majority of Americans continue to say federal government is doing too little to protect key aspects of the environment

When it comes to environmental protection, a majority of Americans continue to see a role for stricter environmental regulations and majorities view the federal government as doing too little across most areas of environmental concern asked about in the survey, such as protecting air quality.

Gen Z and Millennials offer the broadest support for environmental regulations and for more government action to protect specific aspects of the environment.

Partisan gaps over government action to protect the environment remain very large and differences over the value of stricter environmental regulations have widened since last asked in September 2019 during the administration of Donald Trump.

There are generational and partisan differences over value of environmental regulations

Overall, 56% of Americans say that stricter environmental laws are worth the cost, compared with a smaller share (41%) who say they cost too many jobs and hurt the economy.

On balance Gen Z and Millennials are both much more likely to  stricter environmental laws as worth the cost than to say they cost too many jobs and hurt the economy (by 59% to 33% and 63% to 35%, respectively). Gen X and Boomer and older adults also see stricter environmental laws as worth the cost, though by narrower margins.

A large majority of Democrats (81%) believe that stricter environmental laws are worth the cost. By contrast, 71% of Republicans say they cost too many jobs and hurt the economy. Republicans have become much more likely to take a critical view of stricter environmental regulations since September 2019, when 55% said they hurt the economy and cost too many jobs. (For more details on this change over time, see the Appendix ).

Generational differences in views occur primarily within the GOP and not among Democrats. Among Republicans, Gen Z (35%) and Millennials (34%) are more likely than Baby Boomer and older adults (20%) to say stricter environmental laws are worth the cost, though larger shares across cohorts say these regulations cost too many jobs and hurt the economy. Roughly eight-in-ten Democrats across generations say that stricter environmental laws are worth the cost.

Far more Americans say government is doing too little, rather than too much, on key areas of environmental protection

Consistent with Center surveys over the past few years, majorities of U.S. adults support more government action to address a range of environmental concerns, including air and water quality as well as climate change.

Overall, 63% say the federal government is doing too little to protect the water quality of lakes, rivers and streams. Majorities also say the government is doing too little to reduce the effects of climate change (59%), protect air quality (59%) and protect animals and their habitats (57%). About half (51%) say the federal government is doing too little to protect open lands in national parks and nature preserves. Across all five items, small shares of the public believe the government is doing too much to address any one of these environmental issues.

There are wide differences in views on these issues by political party, with Democrats much more likely than Republicans to think that government efforts in these areas are insufficient.

While still the predominant viewpoint, the shares of Democrats who say the government is doing too little across these five areas are 6 to 10 percentage points lower than they were in May of 2020, before Joe Biden took office. Republicans’ views on these questions have been largely steady, although the share of Republicans who believe the federal government is doing too little to address climate change is down 5 percentage points, from 35% in May 2020 to 30% today.

Partisan groups remain far apart when it comes to assessment of government action on climate change: 83% of Democrats and Democratic leaners think the government’s efforts are insufficient, vs. 30% of Republicans and GOP leaners, a difference of 53 percentage points. Conservative Republicans stand out on this from their fellow partisans with a moderate or liberal ideology: 19% say the federal government is doing too little to address climate change compared with 49% of moderate or liberal Republicans.

Gen Zers and Millennials are more likely than older Americans to say the government is doing too little to address specific areas of environmental concern, though these divides are driven primarily by differences by generation within the GOP.

About two-thirds of Gen Zers (66%) and Millennials (65%) say the federal government is doing too little to protect air quality, compared with 58% of Gen X and 52% of Baby Boomer and older adults.

Similarly, 68% of Gen Zers and 66% of Millennials say the federal government is doing too little to reduce the effects of climate change versus 57% of Gen X and 52% of Baby Boomer and older adults.

Among Republicans, Gen Zers and Millennials are more likely than Baby Boomer and older adults to say the federal government is doing too little to address all five of these areas of environmental concern. Majorities of Democrats across generations say the government is doing too little to address these environmental issues.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

• Baby Boomers
• Climate, Energy & Environment
• Generation X
• Generation Z
• Generations, Age & Politics
• Millennials
• Politics Online
• Silent Generation
• Social Media & the News

Majority of Americans support more nuclear power in the country

Americans’ extreme weather policy views and personal experiences, u.s. adults under 30 have different foreign policy priorities than older adults, about 3 in 10 americans would seriously consider buying an electric vehicle, how americans view national, local and personal energy choices, most popular, report materials.

• American Trends Panel Wave 89

901 E St. NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20004 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

© 2024 Pew Research Center

An official website of the United States government

Here’s how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

JavaScript appears to be disabled on this computer. Please click here to see any active alerts .

• Headquarters

EPA Awards $9M in Research Grants to Address Knowledge Gaps in Antimicrobial Resistance

August 21, 2024

WASHINGTON: Today, Aug. 21, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced $9 million in grant funding to four institutions for research to address knowledge gaps and better identify and manage antimicrobial resistance risk. Antimicrobial resistance is a major public health concern and can make it harder to treat certain infections in animals and people. Wastewater treatment facilities are potential receptors and sources for antibiotic resistant bacteria and genes.

“Antimicrobial resistance is a major concern for public health and the environment,” said Chris Frey, Assistant Administrator for EPA’s Office of Research and Development. “The research conducted by these grantees will inform how wastewater treatment plants can help manage this risk as we work together to protect our water resources and public health.”

Wastewater treatment facilities receive wastewater from a mix of sources including industry, households and hospitals, all of which can contribute to a high density of pathogens and antimicrobial drug residues that enter the plant. Treated wastewater is often released back into rivers and streams but may still contain both antimicrobial products and antimicrobial-resistant bacteria.

These research projects will measure the environmental health impact of antimicrobial resistance in wastewater and advance understanding of the evolution and spread of antimicrobial resistance. Grantees will study wastewater treatment systems across the country and review past literature and data to assess risk in wastewater. Projects involve developing a risk assessment framework, conducting a systematic review of genomic data, and evaluating the fate of antimicrobial-resistant bacteria and genes in wastewater treatment processes.

The following institutions are receiving awards:

• University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin , to compare antimicrobial resistance removal treatment processes and wastewater resistance patterns over the past 10 years with data from hospital clinics, sewer overflows and rivers.
• University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Lincoln, Nebraska , to establish a risk assessment framework to estimate human health risks based on measurements of antibiotic resistant bacteria and antibiotic resistant genes in surface water exposed to municipal wastewater and biosolids.
• The Water Research Foundation, Denver, Colorado , to develop a human health risk assessment framework that will inform and prioritize management options for mitigating wastewater sources of antimicrobial resistance.
• Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon , to sample wastewater treatment utilities across the U.S and conduct a systematic literature review and meta-analysis on U.S.-based wastewater metagenomic data to understand the impacts of seasonal/regional variations and treatment processes on wastewater antimicrobial resistance.

Learn more about the grant funded recipients.  

Learn more about EPA research grants.