One effect of the sequester is clear: it will reduce investment in federally funded scientific research, and these cuts will impede science’s ability to contribute to protecting public safety and national security, and providing opportunities for economic growth—not to mention our ability to use the best scientific knowledge to inform policy on issues critical to our health, safety, and security.

The cuts to research funding will have significant consequences. States will lose an average of $1 billion each in federal R&D funding over the next five years. NOAA and NASA will lose thousands of employees and contract employees. And NSF’s budget will be compromised such that they will have to reduce the total number of new grants awarded by 1,000 in this fiscal year alone. These are just a few of the impacts that will be seen in the coming months and years.

Not only will these cuts will stunt economic growth and obstruct innovation, they will also limit our ability to develop sound, science-based policy. So many of the challenges that we currently face—from questions of energy use and alternative-energy development to the threats posed by natural disasters and climate change—can only be addressed by incorporating the best, most up-to-date science in our decision-making and planning.

Federal funding accounts for over half the funding for all basic research in the United States—research that helps us project and prepare for droughts, hurricanes, heat waves, and other costly disasters; manage our natural resources; direct our energy policy; create opportunities for economic growth; and protect our national security. Slashing our investment in that research is penny wise and pound foolish.

Before we look at the Energy and Environment Policy Chopping Block, let’s see what our elected leaders have done. Clue: 40-odd years ago the Interior Department made a budget cut by closing Washington Monument.

That’s the approach officials have been taking, hoping Americans will plead “save us, dear leaders.” So far, they’re being ridiculous. Two list-toppers: releasing hundreds of criminal illegal aliens from jail before the cutbacks started, and ending White House tours. Do those meet the Washington Monument standard? Were they all stupid and cynical? Yes, yes and yes.

As to the President and other officials, they threatened that their choices were: ending services for handicapped kids or those for poor kids; leaving the poor and elderly with nowhere to turn in need; cutting combat troops in every service; seeing teachers laid off all around the country, delaying IRS refund checks. The list goes on – and raises questions:

Was Hillary Clinton right when she told Congress that DOD spends more on marching bands each year (the Washington Post says the numbers are $388 million on 148 bands) than the State Department can budget for security? We love pageantry, but eliminating it would end all other DOD cuts. Come on . . .

Did the President think we’d believe that ending White House public tours was the ONLY WAY he could save money (with 20 Czars and a huge staff to help think of others)?

Is closing the government for a day this week OK just because forecasters warned us apocalyptically that this would be the storm of the century (or something like it)?

Does the closure count as Sequestration savings? It should multiply them, since far more than 20% of government employees are enjoying a mid-week weekend.

Would it make more sense to close all government offices that put together weather forecasts? How much would that save?

Again, the list goes on and on. It reminds me; 30-odd years ago I worked in an agency, and at budget time I discredited the justification for our 138-person Public Relations staff. The Administrator ordered me to present our budget to the OMB examiners – and to prevent any cut to that department. That was/this is a sham -- a disgrace for officials to foist on Americans.

Every agency could make cuts without interfering with any vital function or perpetuating a cheap Washington Monument approach. But, let’s take a quick look at some high-probability examples of how the Sequester will continue to be mismanaged by our leaders.

Interior will certainly slow oil and gas permitting processes and will slow the scheduling of oil and gas lease sales. They may try to close a National Park or two.

EPA will not slow Superfund activity; it’s a cash cow for the agency. Superfund was set up to clean “orphan” sites; when the responsible parties are known, they pay for cleanup. There are almost no orphan sites. It’s too much money in fines and fees for the EPA to give up.

On the other hand, the EPA could cut activity in major pollution events. It’s unclear what they did in the BP disaster to speed cleanup or stop the leak with technology, know-how or ideas, so they could cut back disaster participation activities without impact on a solution, and could write PR and scare stories all the while.

EPA will implement the carbon cleanup regulation that they say “will bankrupt or put out of business” electric generating companies that fuel with coal. Alternatively, they could let economics force that change (it is working fast now). They won’t. They have shut down an early-success carbon-capture facility in Colorado, and delayed the broader reg until the Presidential campaign was over. Now they will implement the final rule it because they can.

The DOE slush fund for “green investment” is gone, so they won’t throw money at more Solyndras. They may slow the already-slow licensing for Liquefied Natural Gas exports, and will claim that they must cut our nuclear arsenal’s security and maintenance. Nukes are the biggest part of the DOE budget (few people know that); probably every other part could be cut to the greater benefit of the American people.

DOE’s national labs will continue to search for something costly and long-term to do, and will not be cut.

DOD won’t cut any activities that have to do with purchases of “green” technology, even though many agencies do many of the same things. So we will continue to duplicate effort and waste money that could be used for readiness.

Much could be done to take advantage of the Sequester and avoid needless damage. That won’t happen unless elected officials to put on their big boy pants and go to work. Any bets?

A 5% belt tightening should not be a reason for chicken-little predictions of massive lines at the airport, sudden degradation in environmental quality, or threats to parks. Americans, with their independent spirit and responsible citizenship, don’t descend into chaos the minute the government’s inspectors turn their backs. And despite the threats of its leaders, just about every federal office has at least a few dedicated employees who will quietly figure out how to perform their mission with a budget pared back to that of a few years past.

We’ve seen threats from the Interior Department, for example, that oil and natural gas leasing and permitting will be scaled back because of the sequester. It’s interesting that the Secretary’s first inclination is to go after the productive activities of his department, rather than sensibly vowing to reduce waste and redundancy. After all, Interior’s own economic analysis shows that the oil and natural gas program alone contributes 62% of the department’s overall $385 billion economic impact. If he were serious about budgetary concerns, he would shift emphasis back into the oil and natural gas program and reverse the trend of the last four years. For every one dollar spent by Interior managing the onshore oil and natural gas program, producers return $66 to the federal treasury.

As for the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy, it strains credulity that 5% fat cannot be cut from these vast bureaucracies. Public health, clean air and clean water are not suddenly in danger. Stating otherwise is fear mongering that the American people are sensibly responding to with a yawn. While it is unfortunate that some jobs will be lost, as happens when private sector companies tighten their belts, in the long run the economy and the country are strengthened as workers are shifted to more productive sectors. The oil and natural gas industry continues to hire, and was responsible for 9% of all new jobs last year. Abundant natural gas supplies are prompting manufacturers to bring back jobs to the U.S. to take advantage of low prices, potentially 395,000 according to the American Chemistry Council.

Anyone who has worked in and around the federal government for any length of time should know that there is waste that can be cut. The private sector regularly must cut back to meet market demands, which leads to greater efficiency and higher productivity. Now it’s time for the government to face the same realities as American families and businesses.

Now that the across-the-board budget cuts of the "Sequester," are coming, the ripple effects will begin to work their way through the clean air protection programs that federal and state agencies are charged with implementing.

These budget cuts under the Sequester are on top of those that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has already absorbed over the past few years. To address the budget shortfall, the EPA has already begun the process of cutting back, including commencing the furlough process for its workers. Within a month, the staff charged with protecting the air we will be forced to be on the job less and have fewer resources to ensure that the industries regulated under the Clean Air Act are in compliance with its healthy air standards. It only stands to reason that assuring the air we breathe is safe will be even harder with less oversight.

In a letter to the United States Senate Appropriations Committee, the EPA described what these Sequester cuts will mean. In short, the EPA believes that the cuts will directly impact its ability to ensure that Americans have clean air. There will be fewer cops on the beat to monitor pollution levels from industrial facilities like power plants. As this recent court settlement concerning pollution from a tire-burning power plant shows, when good cops are on the beat, polluters are brought to justice, pollution is reduced and health protected. The EPA also said they expect they’ll be forced to trim funds used to monitor the air we all breathe. Cuts that weaken air pollution monitoring networks will make it harder for boys like 13-year-old Jake from Maine to manage their asthma. Jake and his parents have to check air quality reports daily, because smoggy days are one of his most serious asthma triggers. Like so many other children in Jake’s shoes, knowing the air quality forecast is an essential factor in deciding whether or not he can join his friends at soccer practice or even participate in class field trips.According to the National Association of Clean Air Agencies (NACAA), more than $100 million in budget cuts to EPA's Air program are now coming. Twenty-percent of the cut would be to the funds provided to states and local governments who monitor air pollution levels and administer permits for industrial facilities among other key aspects of the Act. In addition, EPA's budget for enforcement would be cut by an alarming $64.5 million.the White House released information regarding the Sequester’s impact on each state.

It’s not just the EPA that is impacted by Sequestration cuts. State and local air pollution directors have also weighed in on how the cuts will affect their ability to implement the Clean Air Act.

NACAA points out that state-level budget cuts have already significantly impacted the ability of its members to inspect industrial facilities and deploy and maintain air pollution monitors.

Late last month,

Take a look at how your state will fare. When you see how much will be cut from environmental funds, you will probably be pretty startled. I know I was.

With fewer EPA cops on the beat and reduced grants for states, one can see a picture of what the blunt cuts of the Sequester may do to the nation’s air quality over time. As a former Acting Commissioner at the New York Department of Environmental Conservation, I can tell you that the picture we’ll see is not a pretty one.

Since state budgets for air programs are already stretched pretty thin right now, the need for federal grant dollars and a robust partnership with EPA are needed more than ever. Inspections of industrial facilities are already less frequent and there are fewer air pollution monitors to keep tabs on the safety of the air we must all breathe.

Unlike a shutdown of the government, the Sequester cuts are not seen immediately. But, if the Sequester cuts are not reversed, the picture of future air quality in this country is one that may have children with asthma and others with lung disease reaching for an inhaler.

Shame on President Obama and Congress for dragging us all through this fiscal debacle! This country thirsts for policy consistency and instead we are doused with this embarrassment. I blame them all!

That’s what it’s all about these days, isn’t it? Blame? It’s not my fault, it’s yours. But make no mistake, it takes 537 individuals to tango, and every one of our elected representatives is responsible for Washington’s collective irresponsibility. The reality, though, is that policy uncertainty is nothing new, particularly in the energy and environment space, and badly structured, sloppy policies have been the modus operandi.

Take a favorite punching bag in the space today – biofuels and the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS2) program. Ah, but those of us in the space love to hate on biofuels, don’t we? And we really love to hate on EPA. Delightful! The list of what’s wrong in the RFS2 program may well be longer than what is right with it: the E10 “blend wall,” the snail-slow uptake of E15, the failure of advanced biofuels to come to market, Renewable Identification Number (RIN) fraud and quality control, cellulosic waiver credits, 2013 volume requirements that won’t be finalized until summer at the earliest. Pick an issue, any issue! Let the punching begin!

Obligated parties to this policy, particularly in the refining industry, do have a real problem with all of the above and more. But who created the RFS2 program? Congress did. In fact, some of the same bag-punchers in Congress today voted for passage of the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which included the RFS2 program. Congress could fix deficiencies in the program, but who in Congress and the industry has the appetite for the Pandora’s Box free-for-all that would ensue?

Are there good aspects of the RFS2 program? Yes. Arguably the biggest benefit has been relatively cheap, climate-friendly octane. A credible argument can be made for energy diversification, which should be a pressing, important strategic goal in the nation’s interest – abundant reserves of shale oil and gas or not – and overall technological advancement and readiness. But the devil is in the details and the details weren’t legislated properly, which meant, by extension, that they weren’t going to be regulated properly either.

And now, here we are, standing at the precipice of another fiscal cliff and hanging on by a quickly unraveling thread. It’s doubtful that badly needed energy and environmental policy will be a priority for another year – maybe two. That’s OK. It’s nobody’s fault – is it?

The cuts from sequestration to the environmental and clean energy programs in the federal budget will be severe, closing visitor centers in national parks, curtailing law enforcement in national forests, and hamstringing endangered species recovery on national wildlife refuges.

Conservation makes up a scant fraction of the federal budget – a whopping 1.26% of the total. But the economic impact of those programs is huge, and cuts across many aspects of the economy. Outdoor recreation, which is reliant on wild public lands, supports more than 6 million direct jobs, and has an economic ripple effect impact of over 1 trillion dollars.

Also threatened by sequestration are things that the American people currently get for free, like fresh air and clean water. National forests are the headwaters for water supplies for more than 60 million Americans, and cuts to programs keeping them healthy threaten both the supply and the quality of that water. All told, the benefits from a healthy environment are more than $1.6 trillion – well worth the small relatively investment in federal dollars to keep our forests healthy.

Rather than cutting the budget across the board, Congress should be looking at cutting outdated and unnecessary tax expenditures for fossil fuels and other wasteful tax breaks. A coalition of environmental groups, including The Wilderness Society, have identified more than $760 billion in additional tax revenue that should be put towards lessening the cuts to conservation. (read the report Losing Our Heritage: Budget Cuts and the Environment)

The benefits from America’s wild places far outweigh their meager costs. It’s time stop trying to balance the budget on the back of conservation, and instead look at protecting the benefits we receive from our wild places.

One of H. L. Mencken’s more memorable remarks was that “whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed… by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” The sequester is one big hobgoblin and both Congress and the White House should be ashamed for agreeing to such a crude way to make budget cuts. Having said that, besides the entitlement expenditures which are excluded, the sequester represents about 5% of discretionary spending. That is hardly enough to lead the apocalyptic impacts that the President and leading Democrats have been asserting. Any business that could not accommodate a 5% cost reduction, even a third of the way into the budget year, should go out of business.

We are probably condemned to at least three more years of continuous political food fights. The sequester is unlikely to be rolled back and given that reality, Congress should give the President the flexibility to implement it in the most cost-effective manner possible. He is the nation’s Chief Executive and he should not shrink from taking on that task.

One of the great public servants of our time, Paul Nitze, was fond of saying that you have to work the problem until it gives into a solution. What we have in Washington today is an unwillingness to work the problem. Instead, there is, as Notre Dame President John I. Jenkins recently observed, a growing tendency to “encourage people to believe more deeply what they already believed —not about policies, for the most part, but about the villainy of the other side.” Finger pointing over responsibility for any adverse effects of the sequester undermines any attempt to actually set a foundation to solve the major economic and fiscal problems confronting out nation. And, this is the real effect of sequester.

Done correctly, the mandated spending cuts can be accommodated without serious damage to the government’s ability to do its job. For example, since 2007, the EPA’s budget has grown by almost $700 million, the Department of the Interior by almost $3 billion, and Department of Energy ballooned by over $13 billion. It is simply not credible to conclude that these agencies’ share of the sequester would seriously constrain their missions or put environmental health and safety at risk.

Energy is one of the few bright spots in our weak economy. If the Administration is serious about putting people back to work and improving standards of living, it will move ahead with the leasing of federal lands, it will re-examine regulatory burdens to make sure that they are cost-effective, and remove impediments to investments in our energy infrastructure. Sequestration shouldn’t delay the approval of the Keystone XL project now that the Department of State has completed its study. Giving the go-ahead to this project would unleash much needed investment in material and construction jobs.

With the government lurching from one short-term fix and crisis to another, there is little opportunity to focus on the big issues that will dominate the fiscal debate over the next decade. And without restoring civility and a willingness to accept compromise as a precondition for governing, neither Congress nor the White House will be prepared to effectively address any crisis that might arise unexpectedly.

The idea that a 5% cut in funding is problematic is laughable to most Americans -- and particularly to those who've served in any executive branch agency. On the other hand, the indiscriminate nature of the cuts is a problem. It would be easy to find the requisite savings if agencies were able to apportion the cuts to areas where they make the most sense. But the sequester mandates cuts in important and less important programs alike. According to OMB, we 'll see $15 million in reductions at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission; $254 million out of the DOE Science program; $91 million from DOE's energy efficiency and renewable programs; and a total of $17 million taken from Interior's Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, the agencies responsible for reviewing and permitting offshore leases for oil and gas development. There's a better way to achieve these reductions. It's call regular order: a budget resolution followed by appropriations bills that together come in under the budgetary cap established. This system worked for decades. Congress should resurrect it.

The Congressional Budget Office domestic sequester breakdown shows that domestic discretionary spending will be cut approximately $85 billion in or a 5.3% cut of the Department of Energy's $26 billion budget of which 65% is nuclear site clean up, naval reactors, nuclear weapons, and non-proliferation. Shy of 20% is pure science research not only on energy but studies like the genome project. And the remaining 15%, over $4 billion, is the energy research and development portion of the energy department, of which $600 million will be shed from nuclear power, fossil, and energy efficiency and renewable energy RD&D programs. Obviously the smaller RD&D programs within these energy budgets will be hurt the hardest. The Treasury Department's 1603 cash-in lieu of tax credit program will also be cut accordingly as well as smaller renewable energy and efficiency programs within the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Interior as well as EPA. Most of the DOD renewable energy and efficiency programs are financed with Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) and Energy Service Performance Contracts (ESPCs) - private sector capital which lowers federal payments for energy. Will these budget cuts irrevocably harm energy efficiency or renewable energy development? No. But the broader question will be the short term impact on the economy and the intransigence of the House Republican leadership to cut taxpayer subsidies to the fossil fuel and nuclear industries, which they call "tax increases". Actually these $70 billion worth of taxpayer subsidies paid by 138 million taxpayers, result in yearly out-of-pocket costs of $507.25 by every taxpayer every single year and rising. If Congress tackles comprehensive tax reform , I do not believe the Republican House leadership and Democrats from coal, oil, and pro-nuclear states will allow these "gifts" to be taken away, but will rather focus on removing the renewable energy and energy efficiency tax incentives for supposed deficit reduction that are only 10 percent of the traditional energy subsidies.

I have a much awaited trip to Arizona coming up soon, and I’m worried that the federal budget sequestration may impact my flight because of alleged automatic cuts to the Federal Aviation Administration budget and related Air Traffic Controller work schedules. I suspect that most Americans will personalize sequestration in this way, many probably with far more dire consequences than my travel plans, including lost pay, lost benefits or lost educational opportunities. If no deal on the so-called fiscal cliff is struck, the cuts, if fully implemented, will be random and chaotic, and thus indicative of the Republican Party Leadership’s current approach to government.

Will Rogers once wryly stated that “a fool and his (or her) money” are those “elected.” There simply is no doubt any more that members of Congress – on both sides of the aisle – are largely elected either through their own wealth or, most usually, through the generous contributions of industrial corporate interests who then control the puppet strings. Some, like Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) defend this reality, but no one can deny it.

This leads us to the “sequestration crisis”, which is less a crisis and more a reflection of governmental dysfunction. The federal government spent approximately $3,600,000,000,000 (3.6 trillion dollars) in 2012. This is a gargantuan sum of money, meaning about $1 billion is spent every few hours. The current sequestration “target” is $85 billion of cuts, which surely is not a small sum of cash but is easily doable within the confines of the current budget.

And this is the rub: the truly low hanging fruit of eliminating federal spending waste would hit the sacred cows of corporate socialism. There is both conservative and liberal agreement on the following points. First, Defense spending could be cut up to $100 billion per year alone and not harm national security (but would clearly anger the military-industrial complex). http://www.rstreet.org/policy-brief/an-open-letter-to-president-obama-and-the-congress-spend-less-and-spend-smarter-at-the-pentagon/ Second, many billions of corporate farm subsidies to major industrial agricultural interests could also be cut, with howls from the insurance conglomerate American Farm Bureau Federation. http://farm.ewg.org/ Third, another $100 billion or so could be gained by ending offshore tax havens for multi-national corporations but the Chamber of Commerce squawks. See, e.g., http://www.startribune.com/business/189880091.html?refer=y Fourth, at least $20 billion per year are available by making oil and gas companies pay their fair share of royalties and related costs in federal drilling operations. http://priceofoil.org/fossil-fuel-subsidies/ Most of these particular cuts identified here, further, would benefit the environment by reducing government-sponsored natural resource destruction.

So the point is that $85 billion in meaningful and constructive federal budget cuts are just not that hard. But what IS hard is telling our corporate bullies and cry babies that their free lunch is over. Instead, we are surreally fighting over whether to protect poor children from losing vital benefits, to enable environmental enforcement official to prevent illegal pollution, and to keep national parks and forests and wildlife refuges open for the American people. (As an aside, I have mixed feelings about the Department of Interior cuts that would occur from sequestration because, on the one hand, our wildlife and natural resources need stewardship but, on the other hand, harmful global warming-inducing and below-coast oil and gas permits would temporarily be halted).

HL Mencken had it right many years ago: “The whole aim of practical politics is too keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” Fiscal cliffs are not really the issue. Our environment is likely not much more threatened by this first round of sequestration. The challenge, however, and the real danger, is a sell-out of democracy and our republic at the highest levels. Governmental cronyism is what this sequestration debacle is demonstrating.

We should take seriously Secretary Chu’s warning from two weeks ago about how sequestration will put thousands out of work, kill important research projects and make the grid less secure.

As I saw at the ARPA-E Energy Innovation Summit last week, partnerships between the government, academia and business are poised to lead the economy into the future. As Jeff St. John reported in Greentech Media, ARPA-E projects have attracted $450 million in private capital. But the program’s future is uncertain.

Another example is the great strides that have been made to bring to market advanced emissions control technologies that can make using fossil fuels like coal and natural gas much cleaner. But scaling back federal efforts to promote innovation and reduce air pollution will have a detrimental effect on America’s opportunity to become the world leader in advanced emissions control technologies. Innovative technologies take real financial and intellectual backing to make the transition from the lab to demonstration to marketplace to scale.

To ensure that we don’t stop the momentum that technologies like multi-pollutant emissions control systems currently have, the Administration should make maintaining research projects and grants a major economic priority in the sequester talks and for the rest of the term. If not, we will miss two opportunities: becoming the world leader in this potentially huge market and seriously tackling climate change.