Climate Change
Federal Reports on Climate Change Funding Should Be Clearer and More Complete Gao ID: GAO-05-461 August 25, 2005The Congress has required the administration to report annually on federal spending on climate change. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) reports funding in four categories: technology (to reduce greenhouse gas emissions), science (to better understand the climate), international assistance (to help developing countries), and tax expenditures (to encourage reductions in emissions). The Climate Change Science Program (CCSP), which coordinates many agencies' activities, reports only on science. To measure funding, OMB and CCSP use budget authority, the authority provided in law to enter into financial obligations that will result in government outlays. GAO was asked to examine federal climate change funding for 1993 through 2004, as reported by both agencies, including (1) how total funding and funding by category changed and whether funding data are comparable over time and (2) how funding by agency changed and whether funding data are comparable over time.
Federal funding for climate change increased from $2.4 billion in 1993 to $5.1 billion in 2004 (116 percent), as reported by OMB, or from $3.3 billion to $5.1 billion (55 percent) after adjusting for inflation. During this period, inflation-adjusted funding increased for technology and science, but decreased for international assistance. The share for technology increased (36 to 56 percent), while the shares for science and international assistance decreased (56 to 39 percent and 9 to 5 percent, respectively). However, it is unclear whether funding changed as much as reported because modifications in the format and content of OMB reports limit the comparability of funding data over time. For example, OMB reported that it expanded the definitions of some accounts to include more activities, but did not specify how it changed the definitions. Also, while OMB's totals for science funding were generally comparable to CCSP's totals, the more detailed data in CCSP reports were difficult to compare over time because CCSP introduced new categorization methods without explaining how they related to the previous methods. OMB officials stated that changes in their reports were due, in part, to the short timeline for completing them, and that it has not been required to follow a consistent reporting format from one year to the next. The Director of CCSP said that its reports changed as the program evolved. GAO was unable to compare climate-related tax expenditures over time because OMB reported data on proposed, but not on existing tax expenditures. For example, while OMB reported no funding for existing climate-related tax expenditures in 2004, GAO identified four such tax expenditures in 2004, including revenue loss estimates of $330 million to develop certain renewable energy sources. OMB reported that 12 of the 14 agencies that funded climate change programs in 2004 increased such funding between 1993 and 2004, but unexplained changes in the reports' contents limit the comparability of data on funding by agency. GAO found that OMB reported funding for certain agencies in some years but not in others, without explanation. For example, OMB reported funding of $83 million for the Department of Defense in 2003, but did not list any such funding in prior reports. OMB told GAO that it relied on agency budget offices to submit accurate data.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-05-461, Climate Change: Federal Reports on Climate Change Funding Should Be Clearer and More Complete
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-05-461
entitled 'Climate Change: Federal Reports on Climate Change Funding
Should Be Clearer and More Complete' which was released on September
26, 2005.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to Congressional Requesters:
August 2005: $
Climate Change:
Federal Reports on Climate Change Funding Should Be Clearer and More
Complete:
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-461]:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-05-461, a report to congressional requesters:
Why GAO Did This Study:
The Congress has required the administration to report annually on
federal spending on climate change. The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) reports funding in four categories: technology (to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions), science (to better understand the climate),
international assistance (to help developing countries), and tax
expenditures (to encourage reductions in emissions). The Climate Change
Science Program (CCSP), which coordinates many agencies‘ activities,
reports only on science. To measure funding, OMB and CCSP use budget
authority, the authority provided in law to enter into financial
obligations that will result in government outlays.
GAO was asked to examine federal climate change funding for 1993
through 2004, as reported by both agencies, including (1) how total
funding and funding by category changed and whether funding data are
comparable over time and (2) how funding by agency changed and whether
funding data are comparable over time.
What GAO Found:
Federal funding for climate change increased from $2.4 billion in 1993
to $5.1 billion in 2004 (116 percent), as reported by OMB, or from $3.3
billion to $5.1 billion (55 percent) after adjusting for inflation.
During this period, inflation-adjusted funding increased for technology
and science, but decreased for international assistance. The share for
technology increased (36 to 56 percent), while the shares for science
and international assistance decreased (56 to 39 percent and 9 to 5
percent, respectively). However, it is unclear whether funding changed
as much as reported because modifications in the format and content of
OMB reports limit the comparability of funding data over time. For
example, OMB reported that it expanded the definitions of some accounts
to include more activities, but did not specify how it changed the
definitions. Also, while OMB‘s totals for science funding were
generally comparable to CCSP‘s totals, the more detailed data in CCSP
reports were difficult to compare over time because CCSP introduced new
categorization methods without explaining how they related to the
previous methods. OMB officials stated that changes in their reports
were due, in part, to the short timeline for completing them, and that
it has not been required to follow a consistent reporting format from
one year to the next. The Director of CCSP said that its reports
changed as the program evolved. GAO was unable to compare climate-
related tax expenditures over time because OMB reported data on
proposed, but not on existing tax expenditures. For example, while OMB
reported no funding for existing climate-related tax expenditures in
2004, GAO identified four such tax expenditures in 2004, including
revenue loss estimates of $330 million to develop certain renewable
energy sources.
OMB reported that 12 of the 14 agencies that funded climate change
programs in 2004 increased such funding between 1993 and 2004, but
unexplained changes in the reports‘ contents limit the comparability of
data on funding by agency. GAO found that OMB reported funding for
certain agencies in some years but not in others, without explanation.
For example, OMB reported funding of $83 million for the Department of
Defense in 2003, but did not list any such funding in prior reports.
OMB told GAO that it relied on agency budget offices to submit accurate
data.
Reported Federal Climate Change Funding by Category, 1993-2004:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends, among other things, that OMB and CCSP explain any
changes in their reports‘ content or format. GAO also recommends that
OMB include data on existing climate-related tax expenditures. OMB
agreed with most of GAO‘s recommendations and is studying the others.
CCSP agreed with all of GAO‘s recommendations.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-461.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact John B. Stephenson at
(202) 512-3841, or stephensonj@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Reported Federal Climate Change Funding Increased for Three of the Four
Funding Categories, but Data May Not Be Comparable Over Time:
Reported Funding for Most Agencies Increased, but Unexplained Changes
in Report Content Limit the Comparability of Data Over Time:
OMB Reports Presented Information on Budget Authority Rather Than--as
Required by the Congress--on Expenditures and Obligations:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Climate Change Funding by Category as Reported by OMB:
Appendix III: Climate Change Funding by Agency as Reported by OMB:
Appendix IV: Analysis of OMB Funding Report Accounts:
Appendix V: Comments from the Climate Change Science Program:
Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Reported Federal Climate Change Funding by Category, Selected
Years:
Table 2: Reported Technology Funding, Selected Accounts and Years:
Table 3: Reported Science Funding by Agency or Program, Selected Years:
Table 4: Reported International Assistance Funding, Selected Accounts
and Years:
Table 5: Reported Climate Change Funding by Agency, Selected Years:
Table 6: Federal Climate Change Funding by Category as Reported by OMB,
1993-2004:
Table 7: Climate Change Funding by Agency as Reported by OMB, 1993-
2004:
Table 8: Analysis of OMB Funding Report Accounts, 1993-2004:
Abbreviations:
CBO: Congressional Budget Office:
CCRI: Climate Change Research Initiative:
CCSP: Climate Change Science Program:
CCTP: Climate Change Technology Program:
DOD: Department of Defense:
DOE: Department of Energy:
EPA: Environmental Protection Agency:
GEF: Global Environment Facility:
NASA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration:
NIH: National Institutes of Health:
NSF: National Science Foundation:
OMB: Office of Management and Budget:
USAID: United States Agency for International Development:
USGCRP: United States Global Change Research Program:
Letter August 25, 2005: $
The Honorable John McCain:
The Honorable John Kerry:
United States Senate:
The earth's average temperature has increased by about 1 degree
Fahrenheit over the last 100 years. While this increase seems small,
projected additional changes in temperature, as well as other aspects
of the climate, may alter human social and economic activities. For
example, changes in the frequency and intensity of rainfall, both
possible effects of climate change, could impact crop yields in certain
locations. For more than a decade, the federal government has funded
programs to study the earth's climate and to reduce emissions of carbon
dioxide and other greenhouse gases linked to climate change. According
to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), 9 of the 15 cabinet-level
executive departments, along with 5 other federal agencies, received
funding for climate change activities in 2004.
OMB, in annual reports and testimony before the Congress, reported
climate change funding for 1993 through 2004 using four categories:
* Technology, which includes the research, development, and deployment
of technologies and processes to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or
increase energy efficiency. Funding for this category focuses on
programs for energy conservation, renewable energy, and related
efforts.
* Science, which includes research and monitoring to better understand
climate change, such as measuring changes in forest cover and land use.
* International assistance, which helps developing countries to address
climate change by, for example, providing funds for energy efficiency
programs.
* Tax expenditures related to climate change, which are federal income
tax provisions that grant preferential tax treatment to encourage
emission reductions by, for example, providing tax incentives to
promote the use of renewable energy.[Footnote 1]
Over the same time period, the administration also reported annually on
funding specifically for climate change science, one of the four
categories used in OMB reports. The Climate Change Science Program
(CCSP)--a multi-agency coordinating group--is currently responsible for
preparing the climate change science reports.
At your request, we examined (1) how total funding and funding by
category changed and the extent to which data on such funding are
comparable over time and (2) how funding by agency changed and the
extent to which data on such funding are comparable over time. We also
examined whether OMB and CCSP reports provided the data required by the
Congress.
To determine how federal climate change funding by category and agency
changed, we analyzed data from annual OMB and CCSP reports, as well as
congressional testimony. To determine the extent to which the data on
climate change funding were comparable, we analyzed and compared the
contents of the reports. If changes in the reports were not explained,
we asked responsible officials to explain the changes. To examine
whether OMB and CCSP reports provided the data required by the
Congress, we reviewed the reporting requirements, the legislative
history of these requirements, and the data presented by OMB and CCSP
in their reports. The term "funding" in this report reflects
discretionary budget authority, or the authority provided in law to
incur financial obligations that will result in outlays, as reported by
OMB and CCSP in their reports.[Footnote 2] Unless otherwise stated, we
report funding in nominal terms (not adjusted for inflation), and all
years refer to fiscal years. When we adjusted for inflation, we used a
fiscal year price index that we calculated based on a calendar year
price index published by the Department of Commerce's Bureau of
Economic Analysis. Unless otherwise specified, figures represent actual
funding (not estimates), with the exception of 1993, 1994, and 2004,
where we present estimated funding reported by CCSP because actual data
are not available. For the purposes of this report, the term "agency"
includes executive departments and agencies, and we use the term
"account" to describe the budget accounts, line items, programs, and
activities presented in OMB and CCSP reports. Throughout this report,
we characterize all climate change science reports from 1993 through
2004 as CCSP reports, even though CCSP has been in existence only since
2002, and reports prior to 2002 were published by a predecessor
organization. Totals and percentages may not add due to rounding. A
more detailed description of our scope and methodology is presented in
appendix I. For presentation purposes, we show federal climate change
funding for 1993, 1997, 2001, and 2004 in report tables. Funding data
for 1993 through 2004 are shown in appendixes II, III, and IV. We
performed our work between July 2004 and August 2005 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.
Results in Brief:
Federal funding for climate change, as reported by OMB, increased from
$2.35 billion in 1993 to $5.09 billion in 2004 (116 percent), or from
$3.28 billion to $5.09 billion (55 percent) after adjusting for
inflation, and funding increased for three of the four categories
between 1993 and 2004. However, changes in reporting methods limit the
comparability of funding data over time, and therefore it is unclear
whether total funding actually increased as much as reported. We were
unable to compare changes in the fourth category-climate-related tax
expenditures-because OMB reported estimates for proposed but not
existing tax expenditures from 1993 through 2004. Specifically, we
found that:
* Technology funding increased from $845 million to $2.87 billion (239
percent), or from $1.18 billion to $2.87 billion in inflation-adjusted
dollars (143 percent). The share of total climate change funding
devoted to technology increased from 36 percent to 56 percent. However,
we identified several ways that technology funding presented in OMB's
more recent reports may not be comparable to previously reported
technology funding. For example, OMB added accounts to the technology
category that were not reported before or were presented in different
categories, but it did not explain whether these accounts reflected the
creation of new programs, or a decision to count existing programs for
the first time. OMB also expanded the definitions of some accounts to
include more activities without clarifying how the definitions were
changed.
* Science funding increased from $1.31 billion to $1.98 billion (51
percent), according to both OMB and CCSP, or from $1.82 billion to
$1.98 billion in inflation-adjusted dollars (9 percent). However, its
share of total climate change funding decreased from 56 percent to 39
percent. OMB and CCSP generally presented consistent climate change
science funding totals from 1993 through 2004. CCSP reports also
presented more detailed data, but these data were difficult to compare
over the entire time period because CCSP periodically introduced new
categorization methods without explaining how the new methods related
to the ones they replaced. Specifically, from 1993 through 2004, CCSP
used seven different methods to present detailed science funding data,
making it impossible to develop consistent funding trends over the
entire timeframe.
* International assistance funding increased from $201 million to $252
million (a 25 percent increase), but decreased from $280 million to
$252 million in inflation-adjusted dollars (a 10 percent decrease).
Moreover, its share of total climate change funding decreased from 9
percent to 5 percent. International assistance funding reported by OMB
was generally comparable over time, although several new accounts were
added without explanation.
* Tax expenditures were not fully reported by OMB for any year, even
though climate-related tax expenditures amounted to hundreds of
millions of dollars in revenue forgone by the federal government in
fiscal year 2004. Although not required to do so, OMB reported proposed
climate-related tax expenditures. However, OMB did not report revenue
loss estimates for existing climate change-related tax expenditures.
Whereas OMB reported no funding for existing climate change-related tax
expenditures in 2004, the most recent federal budget listed four tax
expenditures related to climate change in that year, including
estimated revenue losses of $330 million for incentives to develop
certain renewable energy sources.
OMB and CCSP officials told us that time constraints and other factors
contributed to changes in report structure and content over time. For
example, OMB officials said that the short timeline for completing the
report required by the Congress (within 45 days of submitting the
upcoming fiscal year's budget for the three most recent reports)
limited OMB's ability to analyze data submitted by agencies. They also
noted that each report was prepared in response to a one-time
requirement and that they were not directed to use the same report
format over time or explain differences in methodology from one report
to another. The director of CCSP told us that changes to climate change
science reports, such as the creation and deletion of different
categorization methods, were made because CCSP was changing towards a
goals-oriented budget, and categorization methods changed as the
program evolved. The director also said that future reports will
explicitly present budget data as it was reported in prior reports to
retain continuity, even if new methods are introduced. Regarding tax
expenditures, OMB officials said that they consistently included in the
reports those proposed tax expenditures where a key purpose was
specifically to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. They also stated that
they have not included existing tax expenditures that may have
greenhouse gas benefits but were enacted for other purposes, and that
the Congress has not provided any guidance to suggest that additional
tax expenditure data should be included in the annual reports.
OMB reported that 12 of the 14 agencies that received funding for
climate change programs in 2004 received more funding in that year than
they had in 1993, but it is unclear whether funding changed as much as
was reported by OMB because unexplained modifications in the reports'
contents limit the comparability of agencies' funding data. Reported
funding for the Department of Energy (DOE), the agency with the most
reported climate-related funding in 2004, increased from $963 million
to $2.52 billion (162 percent), or from $1.34 billion to $2.52 billion
after adjusting for inflation (88 percent). DOE and the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) accounted for 81 percent of
the reported increase in funding from 1993 through 2004. However,
because agency funding totals are composed of individual accounts, the
changes in the reports' contents discussed earlier, such as the
unexplained addition of accounts to the technology category, limit the
comparability of agencies' funding data over time. For example, OMB
reported Army, Navy, Air Force, and Defense-wide funding totaling $83
million in 2003, and $51 million in 2004, in accounts titled Research,
Development, Test, and Evaluation, but did not report these accounts in
prior years. OMB did not explain whether these accounts reflected the
creation of new programs or a decision to count existing programs for
the first time. Accordingly, there is some uncertainty about the
Department of Defense's (DOD) climate change funding over time. OMB
stated that it consistently reported funding data for the 3 years
presented in each report and that there has been no requirement to use
a consistent format from one report to the next or to explain
differences in methodology from one report to another.
We found that OMB reports presented information on budget authority,
not--as required by the Congress--on expenditures and obligations. The
Congress has required that information be provided on expenditures and
obligations, the amounts actually spent or committed to be spent, while
OMB reports generally have presented information on a different
measure, budget authority, or the amount of funding provided by the
Congress. OMB officials told us that they adopted their approach
because the relevant congressional committees generally use budget
authority. They told us that they continued to report on this basis
because these committees have not objected to OMB's approach.
Currently, CCSP is responsible for reporting information relating to
the federal budget and federal funding for climate change science, not
climate change expenditure information. CCSP has fulfilled recent
reporting requirements by providing budget authority information.
We are recommending that OMB and CCSP, from year-to-year, each use the
same format for presenting data, to the extent that they are able to do
so and remain in compliance with reporting requirements, explain
changes in report content or format when they are introduced, and
provide and maintain a crosswalk comparing new and old report
structures when changes in report format are introduced. We are also
recommending that OMB include data on existing climate-related tax
expenditures in future reports. Finally, we are recommending that OMB
request that the Congress clarify whether future reports should be
presented in terms of expenditures and obligations or in terms of
budget authority, and if the Congress prefers the former, OMB should
request the necessary time to prepare reports on that basis.
We received oral comments from OMB on August 1, 2005, and written
comments from CCSP in a letter dated July 28, 2005. OMB agreed with the
recommendations relating to report content and format and said it was
studying the other recommendations. CCSP agreed with all of our
recommendations.
Background:
In 1990, the Congress enacted the Global Change Research Act.[Footnote
3] This act, among other things, required the administration to (1)
prepare and at least every 3 years revise and submit to the Congress a
national global change research plan, including an estimate of federal
funding for global change research activities to be conducted under the
plan; (2) in each annual budget submission to the Congress, identify
the items in each agency's budget that are elements of the United
States Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), an interagency long-
term climate change science research program; and (3) report annually
on climate change "expenditures required" for the USGCRP.[Footnote 4]
In 1992, the United States signed and ratified the United Nations
Framework Convention on Climate Change, which was intended to stabilize
the buildup of greenhouse gases in the earth's atmosphere, but did not
impose binding limits on emissions. Five years later, the United States
participated in drafting the Kyoto Protocol, an international agreement
to specifically limit greenhouse gas emissions. The Protocol did not
impose limits on developing nations' emissions, and its possible effect
on the U.S. economy was the subject of numerous studies. Although the
U.S. government signed the Protocol in 1998, it was not submitted to
the Senate for ratification. In March 2001, President Bush announced
that he opposed the Protocol.
In response to the requirements of the 1990 act, the administration
reported annually from 1990 through 2004 on funding for climate change
science in reports titled Our Changing Planet.[Footnote 5] From 1990
through 2001, the reports presented detailed science funding data for
the USGCRP. Federal climate change science programs were reorganized in
2001 and 2002. In 2001, the Climate Change Research Initiative (CCRI)
was created to coordinate short-term climate change research focused on
reducing uncertainty, and in 2002, CCSP was created to coordinate and
integrate USGCRP and CCRI activities. Since 2002, CCSP has been
responsible for meeting the reporting requirement and has published the
Our Changing Planet reports. The most recent report in this series was
published in July 2004, and the next report is expected to be available
in late-2005.
In March 1998, OMB, in response to a congressional requirement for a
detailed account of climate change expenditures and obligations, issued
a brief report summarizing federal agency programs related to global
climate change. In August 1998, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO),
in response to a request from the Senate Committee on the Budget,
issued a more detailed report on the same topic. OMB produced another
climate change expenditures report in March 1999, in response to a
similar requirement. OMB's 1999 report and CBO's 1998 report both
presented federal climate change funding using four categories:
technology, science, international assistance, and tax expenditures. As
we testified in 1999, these reports presented generally comparable
information.[Footnote 6] In response to a request at that hearing, OMB
provided climate change funding data for 1993 through 1998 for the
hearing record.
Each year since 1999, the Congress has included a provision in annual
appropriations laws requiring OMB to report in detail all federal
agency obligations and expenditures, domestic and international, for
climate change programs and activities. As a result of these reporting
requirements, OMB annually publishes the Federal Climate Change
Expenditures Report to Congress, which presents federal climate change
funding for the technology, science, and international assistance
categories, and tax expenditures. The climate change activities and
associated costs presented in OMB reports must be identified by line
item as presented in the President's budget appendix. OMB has
interpreted this to mean that the data in the reports must be shown by
budget account. For the last 3 years, the Congress has required that
the administration produce reports for climate change expenditures and
obligations for the current fiscal year within 45 days after the
submission of the President's budget request for the upcoming fiscal
year. OMB's most recent report was released in March 2005.
OMB reports include a wide range of federal climate-related programs
and activities. Some activities, like scientific research on global
environmental change by USGCRP, are explicitly climate change programs,
whereas others, such as many technology initiatives, are not solely for
climate change purposes. For example, OMB reports included some
programs that were started after the United States ratified the
Framework Convention in 1992, and were specifically designed to
encourage businesses and others to reduce their greenhouse gas
emissions, for example, by installing more efficient lighting. OMB
reports also included programs that were expanded or initiated in the
wake of the 1973 oil embargo to support such activities as energy
conservation (to use energy more efficiently), renewable energy (to
substitute for fossil fuels), and fossil energy (to make more efficient
use of fossil fuels), all of which can help to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions, but were not initially developed as climate change programs.
Reported Federal Climate Change Funding Increased for Three of the Four
Funding Categories, but Data May Not Be Comparable Over Time:
Federal climate change funding, as reported by OMB, increased from
$2.35 billion in 1993 to $5.09 billion in 2004 (116 percent), or from
$3.28 billion to $5.09 billion (55 percent) after adjusting for
inflation and also increased for technology, science, and international
assistance between 1993 and 2004, as shown in table 1. However, changes
in reporting methods limit the comparability of funding data over time,
and therefore it is unclear whether funding increased as much as
reported by OMB. Technology funding increased as a share of total
funding over time, while science and international assistance funding
declined as shares of the total because technology funding increased at
a faster rate than the other categories. OMB did not report estimates
for existing climate-related tax expenditures during this time period,
although climate-related tax expenditures amounted to hundreds of
millions of dollars in revenue forgone by the federal government in
fiscal year 2004. OMB officials told us that changes in reporting
methods were due to such reasons as the short amount of time available
to prepare the report, the fact that the reporting requirement is not
permanent law, but appears each year in appropriations legislation, and
changes in administration policy and priorities.
Table 1: Reported Federal Climate Change Funding by Category, Selected
Years:
Discretionary budget authority in millions of dollars.
Category: Technology;
1993: $845;
1997: $1,056;
2001: $1,675;
2004: $2,868.
Category: Science;
1993: $1,306;
1997: $1,656;
2001: $1,728;
2004: $1,976.
Category: International assistance;
1993: $201;
1997: $164;
2001: $218;
2004: $252.
Category: Tax expenditures[A].
Total;
1993: $2,352;
1997: $2,876;
2001: $3,603;
2004: $5,090.
Source: GAO analysis of OMB data.
[A] OMB did not report revenue loss estimates for existing climate-
related tax expenditures from 1993 through 2004.
[End of table]
Technology:
From 1993 through 2004, technology funding increased as a share of
total federal climate funding from 36 percent to 56 percent, as
reported by OMB. Over this time period, technology funding increased
from $845 million to $2.87 billion (239 percent), or adjusted for
inflation, from $1.18 billion to $2.87 billion (143 percent). For
example, funding for energy conservation increased from $346 million to
$868 million, and funding for renewable energy increased from $249
million to $352 million. Funding data for the seven largest accounts,
which accounted for 92 percent of technology funding in 2004, are
presented for selected years in table 2. Year-by-year data on
technology funding are available in appendixes II and IV.
Table 2: Reported Technology Funding, Selected Accounts and Years:
Discretionary budget authority in millions of dollars.
Agency: Department of Energy;
Account: Energy Conservation;
1993: $346;
1997: $414;
2001: $810;
2004: $868.
Account: Energy Supply -Fossil Energy Research and Development (R&D);
1993: $250;
1997: $201;
2001: $292;
2004: $455.
Account: Energy Supply -Renewable Energy;
1993: $249;
1997: $244;
2001: $370;
2004: $352.
Account: Science (Fusion, Sequestration, and Hydrogen)[A];
2001: $35;
2004: $333.
Account: Energy Supply -Nuclear[B];
2001: $39;
2004: $309.
Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration;
Account: Exploration, Science, and Aeronautics;
2004: $227.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency;
Account: Environmental Programs and Management;
1997: $70;
2001: $96;
2004: $89.
Other;
1997: $127;
2001: $33;
2004: $235.
Total;
1993: $845;
1997: $1,056;
2001: $1,675;
2004: $2,868.
Source: GAO analysis of OMB data.
Note: Blank cells indicate that OMB did not report a value in the
technology category for this account for this year.
[A] Sequestration can be defined as the capture and isolation of gases
that otherwise could contribute to global climate change.
[B] For 2001 Energy Supply -Nuclear funding, we counted the Nuclear
Energy Research Initiative and Energy Supply -Nuclear budget accounts
as presented by OMB. OMB did not separately present these accounts for
2004, and included funding for the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative
within the Energy Supply -Nuclear account.
[End of table]
We identified three ways that the figures on technology funding
presented in OMB's three most recent reports may not be comparable to
the figures presented in previous reports. First, OMB added accounts
that were not previously presented. For example, OMB reported that NASA
had $152 million in funding for technology-related activities that
included research to reduce emissions associated with aircraft
operations in 2003. OMB did not report this account in the technology
category in 2002. Additional NASA funding in the same account was
reported in the science category in 2002 and 2003. Further, OMB
reported that the Department of Commerce's National Institute of
Standards and Technology received funding of $40 million in 2003, to
develop climate change measurement instruments and standards, among
other activities. OMB did not report this account in 2002. About 47
percent of the reported $918-million increase in technology funding
from 2002 to 2003, the largest year-to-year increase of the time period
we studied, was due to the inclusion of new accounts that were not
previously reported. In addition, OMB included and removed some
accounts, without explanation, from reports in years other than 2003.
For example, OMB reported combined funding of $195 million in 1999, and
$200 million in 2000, for bio-based products and bio-energy at the
Departments of Energy and Agriculture. No funding for these accounts
was reported from 1993 through 1998 or from 2001 through 2004. In each
of these cases, OMB did not explain whether the new accounts reflected
the creation of new programs, a decision to count an existing program
for the first time, or a decision to re-classify funding from different
categories as technology funding.
According to OMB officials, these changes in report structure and
content for technology funding, as well as similar changes in science
and international assistance funding, were the result of time
constraints and other factors. They told us that the short timeline
required by the Congress for completing the report (within 45 days of
submitting the upcoming year's budget for the three most recent
reports) limited OMB's ability to analyze data submitted by agencies.
They said that they must rely on funding estimates quickly developed by
agencies in order to produce the report within the specified timeframe,
and that the reports are often compilations of agency activities and
programs, some of which may or may not have been presented separately
in prior years. Moreover, these officials told us that the presentation
of data has changed over time for a variety of other reasons, including
changes in administration priorities and policy, changes in
congressional direction, changes to budget and account structures, and
attempts to more accurately reflect the reporting requirement as
specified in the annual appropriations language. The officials also
stated that in each report, they ensured consistency for the 3 years
covered (prior year, current year, and budget year).
Furthermore, OMB officials told us that the presentation of new
accounts in the technology category, as well as the international
assistance category, was due to the establishment of new programs and
the inclusion of existing programs. They told us that the account-by-
account display in the reports has been changed over time as the CCSP
and the Climate Change Technology Program (CCTP), a multi-agency
technology research and development coordinating structure similar to
the CCSP, have become better defined.
Second, OMB reported that it expanded the definitions of some accounts
to include more activities, but did not specify how the definitions
were changed. We found that over 50 percent of the increase in
technology funding from 2002 to 2003 was due to increases in two
existing DOE accounts: nuclear energy supply and science (fusion,
sequestration, and hydrogen). OMB reported funding of $32 million in
2002, and $257 million in 2003, for the nuclear energy supply
account.[Footnote 7] Further, OMB reported funding of $35 million in
2002, and $298 million in 2003, for the science (fusion, sequestration,
and hydrogen) account. Although OMB stated in its May 2004 report that
2003 funding data included more activities within certain accounts,
including the research and development of nuclear and fusion energy,
the report was unclear about whether the funding increases for these
two existing accounts were due to the addition of more programs to the
accounts or increased funding for existing programs already counted in
the accounts. Further, if new programs were counted in these accounts,
OMB did not specify what programs were added and why.
OMB officials told us that the definitions of some accounts were
changed to include more nuclear programs because, while the prior
administration did not consider nuclear programs to be part of its
activities relating to climate change, the current administration does
consider them to be a key part of the CCTP.
Third, OMB did not maintain the distinction that it had made in
previous reports between funding for programs whose primary focus is
climate change and programs where climate change is not the primary
focus. As a result, certain accounts in the technology category were
consolidated into larger accounts. From 1993 through 2001, OMB
presented funding data as directly or indirectly related to climate
change. The former programs are those for which climate change is a
primary purpose, such as renewable energy research and development. The
latter are programs that have another primary purpose, but which
support climate change goals. For example, grants to help low-income
people weatherize their dwellings are intended primarily to reduce
heating costs, but may also help reduce the consumption of fossil
fuels. OMB did not maintain the distinction between the two kinds of
programs for 2002, 2003, and 2004 funding data. For example, OMB
presented energy conservation funding of $810 million in 2001,
including $619 million in direct research and development funding, and
$191 million in indirect funding for weatherization and state energy
grants. In contrast, 2002 funding data presented by OMB reflected
energy conservation funding of $897 million, including $622 million in
research and development, $230 million for weatherization, and $45
million for state energy grants, but did not distinguish between direct
and indirect funding. OMB presented energy conservation funding of $880
million in 2003, and $868 million in 2004, as single accounts without
any additional detail.
OMB officials stated that they had adopted a different approach to
reporting climate change funding to reflect the new program structures
as the CCSP and CCTP were being established. They stated that the
result was, in some cases, an aggregation of activities that may have
previously been reported in separate accounts. According to the
officials, the 2003 and 2004 data more accurately reflect the range of
climate change-related programs as they are now organized. OMB included
a crosswalk in its May 2004 report that showed 2003 funding levels as
they would have been presented using the methodology of previous
reports. While the crosswalk identified funding for accounts that were
presented in previous reports, it did not identify new funding reported
by OMB or specify whether such funding was the result of counting new
programs, a decision to start counting existing programs as climate
change-related, or shifts between categories. OMB officials told us
that the reporting methodology has changed since the initial reports
and that it may be difficult to resolve the differences because of
changes in budget and account structure. Finally, they noted that each
report has been prepared in response to a one-time requirement and that
there has been no requirement for a consistent reporting format from
one year to the next or to explain differences in methodology from one
report to another.
Science:
According to both OMB and CCSP, the share of total climate change
funding devoted to science decreased from 56 percent in 1993 to 39
percent in 2004, even though science funding increased from $1.31
billion to $1.98 billion (51 percent), or from $1.82 billion to $1.98
billion (9 percent) after adjusting for inflation. For example,
according to OMB, funding for NASA on activities such as the satellite
measurement of atmospheric ozone concentrations increased from $888
million to $1.26 billion.[Footnote 8]
OMB reported new science funding for 2003 and 2004 to reflect the
creation of CCRI. Funding for CCRI increased from $41 million in 2003,
the first year funding for CCRI was presented, to $173 million in 2004,
and included funding by most of the agencies presented in table 3. We
present funding for CCRI as a separate program to illustrate the new
organization's role in increasing reported climate change funding.
Table 3 presents funding as reported by OMB for the eight largest
agencies and programs in the science category, which account for 99
percent of the science total for 2004. Year-by-year data on science
funding are available in appendixes II and IV.
Table 3: Reported Science Funding by Agency or Program, Selected Years:
Discretionary budget authority in millions of dollars.
Agency or program: NASA[A];
Account: Science, Aeronautics, and Technology;
1993: $888;
1997: $1,218;
2001: $1,176;
2004: $1,256.
Agency or program: National Science Foundation;
Account: Research and Related Activities;
1993: $124;
1997: $166;
2001: $181;
2004: $185.
Agency or program: CCRI;
Account: Various accounts for eight agencies;
2004: $173.
Agency or program: DOE;
Account: Science (Biological and Environmental Research);
1993: $118;
1997: $109;
2001: $116;
2004: $102.
Agency or program: Department of Commerce -National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration;
Account: Operations, Research, and Facilities;
1993: $66;
1997: $60;
2001: $93;
2004: $82.
Agency or program: Department of Agriculture;
Account: Agriculture Research Service and 4 other accounts;
1993: $55;
1997: $57;
2001: $51;
2004: $64.
Agency or program: Department of Health and Human Services;
Account: National Institutes of Health (NIH);
2001: $54;
2004: $62.
Agency or program: Department of Interior -U.S. Geological Survey;
Account: Surveys and Research;
1993: $22;
1997: $26;
2001: $27;
2004: $28.
Other;
1993: $33;
1997: $20;
2001: $30;
2004: $24.
Total;
1993: $1,306;
1997: $1,656;
2001: $1,728;
2004: $1,976.
Source: GAO analysis of OMB data.
Note: Blank cells indicate that OMB generally presented climate science
funding with one account per agency.
[A] Beginning in 2004, NASA funding reflects full-cost accounting,
meaning institutional activities such as personnel and facilities
(which had been held in separate accounts) are included. NASA's climate
change funding varies based on changes in its budget for space
observing platforms, the natural development cycle of its satellites,
and revisions to mission profiles.
[End of table]
Science funding data from 1993 through 2004, as reported by OMB and
CCSP, were generally comparable, although there were more discrepancies
in earlier years than in later years.[Footnote 9] Science funding
totals reported by CCSP from 1993 through 1997 were within 3 percent of
the OMB totals for all years except 1996 and 1997. Science funding
totals reported by CCSP in 1996 and 1997 were $156 million (9 percent)
and $162 million (10 percent) higher than those reported by OMB. Over
90 percent of the difference for these years occurred because CCSP
reported greater funding for NASA than OMB reported. CCSP stated in its
fiscal year 1998 report that it increased its 1996 and 1997 budget
figures to reflect the reclassification of certain programs and
activities in some agencies that were not previously included in the
science funding total.
Total science funding reported by OMB and CCSP from 1998 through 2004
was identical for 4 of the 7 years. The largest difference for the 3
years that were not identical was $8 million in 2001, which represented
less than 1 percent of the science funding total reported by OMB for
that year. The other differences in total science funding were $3
million in 2002, and $1 million in 1999, and each represented less than
1 percent of the OMB science total for those years.
Science funding by agency, as presented by OMB and CCSP from 1993
through 1997, differed in many cases, with the exception of funding for
the National Science Foundation (NSF), which was nearly identical over
that time period. For example, CCSP reported $143 million more funding
for NASA in 1996 than OMB reported, and OMB reported $24.9 million more
funding for DOE in 1994 than CCSP reported. The greatest dollar
difference related to NASA's funding in 1997. Whereas OMB reported
funding of $1.22 billion, CCSP reported funding of $1.37 billion--$151
million, or 12 percent more than the OMB amount. The greatest
percentage difference related to the Department of the Interior's
funding in 1993. Whereas OMB reported funding of $22 million, CCSP
reported funding of $37.7 million--$15.7 million, or 71 percent more
than reported by OMB. Further, from 1993 through 1997, OMB did not
report science funding by some agencies that were reported by CCSP. For
example, CCSP reported that DOD's funding ranged from $5.7 to $6.6
million from 1993 through 1995, and that the Tennessee Valley Authority
received funding of $1 million or less per year from 1993 through 1997,
but OMB did not report any such funding.
OMB officials told us that data used for the 1993 through 1997 science
funding comparison with CCSP were collected too long ago to be able to
identify the differences. However, they stated that the data from early
years were produced in a very short period for use in testimony or
questions for the record. According to OMB, this quick turnaround did
not allow time for a thorough consistency check with other data
sources.
From 1998 through 2004, OMB and CCSP data on funding by agency were
nearly identical. Both OMB and CCSP reported science funding for nine
agencies over the entire 7-year period, for a total of 63 agency
funding amounts. Of these, 52, or 83 percent, matched exactly. Of the
11 differences, there was one difference of $8 million, one of $2
million, and nine of $1 million or less. The greatest difference from
1998 through 2004 was $8 million in funding for the Department of
Commerce in 2001, which was 9 percent of the Department of Commerce
total, or less than 1 percent of total science funding as reported by
OMB for that year.
In addition to presenting data on funding by agency and total science
funding, CCSP included more detailed science data in its Our Changing
Planet reports. CCSP used several ways of categorizing data on science
funding in its reports, but the data were difficult to compare over the
entire time period because CCSP periodically introduced new
categorization methods without explaining how the new methods could be
compared with the ones they replaced. Specifically, from 1993 through
2004, in addition to reported funding by agency, CCSP used seven
different methods to present detailed science funding data, making it
impossible to develop consistent funding trends over the entire
timeframe. For example, CCSP presented climate change science funding
from 1993 through 1998 by budget function, a method that presents
funding by agency in categories such as energy, agriculture, and
natural resources and environment. CCSP presented science funding data
for 1998 by budget function and also by research element, a new
categorization method that divided funding by major components of the
earth's environmental systems, such as "Global Water Cycle" and
"Atmospheric Composition." In subsequent Our Changing Planet reports,
CCSP continued to use the research element categorization method to
present science funding, but stopped using the budget function method
without explaining how the two methods compared to each other. As a
consequence, the detailed science funding trends presented by budget
function from 1993 through 1998 cannot be compared to funding presented
by research element from 1998 through 2004.
From 1999 through 2004, in addition to funding by agency, CCSP used two
categorization methods, but these methods changed, making comparisons
over time difficult. The two other categorization methods employed by
CCSP included research element, described above, and program by agency,
which listed funding by specific programs within each agency. Both of
these methods changed from 1999 through 2004. For example, the research
elements used to categorize funding in 2000 included "Understanding the
Climate System," "Understanding the Composition and Chemistry of the
Atmosphere," "Global Water Cycle," "Global Carbon Cycle,"
"Understanding Changes in Ecosystems," "Understanding the Human
Dimensions of Global Change," and "Paleoclimate: The History of the
Earth System." In contrast, the research elements that were used to
categorize 2004 funding eliminated the "Paleoclimate" element and added
a "Land Use" element.
Further, the program by agency categorization method became less
detailed over time. For funding from 1993 through 2001, this method
included comparable program descriptions and presented program-specific
funding by agency. Reported funding for 2002, 2003, and 2004 generally
continued this presentation style, but some agencies replaced the
program-specific funding with less detailed funding categorizations.
For example, from 1993 through 2000, CCSP presented detailed funding
for certain NASA programs, including funding for the Earth Observing
System, a series of satellites and advanced data systems designed to
study clouds, atmospheric chemistry, and other processes. However, CCSP
presented less detail for NASA's funding from 2001 through 2004, and
did not present funding by specific program over this time period. As a
consequence, NASA's funding for the Earth Observing System and other
specific programs can no longer be identified in the CCSP reports.
Similarly, CCSP presented less detail for NSF funding from 2002 through
2004.
The director of CCSP told us that changes to reports, such as the
creation and deletion of different categorization methods, were made
because CCSP is changing towards a goals-oriented budget, and that
categorization methods changed as the program evolved. The director
also said that future reports will explicitly present budget data as
they were reported in prior reports to retain continuity, even if new
methods are introduced. Another CCSP official told us that CCSP now
works with OMB to ensure that consistent funding information is
presented in Our Changing Planet reports and OMB reports, and that,
beginning with the fiscal year 2006 report (to be published in late-
2005), CCSP will attempt to explain when and why changes are made to
reporting methods.
International Assistance:
From 1993 through 2004, international assistance funding decreased from
9 percent to 5 percent of total federal funding on climate change, as
reported by OMB. Over the same time period, international assistance
funding increased from $201 million to $252 million (an increase of 25
percent), but after adjusting for inflation, decreased from $280
million to $252 million (a decrease of 10 percent). For example,
reported funding for the Department of the Treasury to help developing
countries invest in energy efficiency, renewable energy, and the
development of clean energy technologies, such as fuel cells, increased
from zero in 1993 to $32 million in 2004. Table 4 presents funding as
reported by OMB for the three largest accounts in the international
assistance category. Year-by-year data on international assistance
funding are available in appendixes II and IV.
Table 4: Reported International Assistance Funding, Selected Accounts
and Years:
Discretionary budget authority in millions of dollars.
Agency: U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID);
Account: Development Assistance;
1993: $200;
1997: $147;
2001: $112;
2004: $125.
Account: Assistance for the Independent States of the Former Soviet
Union;
2001: $31;
2004: $47.
Agency: Department of the Treasury;
Account: Global Environment Facility[A];
1997: $14;
2001: $41;
2004: $32.
Other;
1993: $1;
1997: $3;
2001: $34;
2004: $48.
Total;
1993: $201;
1997: $164;
2001: $218;
2004: $252.
Source: GAO analysis of OMB data.
Note: Blank cells indicate that OMB did not report a value in the
international assistance category for this account for this year.
[A] OMB did not include the Department of the Treasury's funding for
the Global Environment Facility (GEF) in the international assistance
category from 1994 through 2001. OMB presented GEF funding in the
international assistance category from 2002 through 2004. To maintain
consistency, we included GEF funding in the international assistance
category from 1994 through 2004 for the purposes of this report.
[End of table]
International assistance funding reported by OMB was generally
comparable over time, although some new accounts were added without
explanation. For example, OMB reported climate change funding of $2
million in 2003 and $3 million in 2004 by USAID on the Andean
Counterdrug Initiative, but OMB did not report funding for this account
in previous years. According to OMB, the Andean Counterdrug Initiative
promoted carbon capture and sequestration by reducing illicit coca
production in Peru. In its reports, OMB did not provide an explanation
of whether such new accounts reflected the creation of new programs or
a decision to count existing programs as climate change-related for the
first time. OMB officials told us that the presentation of new accounts
in the international assistance category was due to the establishment
of new programs and the inclusion of existing programs. They told us
that the account-by-account display in the reports has been changed
over time as climate change programs have become better defined.
Tax Expenditures:
Although not required to provide information on tax expenditures
related to climate change, OMB reported certain information related to
climate-related tax expenditures for each year. Specifically, it listed
proposed climate-related tax expenditures appearing in the President's
budget, but it did not report revenue loss estimates for existing
climate-related tax expenditures from 1993 through 2004. Based on the
Department of the Treasury's tax expenditure list published in the 2006
budget,[Footnote 10] we identified four existing tax expenditures that
have purposes similar to programs reported by OMB in its climate change
reports. In 2004, estimated revenue losses amounted to hundreds of
millions of dollars for the following tax expenditures:[Footnote 11]
* $330 million in revenue losses was estimated for new technology tax
credits to reduce the cost of generating electricity from renewable
resources. A credit of 10 percent was available for investment in solar
and geothermal energy facilities. In addition, a credit of 1.5 cents
was available per kilowatt hour of electricity produced from renewable
resources such as biomass, poultry waste, and wind facilities.
* $100 million in revenue losses was estimated for excluded interest on
energy facility bonds to reduce the cost of investing in certain
hydroelectric and solid waste disposal facilities. The interest earned
on state and local bonds used to finance the construction of certain
hydroelectric generating facilities was tax exempt. Some solid waste
disposal facilities that produced electricity also qualified for this
exemption.
* $100 million in revenue losses was estimated for excluded income from
conservation subsidies provided by public utilities to reduce the cost
of purchasing energy-efficient technologies. Residential utility
customers could exclude from their taxable income energy conservation
subsidies provided by public utilities. Customers could exclude
subsidies used for installing or modifying certain equipment that
reduced energy consumption or improved the management of energy demand.
* $70 million in revenue losses was estimated for tax incentives for
the purchase of clean fueled vehicles to reduce automobile emissions. A
tax credit of 10 percent, not to exceed $4,000, was available to
purchasers of electric vehicles. Purchasers of vehicles powered by
compressed natural gas, hydrogen, alcohol, and other clean fuels could
deduct up to $50,000 of the vehicle purchase costs from their taxable
income, depending upon the weight and cost of the vehicle. Similarly,
owners of refueling properties could deduct up to $100,000 for the
purchase of re-fueling equipment for clean fueled vehicles.
OMB officials said that they consistently reported proposed tax
expenditures where a key purpose was specifically to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions. They also stated that they did not include existing tax
expenditures that may have greenhouse gas benefits but were enacted for
other purposes, and that the Congress has provided no guidance to
suggest additional tax expenditure data should be included in the
annual reports.
OMB's decision criteria for determining which tax expenditures to
include differed in two key respects from its criteria for determining
which accounts to include. First, OMB presented funding for existing as
well as proposed accounts, but presented information only on proposed,
but not existing, tax expenditures. Second, OMB presented funding for
programs where a key purpose was specifically to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions, as well as for programs that may have greenhouse gas
benefits but were enacted for other purposes. However, OMB presented
information only on proposed tax expenditures where a key purpose was
specifically to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Reported Funding for Most Agencies Increased, but Unexplained Changes
in Report Content Limit the Comparability of Data Over Time:
OMB reported that 12 of the 14 agencies that received funding for
climate change programs in 2004 received more funding in that year than
they had in 1993. However, it is unclear whether funding changed as
much as reported by OMB because unexplained modifications in the
reports' contents limit the comparability of agencies' funding data.
From 1993 through 2004, climate change funding for DOE increased more
than any other agency, from $963 million to $2.52 billion, for an
increase of $1.56 billion (162 percent). Adjusted for inflation, such
funding increased from $1.34 billion to $2.52 billion, for an increase
of $1.18 billion (88 percent). The second largest increase in agency
funding was for NASA, which received a $660 million (74 percent)
increase in funding over the same time period. NASA's funding increased
$310 million (25 percent) over this period after adjusting for
inflation. The funding increases for these two agencies accounted for
81 percent of the reported total increase in federal climate change
funding from 1993 through 2004. Conversely, USAID experienced the
largest decrease in funding--from $200 million in 1993 to $195 million
in 2004 (3 percent), or, in inflation-adjusted terms, from $279 million
to $195 million (30 percent).
From 1993 through 2004, eight agencies' funding increased as a share of
the total federal funding for climate change, while the other six
agencies' funding decreased as a share of the total. DOE's funding
increased at a faster rate than other agencies from 1993 through 2004,
meaning its share increased more than the funding shares of other
agencies. For example, DOE's share of total climate change funding
increased from 41 percent in 1993, to 49 percent in 2004, for a share
increase of almost 9 percent. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
experienced the next largest share increase from 1 percent of the total
in 1993, to 2 percent of the total in 2004, for a share increase of 1
percent. By contrast, although NASA's climate change funding increased
by $660 million, its share decreased from 38 percent in 1993, to 30
percent in 2004, because its funding did not increase as fast as some
other agencies, most notably DOE. Table 5 presents funding as reported
by OMB for selected agencies. Year-by-year data on funding by agency
are available in appendix III.
Table 5: Reported Climate Change Funding by Agency, Selected Years:
Discretionary budget authority in millions of dollars.
Agency: DOE;
1993: $963;
1997: $968;
2001: $1,665;
2004: $2,519.
Agency: NASA;
1993: $888;
1997: $1,218;
2001: $1,176;
2004: $1,548.
Agency: NSF;
1993: $124;
1997: $222;
2001: $181;
2004: $226.
Agency: USAID;
1993: $200;
1997: $147;
2001: $157;
2004: $195.
Agency: Department of Commerce;
1993: $66;
1997: $102;
2001: $93;
2004: $144.
Agency: EPA;
1993: $26;
1997: $99;
2001: $146;
2004: $127.
Agency: Department of Agriculture;
1993: $55;
1997: $57;
2001: $54;
2004: $115.
Other;
1993: $30;
1997: $63;
2001: $131;
2004: $216.
Total;
1993: $2,352;
1997: $2,876;
2001: $3,603;
2004: $5,090.
Source: GAO analysis of OMB data.
[End of table]
Unexplained changes in the content of OMB reports limit the
comparability of agencies' funding data, and therefore it is unclear
whether funding changed as much as was reported by OMB. Because agency
funding totals are composed of individual accounts, the changes in the
reports' contents discussed earlier, such as the unexplained addition
of accounts to the technology category, limit the comparability of
agencies' funding data over time. For example, OMB reported Army, Navy,
Air Force, and Defense-wide funding totaling $83 million in 2003, and
$51 million in 2004, in accounts titled Research, Development, Test,
and Evaluation, but did not report these accounts for prior years. OMB
did not explain whether these accounts reflected the creation of new
programs or a decision to count existing programs for the first time.
Accordingly, there is some uncertainty about DOD's climate change
funding over time. Similarly, OMB reported funding for other agencies
in some years but not in others, without explanation. For example, OMB
did not report any funding for the Department of Transportation from
2000 through 2002, but reported funding of $27 million in 2003, and $9
million in 2004, for the development of hydrogen fuel cells.[Footnote
12]OMB also presented $10 million of funding for the Department of
Housing and Urban Development in 1999 and 2000, but in no other years.
OMB officials told us that agencies can be included in reports for the
first time when new initiatives or programs are started, such as the
CCTP. In some cases, those initiatives or programs are made up of
entirely new funding but in other cases they may be additions on top of
a small amount of base funding. These officials told us that agencies
sometimes include data that were not previously reported when they
requested funding for those initiatives, but they assured us that the
data are reported consistently for the 3 years presented in each
report.
OMB Reports Presented Information on Budget Authority Rather Than--as
Required by the Congress--on Expenditures and Obligations:
The federal budget process is complex, and there are numerous steps
that culminate in the outlay of federal funds. Among the key steps in
this process are the following, as defined by OMB:
* Budget authority means the authority provided in law to incur
financial obligations that will result in outlays.
* Obligations are binding agreements that will result in outlays,
immediately or in the future.
* Outlays are payments to liquidate an obligation. The Congress, in the
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, as amended,
has defined outlays as being the expenditures and net lending of funds
under budget authority.
In simplified terms, budget authority precedes obligations, which
precede outlays in the process of spending federal funds.
As noted above, since 1999, the Congress has required the President to
submit a report each year to the Senate and House Committees on
Appropriations describing in detail all federal agency obligations and
expenditures, domestic and international, for climate change programs
and activities. In response, OMB has annually published the Federal
Climate Change Expenditures Report to Congress that presents budget
authority information in summary data tables instead of obligations and
expenditures, as the title of the report and the table titles suggest.
For example, although the March 2005 report's summary table is entitled
in bold as a "Summary of Federal Climate Change Expenditures," the
table's data are presented in terms of budget authority. The only
indication that the table presents budget authority information, rather
than expenditures, is a parenthetical statement to that effect in a
significantly smaller font.
OMB officials told us that the term "expenditures" is used in the
report title and text because that is the term used most often in the
legislative language. They also said that the reports present data in
terms of budget authority because OMB has always interpreted the bill
and report language to request the budget authority levels for each
activity in a particular year. They stated further that, from a
technical budget standpoint, expenditures are usually synonymous with
outlays, and that one way to think of budget authority is that it is
the level of expenditures (over a period of one or more years) that is
made available in a particular appropriations bill. OMB views this as
an appropriate interpretation of the congressional requirements since
the Committees on Appropriations work with budget authority and not
outlays. Moreover, OMB told us that the Appropriations Committees have
never objected to its interpretation of "obligations and expenditures"
as budget authority and that OMB has always identified the data
provided in the table as budget authority.
We have several concerns with OMB's approach. First, OMB's approach of
reporting budget authority does not comply with the language of the
annual legal requirements to report on climate change "obligations and
expenditures." Second, in reviewing the legislative history of these
reporting requirements, we found no support for OMB's interpretation
that when the Congress called for "obligations and expenditures"
information, it actually meant "budget authority" information. Third,
OMB's interpretation is not consistent with its own Circular A-11,
which defines budget authority as stated above, not as actual
obligations and expenditures. Nonetheless, we recognize that it is not
possible for OMB to meet the most recent reporting requirements because
it must provide a report on climate change obligations and expenditures
for the current fiscal year within 45 days of submitting the
President's budget for the following fiscal year (which must be
submitted the first Monday of February). For example, the President
submitted the fiscal year 2006 budget on February 7, 2005, so OMB's
report on fiscal year 2005 climate change expenditures and obligations
had to be submitted in March 2005--approximately halfway through the
2005 fiscal year. However, complete expenditures data are available
only after the end of each fiscal year. Thus, OMB could not meet both
the timing requirement and report all actual expenditures and
obligations in fiscal year 2005.
CCSP has also reported budget authority data in its Our Changing Planet
reports. As noted above, CCSP, or its predecessor organization,
initially was required to report annually on certain climate change
"amounts spent," "amounts expected to be spent," and "amounts
requested," but this reporting requirement was terminated in 2000.
Currently, CCSP is responsible for reporting information relating to
the federal budget and federal funding for climate change science, not
climate change expenditure information. Since 2000, CCSP has fulfilled
these reporting requirements by providing budget authority information
in its Our Changing Planet reports.
Conclusions:
The Congress has required the administration to provide reports on
federal climate change spending, funding, and requested funding. From
year to year there were numerous changes in the format and content of
OMB and CCSP reports, but the reasons for such changes have generally
not been well explained. Consequently, these reports--taken
collectively--do not provide a fully comparable picture of funding or
spending trends, and the Congress and the public cannot consistently
track federal climate change funding or spending over time.
Accordingly, it is unclear whether funding or spending has changed as
much as was reported. Even though the agencies have not been required
to follow a consistent reporting format from one year to the next, we
believe the Congress would have better information for policy decisions
if OMB and CCSP clearly explained changes in report content and format
when they occurred and communicated how such changes affected trends
over time.
Further, even though OMB is not required to include information on tax
expenditures in its reports, it included certain information on
proposed tax expenditures each year. In order to present a complete
picture of federal resources supporting climate-related activities, we
believe that OMB should also include information on existing tax
expenditures. For the same reason, we believe that OMB should use the
same criteria for determining what types of tax expenditures to include
in its reports as it uses in determining which funding accounts to
include.
We found that OMB reports presented information on budget authority,
not--as required by the Congress--on expenditures and obligations. OMB
is aware of this discrepancy because it uses the term "expenditures" in
the reports' titles and tables, but presents budget authority data.
Although OMB asserts that this approach is sufficient because the
Committees on Appropriations have not objected, and while we recognize
that it is not possible for OMB to meet both the substantive and timing
requirements for the reports, we believe that OMB should take the
initiative regarding future reporting requirements and request that the
Congress specify that the reports should include budget authority
information or provide OMB with additional time so that it can report
actual expenditures and obligations.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To better ensure that the Congress and the public can consistently
track federal climate change funding or spending over time, we are
making the following seven recommendations.
We recommend that OMB and CCSP,
* from year-to-year, each use the same format for presenting data, to
the extent that they may do so and remain in compliance with reporting
requirements;
* explain changes in report content or format when they are introduced;
and:
* provide and maintain a crosswalk comparing new and old report
structures when changes in report format are introduced.
We also recommend that OMB:
* include information on existing climate-related tax expenditures in
its reports,
* use the same criteria for determining which tax expenditures to
include as it uses for determining which accounts to include;
* request that the Congress clarify whether future reports should be
presented in terms of expenditures and obligations or in terms of
budget authority, and if the Congress prefers the former, OMB should
request the necessary time to prepare reports on that basis; and:
* if it continues to report budget authority rather than expenditures
and obligations, clearly identify the information reported as budget
authority throughout the report.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of this report to the Director, OMB, and the
Director, CCSP, for their review and comment. The Deputy Associate
Director of OMB's Natural Resources Division provided oral comments on
August 1, 2005. He said that OMB agreed with most of our
recommendations. Specifically, he said OMB agreed with our
recommendations regarding the format and content of its reports, and
was studying the recommendations on its presentation of tax expenditure
data and use of budget terminology. The Director, CCSP, provided
comments in a letter dated July 28, 2005, (see app. V). CCSP stated
that the report presents a fair assessment of how CCSP documents and
presents budget information, and agreed with all of our
recommendations.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days
from its issuance. At that time, we will send copies of this report to
the Director, CCSP; Director, OMB; and other interested officials. We
will make copies available to others upon request. In addition, the
report will be available at no charge on GAO's Web site at [Hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-3841. Contact points for our Offices of
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last
page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this
report are listed in appendix VI,
Signed by:
John B. Stephenson:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
[End of section]
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
This report examines federal climate change funding from 1993 through
2004, as reported by OMB and CCSP to determine (1) how total funding
and funding by category changed and the extent to which data on such
funding are comparable over time and (2) how funding by agency changed
and the extent to which data on such funding are comparable over time.
To answer these objectives we analyzed annual reports and congressional
testimony on climate change funding. If changes in the reports were not
explained, we asked responsible officials to explain the changes. To
examine whether OMB and CCSP reports presented the data required by the
Congress, we reviewed the reporting requirements, the legislative
history of the requirements, and the data provided by OMB and CCSP in
their reports.
OMB presented federal climate change funding from 1993 through 1998 in
testimony before the Congress, and from 1999 through 2004 in annual
reports. The administration also reported annually from 1993 through
2004 on funding for climate change science, one of the four categories
used in OMB reports. The term "funding" in this report reflects
discretionary budget authority, or the authority provided in law to
incur financial obligations that will result in outlays, as reported by
OMB and CCSP in their reports. For each annual report, OMB and CCSP
generally presented estimated funding for the year of the report,
actual funding for the previous year, and proposed funding for the next
year. For example, OMB's July 2002 report includes actual funding for
fiscal year 2001, estimated funding for fiscal year 2002, and proposed
funding for fiscal year 2003. We analyzed the most recently reported
actual funding (not estimates) reported by OMB and CCSP. The exceptions
were 1993, 1994, and 2004, where we present estimated science funding
for CCSP.[Footnote 13]
We consolidated actual funding data presented in OMB and CCSP reports
and testimony. OMB reports presented climate change funding in four
categories (technology, science, international assistance, and tax
expenditures), and reports prior to 2002 also distinguished between
direct and indirect climate change funding.[Footnote 14] We assembled a
consolidated OMB account table (shown in app. IV) using the four
category direct/indirect framework. We used OMB's 1999 testimony (which
presented funding data from 1993 through 1998) as the baseline for the
consolidated table, and analyzed OMB's annual reports to identify
whether accounts listed in the reports matched those presented in the
testimony. If the account matched an account from the testimony, we
included the value for the existing account in the consolidated table.
If the account was not presented in the testimony, we added the account
to the consolidated table. We continued this process until the
consolidated table presented in appendix IV included all the accounts
reported by OMB from 1993 through 2004, and used a similar methodology
to consolidate CCSP reports.[Footnote 15] We did not include accounts
in the appendixes where OMB presented data on proposed, but not actual,
funding. We calculated totals for some accounts using data presented by
OMB in its reports. These accounts are labeled in appendix IV.
After consolidating the OMB and CCSP report accounts, we developed
totals for funding by category and agency for each year. We presented
category totals as developed by OMB, when available, and calculated
category totals when no OMB total was available. To develop agency
funding totals, we identified accounts in appendix IV associated with
each agency and summed them. However, OMB stated, and our analysis
confirmed, that the sum of the accounts for a category or agency may
not match the category or agency totals presented by OMB in its
reports. According to OMB, the differences in account sums and category
and agency totals were due to removal of programs that were counted in
more than one account or category. OMB officials said they were unable
to determine the effect of these double counts over time because they
did not keep a single database with the report information for each
year. Accordingly, we presented OMB category totals when they were
available. If OMB did not present a funding category total, we
calculated it by summing the accounts for each category. OMB presented
agency funding totals for 2003 and 2004, but not for the other years.
To ensure consistency over the entire time period, we calculated agency
funding totals for all years by adding the accounts in appendix IV
associated with each agency. In 2003 and 2004, the account sums we
calculated and the agency totals presented by OMB were within $1
million of each other in all cases but one, 2004 funding for USAID.
According to OMB, $6 million of USAID funding was presented in two
different places in the report. Our methodology would have counted this
$6 million twice, so we adjusted the USAID total to reflect OMB's
agency total. We did not adjust the agency totals we calculated in any
other cases. CCSP reports already presented climate change science
funding by agency. We then used the funding by agency, funding by
category, and consolidated account tables to analyze funding trends
over time and compare OMB and CCSP science totals. Funding by category
is presented in appendix II, and funding by agency is presented in
appendix III.
To identify existing tax expenditures aimed at promoting energy
conservation and encouraging supply of renewable and alternative
energy, we reviewed the list of tax expenditures developed by the
Department of the Treasury for the fiscal year 2006 budget. We present
the estimated 2004 revenue losses due to these tax expenditures as
reported in the Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 2006
edition, Analytical Perspectives, chapter 19.[Footnote 16]
We determined that the data available in the OMB and CCSP reports were
sufficiently reliable for our purposes because the reports were
supplements to the budget (in the case of CCSP) or assembled from the
budget (in the case of OMB). Unless otherwise specified, we report
funding in nominal terms (not adjusted for inflation), and all years
refer to fiscal years. When we adjusted for inflation, to put the data
in fiscal year 2004 dollars, we used a fiscal year price index that we
calculated based on the calendar year price index in the National
Income and Product Accounts Table 3.10.4: Price Indexes for Government
Consumption Expenditures and General Government Gross Output, Line 34:
Nondefense consumption expenditures, published by the Department of
Commerce's Bureau of Economic Analysis.
In this report, the term "agency" includes executive departments and
agencies, and we use the term "account" to describe the budget
accounts, line items, programs, and activities presented in the OMB and
CCSP reports. For consistency, we characterize all Our Changing Planet
reports from 1993 through 2004 as CCSP reports, even though CCSP has
been in existence only since 2002, and prior reports were published by
the USGCRP. Totals and percentages may not add due to rounding. For
presentation purposes, we show federal climate change funding for 1993,
1997, 2001, and 2004 in report tables. Funding data for 1993 through
2004 are available in appendixes II, III, and IV.
We performed our work between July 2004 and August 2005 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Climate Change Funding by Category as Reported by OMB:
Table 6: Federal Climate Change Funding by Category as Reported by OMB,
1993-2004:
Discretionary budget authority in millions of dollars.
Funding category: Technology;
1993: $845;
1994: $1,038;
1995: $1,283;
1996: $1,106;
1997: $1,056;
1998: $1,251;
1999: $1,694;
2000: $1,793;
2001: $1,675;
2002: $1,637;
2003: $2,555;
2004: $2,868.
Funding category: Science;
1993: $1,306;
1994: $1,444;
1995: $1,760;
1996: $1,654;
1997: $1,656;
1998: $1,677;
1999: $1,657;
2000: $1,687;
2001: $1,728;
2002: $1,667;
2003: $1,766;
2004: $1,976.
Funding category: International assistance;
1993: $201;
1994: $186;
1995: $228;
1996: $192;
1997: $164;
1998: $186;
1999: $325;
2000: $177;
2001: $218;
2002: $224;
2003: $270;
2004: $252.
Funding category: Tax expenditures[A].
Total;
1993: $2,352;
1994: $2,668;
1995: $3,271;
1996: $2,952;
1997: $2,876;
1998: $3,114;
1999: $3,535;
2000: $3,511;
2001: $3,603;
2002: $3,522;
2003: $4,584;
2004: $5,090.
Source: GAO Analysis of OMB Reports.
[A] OMB did not report revenue loss estimates for existing climate-
related tax expenditures from 1993 through 2004.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Climate Change Funding by Agency as Reported by OMB:
Table 7: Climate Change Funding by Agency as Reported by OMB, 1993-
2004:
Discretionary budget authority in millions of dollars.
Agency: Department of Energy;
1993: $963;
1994: $1,113;
1995: $1,173;
1996: $1,008;
1997: $968;
1998: $1,186;
1999: $1,536;
2000: $1,652;
2001: $1,665;
2002: $1,636;
2003: $2,214;
2004: $2,519.
Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration;
1993: $888;
1994: $999;
1995: $1,305;
1996: $1,218;
1997: $1,218;
1998: $1,210;
1999: $1,155;
2000: $1,161;
2001: $1,176;
2002: $1,090;
2003: $1,299;
2004: $1,548.
Agency: National Science Foundation;
1993: $124;
1994: $142;
1995: $222;
1996: $216;
1997: $222;
1998: $214;
1999: $222;
2000: $229;
2001: $181;
2002: $189;
2003: $212;
2004: $226.
Agency: U.S. Agency for International Development;
1993: $200;
1994: $173;
1995: $192;
1996: $175;
1997: $147;
1998: $163;
1999: $236;
2000: $156;
2001: $157;
2002: $179;
2003: $214;
2004: $195.
Agency: Department of Commerce;
1993: $66;
1994: $63;
1995: $120;
1996: $113;
1997: $102;
1998: $89;
1999: $93;
2000: $91;
2001: $93;
2002: $100;
2003: $156;
2004: $144.
Agency: Environmental Protection Agency;
1993: $26;
1994: $73;
1995: $124;
1996: $114;
1997: $99;
1998: $103;
1999: $126;
2000: $124;
2001: $146;
2002: $136;
2003: $124;
2004: $127.
Agency: Department of Agriculture;
1993: $55;
1994: $56;
1995: $60;
1996: $52;
1997: $57;
1998: $53;
1999: $138;
2000: $132;
2001: $54;
2002: $59;
2003: $104;
2004: $115.
Agency: Department of Health and Human Services;
1998: $35;
1999: $40;
2000: $47;
2001: $54;
2002: $56;
2003: $61;
2004: $62.
Agency: Department of the Treasury;
1993: $0;
1994: $12;
1995: $35;
1996: $14;
1997: $14;
1998: $18;
1999: $60;
2000: $14;
2001: $54;
2002: $43;
2003: $56;
2004: $52.
Agency: Department of Defense;
2003: $83;
2004: $51.
Agency: Department of Interior;
1993: $22;
1994: $29;
1995: $27;
1996: $26;
1997: $26;
1998: $26;
1999: $27;
2000: $27;
2001: $27;
2002: $26;
2003: $29;
2004: $29.
Agency: Department of Transportation;
1995: $5;
1996: $6;
1997: $13;
1998: $5;
1999: $3;
2003: $27;
2004: $9.
Agency: Department of State;
1993: $1;
1994: $1;
1995: $1;
1996: $3;
1997: $3;
1998: $5;
1999: $7;
2000: $7;
2001: $7;
2002: $7;
2003: $6;
2004: $6.
Agency: Smithsonian Institution;
1993: $7;
1994: $7;
1995: $7;
1996: $7;
1997: $7;
1998: $7;
1999: $7;
2000: $7;
2001: $7;
2002: $6;
2003: $6;
2004: $6.
Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development;
1999: $10;
2000: $10.
Agency: Trade and Development Agency;
1999: $16.
Total;
1993: $2,352;
1994: $2,668;
1995: $3,271;
1996: $2,952;
1997: $2,876;
1998: $3,114;
1999: $3,535;
2000: $3,511;
2001: $3,603;
2002: $3,522;
2003: $4,584;
2004: $5,090.
Source: GAO Analysis of OMB Reports.
Note: Blank cells indicate that OMB did not report a value for this
agency for this year.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Analysis of OMB Funding Report Accounts:
Table 8: Analysis of OMB Funding Report Accounts, 1993-2004:
Discretionary budget authority in millions of dollars.
TECHNOLOGY:
Direct Technology:
Department of Agriculture;
1999: $0;
2000: $0;
2001: $3;
2002: $3;
2003: $42;
2004: $45.
Agricultural Research Service;
1999: $0;
2001: $0;
2003: $2;
2004: $2.
Rural Business Service.
Renewable Energy Program;
2002: $0;
2003: $22;
2004: $23.
Forest Service.
Forest and Rangeland Research;
1999: $0;
2000: $0;
2001: $3;
2003: $1;
2004: $0.
Research and Development -Inventories of Carbon Biomass;
2003: $1;
2004: $0.
Natural Resources Conservation Service;
1999: $0.
Carbon Cycle;
2003: $1;
2004: $1.
Biomass Research and Development;
2002: $3;
2003: $14;
2004: $14.
Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service.
Biofuels/Biomass research; Formula Funds, National Research Initiative;
2003: $3;
2004: $5.
Department of Commerce.
National Institutes of Standards and Technology;
2003: $40;
2004: $28.
Industrial Technical Services -Advanced Technology Program;
2003: $30;
2004: $18.
Scientific and Technical Research Services;
1999: $0;
2000: $2;
2003: $10;
2004: $10.
Department of Defense;
2003: $83;
2004: $51.
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Army;
2003: $45;
2004: $15.
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Navy;
2003: $16;
2004: $17.
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Air Force;
2003: $3;
2004: $1.
Research, Development, Test and Evaluation, Defense-wide;
2003: $19;
2004: $19.
Department of Energy;
1993: $595;
1994: $753;
1995: $829;
1996: $683;
1997: $658;
1998: $729;
1999: $890;
2000: $980;
2001: $1,050;
2002: $1,519;
2003: $2,099;
2004: $2,390.
Energy Conservation;
2002: $897;
2003: $880;
2004: $868.
Energy Conservation Research and Development;
1993: $346;
1994: $435;
1995: $468;
1996: $415;
1997: $414;
1998: $457;
1999: $518;
2000: $577;
2001: $619;
2002: $622.
State Energy Grants;
2002: $45.
Weatherization;
2002: $230.
Energy Supply;
1993: $249;
1994: $318;
1995: $361;
1996: $268;
1997: $244;
1998: $272;
1999: $332;
2000: $315;
2001: $375;
2002: $400;
2003: $667;
2004: $734.
Nuclear Energy Research Initiative;
2002: $32.
Energy Supply/Electricity;
2003: $88;
2004: $73.
Energy Supply/Renewables;
1993: $249;
1994: $318;
1995: $361;
1996: $268;
1997: $244;
1998: $272;
1999: $332;
2000: $310;
2001: $370;
2002: $368;
2003: $322;
2004: $352.
Energy Supply/Nuclear;
1999: $0;
2000: $5;
2001: $5;
2003: $257;
2004: $309.
Fossil Energy Research and Development;
1999: $24;
2000: $52;
2001: $18;
2002: $184;
2003: $253;
2004: $455.
Sequestration Research and Development;
2002: $32.
Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction;
2002: $152.
Science;
1999: $13;
2000: $33;
2001: $35;
2002: $35;
2003: $298;
2004: $333.
Sequestration;
2002: $35.
Energy Information Administration;
1999: $3;
2000: $3;
2001: $3;
2002: $3.
Environmental Protection Agency;
1994: $43;
1995: $102;
1996: $96;
1997: $86;
1998: $90;
1999: $109;
2000: $103;
2001: $123;
2002: $115;
2003: $102;
2004: $110.
Environmental Programs and Management;
1994: $35;
1995: $91;
1996: $81;
1997: $70;
1998: $73;
1999: $72;
2000: $76;
2001: $96;
2002: $89;
2003: $82;
2004: $89.
Science and Technology;
1994: $8;
1995: $11;
1996: $15;
1997: $16;
1998: $17;
1999: $37;
2000: $27;
2001: $27;
2002: $26;
2003: $20;
2004: $22.
Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Research and Technology;
1999: $10;
2000: $10.
Department of Interior;
2003: $1;
2004: $1.
U.S. Geological Survey-Surveys, Investigations, and Research.
Geology Discipline, Energy Program;
2003: $1;
2004: $1.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Exploration, Science and Aeronautics;
2003: $152;
2004: $227.
National Science Foundation.
Research and Related Activities;
2003: $9;
2004: $11.
Department of Transportation;
2003: $27;
2004: $5.
Federal Transit Administration.
Capital Investment Grants;
2003: $26.
Office of the Secretary of Technology.
Transportation, Policy, Research and Development;
2003: $1;
2004: $4.
Research and Innovative Technology Administration.
Research and Development;
2003: $0;
2004: $1.
Direct Technology Total;
1993: $595;
1994: $796;
1995: $931;
1996: $779;
1997: $744;
1998: $819;
1999: $1,009;
2000: $1,095;
2001: $1,176;
2002: $1,637;
2003: $2,555;
2004: $2,868.
Indirect Technology.
Department of Energy;
1993: $250;
1994: $242;
1995: $231;
1996: $212;
1997: $201;
1998: $351;
1999: $417;
2000: $434;
2001: $499.
Fossil Energy Research and Development;
1993: $250;
1994: $242;
1995: $231;
1996: $212;
1997: $201;
1998: $196;
1999: $233;
2000: $243;
2001: $274.
Coal -Efficient Combustion and Utilization;
1993: $186;
1994: $166;
1995: $144;
1996: $120;
1997: $101;
1998: $105.
Natural Gas -Efficient Combustion and Utilization;
1993: $64;
1994: $76;
1995: $87;
1996: $92;
1997: $100;
1998: $91.
Energy Supply.
Nuclear Energy Research and Development;
1998: $0;
1999: $18;
2000: $22;
2001: $34.
Energy Conservation Research and Development.
Weatherization and State Energy Grants;
1998: $155;
1999: $166;
2000: $169;
2001: $191.
Biobased Products and Bioenergy;
1999: $195;
2000: $200.
Department of Agriculture;
1999: $86;
2000: $76.
Agriculture Research Service;
1999: $44;
2000: $46.
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service.
Research and Education Assistance;
1999: $11;
2000: $11.
Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems;
2000: $9.
Forest Service.
Forest and Rangeland Management;
1999: $9;
2000: $9.
Executive Operations;
1999: $1;
2000: $1.
Departmental Administration;
1999: [A];
2000: [A]
Alternative Agricultural Research and Commercialization;
1999: $4.
Natural Resources Conservation Service.
Forestry Incentives Program;
1999: $16.
Rural Development.
Rural Community Advancement Program;
1999: $1.
Department of Energy;
1999: $109;
2000: $124.
Energy Supply.
Solar and Renewable Energy Research and Development;
1999: $40;
2000: $70.
Energy Conservation Research and Development;
1999: $41;
2000: $11.
Fossil Energy Research and Development;
1999: $0;
2000: $13.
Science (Basic Science);
1999: $27;
2000: $30.
Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles;
1999: $73;
2000: $64.
Department of Commerce;
1995: $63;
1996: $56;
1997: $42;
1998: $29;
1999: $30;
2000: $22.
Under Secretary for Technology/Office of Technology Policy;
1999: $1;
2000: $0.
Salaries and Expenses;
1995: $0;
1996: $1;
1997: $1;
1998: $1.
National Institutes of Standards and Technology;
1999: $29;
2000: $22.
Scientific and Technical Research and Services;
1995: $7;
1996: $7;
1997: $7;
1998: $6.
Industrial Technology Services;
1995: $56;
1996: $48;
1997: $34;
1998: $22.
National Science Foundation.
Research and Related Activities;
1995: $53;
1996: $53;
1997: $56;
1998: $47;
1999: $40;
2000: $42.
Department of Transportation.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Operations and Research;
1995: $5;
1996: $6;
1997: $13;
1998: $5;
1999: $3.
Indirect Technology Total;
1993: $250;
1994: $242;
1995: $352;
1996: $327;
1997: $312;
1998: $432;
1999: $685;
2000: $698;
2001: $499;
2002: [B];
2003: [B];
2004: [B].
Technology Total;
1993: $845;
1994: $1,038;
1995: $1,283;
1996: $1,106;
1997: $1,056;
1998: $1,251;
1999: $1,694;
2000: $1,793;
2001: $1,675;
2002: $1,637;
2003: $2,555;
2004: $2,868.
U.S. Global Change Research Program.
Department of Agriculture;
1993: $55;
1994: $56;
1995: $60;
1996: $52;
1997: $57;
1998: $53;
1999: $52;
2000: $56;
2001: $51;
2002: $56;
2003: $60;
2004: $64.
Agricultural Research Service;
1993: $17;
1994: $18;
1995: $24;
1996: $24;
1997: $26;
1998: $27;
1999: $26;
2000: $28;
2001: $29;
2002: $30;
2003: $35;
2004: $36.
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Services.
Research and Education;
1993: $11;
1994: $12;
1995: $10;
1996: $10;
1997: $12;
1998: $7;
1999: $7;
2000: $9;
2001: $4;
2002: $9;
2003: $8;
2004: $16.
Economic Research Service;
1993: $1;
1994: $1;
1995: $1;
1996: $1;
1997: $1;
1998: $1;
1999: $1;
2000: $1;
2001: $1;
2002: [A];
2003: $0;
2004: $0.
Natural Resources Conservation Service.
Conservation Operations;
1993: $2;
1994: $2;
1995: $2;
1996: $2;
1997: $1;
1998: $1;
1999: $1;
2000: $1.
Forest Service.
Forest and Rangeland Research;
1993: $24;
1994: $23;
1995: $23;
1996: $15;
1997: $17;
1998: $17;
1999: $17;
2000: $17;
2001: $17;
2002: $17;
2003: $17;
2004: $12.
Department of Commerce.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Operations, Research, and Facilities;
1993: $66;
1994: $63;
1995: $57;
1996: $57;
1997: $60;
1998: $60;
1999: $63;
2000: $67;
2001: $93;
2002: $100;
2003: $98;
2004: $82.
Department of Energy.
Science (Biological and Environmental Research);
1993: $118;
1994: $118;
1995: $113;
1996: $113;
1997: $109;
1998: $106;
1999: $114;
2000: $114;
2001: $116;
2002: $117;
2003: $112;
2004: $102.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Science and Technology;
1993: $26;
1994: $30;
1995: $22;
1996: $18;
1997: $13;
1998: $13;
1999: $17;
2000: $21;
2001: $23;
2002: $21;
2003: $22;
2004: $17.
Department of Health and Human Services;
1998: $35.
National Institutes of Health;
1998: $35;
1999: $40;
2000: $47;
2001: $54;
2002: $56;
2003: $61;
2004: $62.
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences;
1998: $4.
National Eye Institutes;
1998: $9.
National Cancer Institute;
1998: $21.
National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases;
1998: [A].
Department of the Interior.
U.S. Geological Survey.
Surveys, Investigations, and Research;
1993: $22;
1994: $29;
1995: $27;
1996: $26;
1997: $26;
1998: $26;
1999: $27;
2000: $27;
2001: $27;
2002: $26;
2003: $28;
2004: $28.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Science, Aeronautics, and Technology;
1993: $888;
1994: $999;
1995: $1,305;
1996: $1,218;
1997: $1,218;
1998: $1,210;
1999: $1,155;
2000: $1,161;
2001: $1,176;
2002: $1,090;
2003: $1,144;
2004: $1,256.
National Science Foundation.
Research and Related Activities;
1993: $124;
1994: $142;
1995: $169;
1996: $163;
1997: $166;
1998: $167;
1999: $182;
2000: $187;
2001: $181;
2002: $189;
2003: $188;
2004: $185.
Smithsonian Institution.
Salaries and Expenses;
1993: $7;
1994: $7;
1995: $7;
1996: $7;
1997: $7;
1998: $7;
1999: $7;
2000: $7;
2001: $7;
2002: $6;
2003: $6;
2004: $6.
U.S. Agency for International Development.
Development Assistance;
2002: $6;
2003: $6;
2004: $0.
U.S. Global Change Research Program Total;
1993: $1,306;
1994: $1,444;
1995: $1,760;
1996: $1,654;
1997: $1,656;
1998: $1,677;
1999: $1,657;
2000: $1,687;
2001: $1,728;
2002: $1,667;
2003: $1,725;
2004: $1,803.
Climate Change Research Initiative .
Department of Agriculture;
2003: $2;
2004: $6.
Agricultural Research Service;
2003: $0;
2004: $1.
Forest Service.
Forest and Rangeland Research;
2003: $1;
2004: $5.
Department of Commerce.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Operations, Research, and Facilities;
2003: $18;
2004: $34.
Department of Energy.
Science (Biological and Environmental Research);
2003: $3;
2004: $27.
National Science Foundation.
Research and Related Activities;
2003: $15;
2004: $30.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Science, Aeronautics, and Technology;
2003: $3;
2004: $65.
Department of State.
International Organizations and Programs;
1993: $1.
Department of Transportation.
Federal Highway Administration.
Federal Aid -Highways;
1994: $4.
U.S. Agency for International Development.
Development Assistance;
1994: $6.
Climate Change Research Initiative Total;
2003: $41;
2004: $173.
Science Total;
1993: $1,306;
1994: $1,444;
1995: $1,760;
1996: $1,654;
1997: $1,656;
1998: $1,677;
1999: $1,657;
2000: $1,687;
2001: $1,728;
2002: $1,667;
2003: $1,766;
2004: $1,976.
INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE.
Department of Energy;
1999: $6.
Energy Supply.
Solar and Renewable Energy Research and Development;
1999: $6.
Department of State.
International Organizations and Programs;
1993: $1;
1994: $1;
1995: $1;
1996: $3;
1997: $3;
1998: $5;
1999: $7;
2000: $7;
2001: $7;
2002: $7;
2003: $6;
2004: $5.
Trade and Development Agency;
1999: $16.
Department of the Treasury;
2002: $43;
2003: $56;
2004: $52.
International Development Assistance.
Global Environment Facility[C];
1994: $12;
1995: $35;
1996: $14;
1997: $14;
1998: $18;
1999: $60;
2000: $14;
2001: $41;
2002: $38;
2003: $56;
2004: $32.
Debt Restructuring.
Tropical Forest Conservation;
2001: $13;
2002: $5;
2004: $20.
U.S. Agency for International Development;
1999: $236;
2000: $156;
2001: $157;
2002: $174;
2003: $208;
2004: $195.
Development Assistance;
1993: $200;
1994: $173;
1995: $192;
1996: $175;
1997: $147;
1998: $163;
1999: $169;
2000: $109;
2001: $112;
2002: $116;
2003: $140;
2004: $125.
Development Credit Authority;
1999: $1;
2000: $1;
2001: $1.
Economic Support Fund;
1999: $19;
2000: $8;
2002: $12;
2003: $6;
2004: $9.
Assistance for the Independent States of the Former Soviet Union;
1999: $35;
2000: $34;
2001: $31;
2002: $30;
2003: $48;
2004: $47.
Assistance for Eastern Europe and the Baltic States;
1999: $12;
2000: $4;
2001: $13;
2002: $11;
2003: $8;
2004: $7.
International Disaster Assistance;
2002: $4;
2003: $4;
2004: $2.
Andean Counterdrug Initiative;
2003: $2;
2004: $3.
International Assistance Total;
1993: $201;
1994: $186;
1995: $228;
1996: $192;
1997: $164;
1998: $186;
1999: $325;
2000: $177;
2001: $218;
2002: $224;
2003: $270;
2004: $252.
Tax Expenditures[D].
Total Climate Change Funding;
1993: $2,352;
1994: $2,668;
1995: $3,271;
1996: $2,952;
1997: $2,876;
1998: $3,114;
1999: $3,535;
2000: $3,511;
2001: $3,603;
2002: $3,522;
2003: $4,584;
2004: $5,090.
Source: GAO Analysis of OMB Reports.
Notes: GAO calculated the total for shaded cells based on OMB data
presented in its reports. Blank cells indicate that OMB did not report
a value for the account for that year.
[A] OMB presented funding of less than $500,000 for this account:
[B] OMB did not distinguish between indirect and direct technology
funding for this year.
[C] GEF funding as presented by OMB for each year represents the
portion of total GEF funding that is related to climate change.
[D] OMB did not report revenue loss estimates for existing climate-
related tax expenditures from 1993 through 2004.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix V: Comments from the Climate Change Science Program:
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE:
The Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere:
THE DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR:
Washington. D.C. 20230:
JUL 28 2005:
Mr. John B Stephenson:
Director, Natural Resources and Environment:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Mr. Stephenson:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the General
Accounting Office's draft report entitled: Federal Reports on Climate
Change Funding Should Be Clearer and More Complete (GAO-05-461). The
comments from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on
the draft report are enclosed.
These comments were prepared in accordance with the Office of
Management and Budget Circular A-50.
Sincerely,
James R. Mahoney, Ph.D.
Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere:
Enclosure:
cc: The Honorable Carlos Gutierrez, Secretary of Commerce:
NOAA/CCSP Comments on the Draft GAO Report Entitled "Federal Reports on
Climate Change Funding Should Be Clearer and More Complete" (GAO-05-
461/August 2005):
General Comments:
The GAO report on federal reports on climate change funding presents a
fair assessment of how the Climate Change Science Program (CCSP)
documents and presents their climate budget information from 1993 to
2004. Regarding the "science" category (i.e., one of four categories
that GAO used to track climate spending and the category that directly
relates to CCSP), the report states that OMB and CCSP generally
presented consistent climate change funding totals over the 11 years
studied. The report also states that CCSP changed its reporting methods
in 1998, prior to the inception of CCSP, which makes it difficult to
compare funding categories between the 1993-1998 and 1998-2004 period.
CCSP remains committed to reporting on federal climate change spending
in through its annual Our Changing Planet (OCP) reports in a manner
that retains continuity from prior reports. We have noted that we will
be including a goal-oriented budget in upcoming editions of OCP, but we
will also continue to explicitly present budget data as it was in prior
editions. In addition, we intend to enhance our communication with OMB
to ensure that Congress and the public can consistently track federal
climate change spending over time.
Recommended Changes for Factual/Technical Information None:
Editorial Comments:
None:
NOAA/CCSP Response to GAO Recommendations:
The GAO states, "In order to better ensure that the Congress and the
public can consistently track federal climate change funding or
spending over time, we are making the following recommendations. We
recommend that OMB and CCSP."
Recommendation 1: "from year-to-year, each use the same format for
presenting data, to the extent that they may do so and remain in
compliance with report requirements."
NOAA/CCSP Response: NOAA/CCSP agrees with this recommendation. CCSP,
since it was announced in 2002, has been and remains committed to
reporting on federal climate change spending in through its annual Our
Changing Planet (OCP) reports in a manner that retains continuity from
prior reports. OCP is a program report that described the plans and
activities of CCSP as well as the Fiscal Year budget information in
fulfillment of reporting requirements. In addition, we intend to
enhance our communication with OMB to collaborate on our respective
reports to the maximum extent feasible.
Recommendation 2: "explain changes in report content or format when
they are introduced."
NOAA/CCSP Response: NOAA/CCSP agrees with this recommendation. We have
noted that we will be including a goal-oriented budget in upcoming
editions of OCP, and we do plan to provide a brief explanation of the
supplemental material. However, we will also continue to explicitly
present budget data as it was in prior editions.
Recommendation 2: "provide and maintain a crosswalk comparing new and
old report structures.when changes in report format are introduced."
NOAA/CCSP Response: NOAA/CCSP agrees with this recommendation, but
expresses concern about its ability to improve upon the currently
available financial analyses for the years before 2001. CCSP is unaware
of additional financial information supplemental to the official
financial reports already examined by GAO for the years before 2001.
[End of section]
Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
John B. Stephenson, (202) 512-3841:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the individual named above, David Marwick, Assistant
Director, Anne K. Johnson, and Joseph D. Thompson made key
contributions to this report. Also, John Delicath, Anne Stevens, and
Amy Webbink made important contributions.
(360527):
FOOTNOTES
[1] The revenue losses resulting from provisions of federal tax laws
may, in effect, be viewed as expenditures channeled through the tax
system. The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974,
as amended, requires that the budget include the level of tax
expenditures under existing law. Like the annual lists of tax
expenditures prepared by the Department of the Treasury, this report
considers only tax expenditures related to individual and corporate
income taxes and does not address excise taxes.
[2] An OMB official stated that there is no mandatory budget authority
for climate change programs.
[3] Pub. L. No. 101-606, 104 Stat. 3096 (1990) (partially terminated
pursuant to the Federal Reports Elimination and Sunset Act of 1995,
Pub. L. No. 104-66, § 3003 (1995)).
[4] The annual reporting requirement for climate change expenditures
was terminated effective May 15, 2000. The reporting requirement had
called for "(A) the amounts spent during the fiscal year most recently
ended; (B) the amounts expected to be spent during the current fiscal
year; and (C) the amounts requested for the fiscal year for which the
budget is being submitted."
[5] To maintain consistency with OMB data, which are available from
1993 through 2004, we reviewed reported science funding from 1993
through 2004.
[6] Climate Change: Observations on the April 1999 Report on Climate
Change Programs, GAO/T-RCED-99-199, May 20, 1999.
[7] We counted the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative (NERI) account as
Nuclear Energy Supply funding for 2002. The NERI account is counted in
the aggregate Energy Supply -Nuclear budget account in OMB's 2004 and
2005 reports, and is no longer presented separately.
[8] The $1.26 billion figure includes NASA's reported funding for the
United States Global Change Research Program. NASA funding for CCRI is
reported separately.
[9] CCSP's most recent report (July 2004) presents estimated 2004
funding, whereas OMB's most recent report (March 2005) presents actual
2004 funding. Whenever we compare 2004 science funding as reported by
OMB and CCSP, we are comparing estimated 2004 funding presented in
OMB's May 2004 report and CCSP's July 2004 report.
[10] The Department of the Treasury reported 2004 tax expenditures in
the Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 2006 edition, Analytical
Perspectives volume, chapter 19.
[11] The Department of the Treasury calculated each tax expenditure
estimate assuming other parts of the tax code remained unchanged.
Because tax provisions can be interdependent, we do not report the
mathematical sum of the revenue losses estimated for the four climate-
related tax expenditures, and instead present this general gauge of the
magnitude of revenue forgone for climate-related tax expenditures.
[12] OMB reported climate change funding for the Department of
Transportation for research related to automobile safety ranging from
$3 million to $13 million from 1995 through 1999.
[13] CCSP's reports presented estimated funding for 1993 and 1994, and
did not include actual funding amounts for these years. CCSP's fiscal
year 2006 report is expected to be published in late-2005.
[14] OMB no longer maintains the distinction between direct and
indirect funding in its reports. Indirect funding accounts, which had
been labeled "other climate-related programs" in its reports prior to
2002, were consolidated into the technology category in 2003, with the
exception of funding for GEF, which was included in the international
assistance category. Based on how OMB re-categorized this funding, we
present indirect funding from 1993 to 2001 as "indirect technology,"
with the exception of GEF, which we included in the international
category for all years.
[15] We do not include a consolidated table for CCSP climate change
science funding because OMB science funding information presented in
appendix IV is generally comparable to the CCSP totals.
[16] The Department of the Treasury also produces outlay equivalent
estimates--the amount of budget outlays that would be required to
provide the taxpayer with the same after-tax income as would be
received through the tax expenditure. The outlay equivalent measure can
be used to compare tax expenditures with spending programs on a more
equal footing.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of
Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office
441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director,
NelliganJ@gao.gov
(202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office,
441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
