Acid Rain


Book Description




Acid Rain


Book Description




Acid Rain


Book Description




Acid Rain


Book Description

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed recent management changes and program delays in the National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program (NAPAP). Through fiscal year 1985, NAPAP spent $6.7 million developing its research results for the general public; however, it delayed its first assessment report because management underestimated the time and staff needed to review and approve the document. GAO found that centralized management made the research program stronger; however, management changes contributed to communication problems between NAPAP task groups and hampered program effectiveness. GAO also found that: (1) NAPAP reduced its efforts to evaluate the economic effects of acid rain since 1985 and included only minimal economic effects information in its first assessment; (2) disagreements among participating agencies on major issues and the large number of agency reviews contributed to delays in issuing key assessments; and (3) NAPAP annual reports were issued late and did not include policy recommendations.




Acid Rain


Book Description







Discerning Experts


Book Description

Discerning Experts assesses the assessments that many governments rely on to help guide environmental policy and action. Through their close look at environmental assessments involving acid rain, ozone depletion, and sea level rise, the authors explore how experts deliberate and decide on the scientific facts about problems like climate change. They also seek to understand how the scientists involved make the judgments they do, how the organization and management of assessment activities affects those judgments, and how expertise is identified and constructed. Discerning Experts uncovers factors that can generate systematic bias and error, and recommends how the process can be improved. As the first study of the internal workings of large environmental assessments, this book reveals their strengths and weaknesses, and explains what assessments can—and cannot—be expected to contribute to public policy and the common good.