CLIMATE CHANGE

Analysis of Reported 

Federal Funding

Report to the Chairman, Committee on 

Science, Space, and Technology, 

House of Representatives

April 2018 

GAO-18-223

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-18-223, a report to the 

Chairman, Committee on Science, Space, and 

Technology, House of Representatives

April 2018

CLIMATE CHANGE

Analysis of Reported Federal Funding

What GAO Found

In its reports to Congress, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) reported 

that annual federal climate change funding increased by $4.4 billion from fiscal 

years 2010 through 2017. For example, reported annual funding for technology 

to reduce emissions increased by about $3.5 billion, as seen in the figure below.

Although OMB included information on federal fiscal exposure to climate change 

in the President’s budgets for fiscal year 2016 and 2017, it did not provide this 

information in its most recent climate change funding reports. For example, the 

reports did not include information on programs—such as disaster assistance—

whose costs were likely to increase due to climate change which would have 

provided more complete information for making spending trade-off decisions for 

climate activities. According to GAO’s prior work, more complete information on

fiscal exposures and the long-term effects of decisions would help policymakers 

make trade-offs between spending with long-term and short-term benefits.

Reported Federal Climate Change Funding by Category- Fiscal Years 2010-2017

Note: The figure presents enacted budget authority except for fiscal years 2011, 2013, and 2017. For fiscal years 

2011 and 2017, OMB reported proposed budget authority. For fiscal year 2013, OMB reported final operating level 

funding. Funding is reported in nominal dollars, which are not adjusted for inflation.

Based on its review of the budget justifications of six agencies representing 89 

percent of OMB-reported funding, GAO identified few programs (18 of 533) 

whose primary purpose is to address climate change. The remaining programs 

were multi-purpose—the budget justifications included other program goals in 

addition to addressing climate change. The 18 programs represented about 6 

percent of these agencies’ reported climate change funding for fiscal year 2017.

According to GAO’s analysis, the 18 primary purpose climate change programs 

GAO identified are fragmented across four federal agencies, but the programs

serve different purposes, target different audiences, or operate at different time 

periods and scales, which minimizes potential overlap or duplication. 

Additionally, agency program managers collaborate through the U.S. Global 

Change Research Program—a coordinating entity—to avoid potential negative 

effects from fragmentation. However, climate change programs outside GAO’s 

review have not been analyzed for potential fragmentation, overlap, or 

duplication. View GAO-18-223. For more informationcontact Alfredo Gómez at (202) 512-3841 or 

gomezj@gao.gov.

Why GAO Did This Study

Since 1993, OMB has reported over 

$154 billion in funding for federal 

climate change activities, spread 

across the government—raising 

questions about fragmentation, 

overlap, or duplication.

GAO was asked to review federal 

climate change funding. This report

examines (1) reported federal funding 

from 2010 to 2017 and the extent to 

which reports on such funding are 

clearly linked to the federal fiscal 

exposure to climate change; (2) the 

extent to which selected agencies 

reported climate change funding that

supports programs where addressing 

climate change is the primary purpose;

and (3) the extent to which the primary 

purpose programs are fragmented, 

overlapping, or duplicative.

GAO reviewed OMB climate change 

funding reports; analyzed budget

justifications for six agencies—the 

Departments of Agriculture, 

Commerce, Defense, and Energy; the 

National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration and the National 

Science Foundation—representing 89 

percent of OMB-reported climate 

change funding in fiscal year 2014;

analyzed documents on primary 

purpose programs against GAO’s 

fragmentation, overlap, or duplication 

criteria; and reviewed GAO’s prior work 

on fiscal exposures.

What GAO Recommends

GAO is making two recommendations 

to OMB for enhancing the information it 

provides to Congress, in conjunction 

with future funding reports. OMB 

agreed with the findings but disagreed 

with GAO’s recommendations, which 

GAO continues to believe are valid as 

discussed in the report.
Page i GAO-18-223 Climate Change Funding

Letter 1

Background 5

OMB-Reported Climate Change Funding Increased by $4.4 Billion 

since 2010, but OMB Reports Do Not Provide Information about 

Fiscal Exposures for Budget Decisions 8

Selected Agencies’ Programs Whose Primary Purpose is 

Addressing Climate Change Represent a Small Portion of Their 

Total Agency-Reported Climate Change Funding 16

Selected Agencies’ Programs Whose Primary Purpose Is 

Addressing Climate Change Are Fragmented but Serve 

Different Purposes, Audiences, Times, and Scales 20

Conclusions 33

Recommendations for Executive Action 34

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 35

Appendix I Further Information on 18 Primary Purpose Programs Identified 

by GAO 39

Appendix II OMB-Reported Climate Change Funding Since 1993 58

Appendix III Climate Change Funding by Category as Reported by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) from Fiscal Years 1993 through 

2017 60

Appendix IV Climate Change Funding by Agency as Reported by the Office and 

Management and Budget (OMB), from Fiscal Years 1993 through 

2017 61

Appendix V Climate Change Funding by Line Item as Reported by the Office and 

Management and Budget (OMB), from Fiscal Years 1993 through 

2017 63

Contents
Page ii GAO-18-223 Climate Change Funding

Appendix VI Climate Change Tax Expenditures as Reported by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB), from Fiscal Years 2003 through 

2017 87

Appendix VII GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 89

Tables

Table 1: OMB-Reported Increases in Climate Change Funding by 

Category, Fiscal Years 2010 through 2017 10

Table 2: Funding for Primary Purpose Programs in Selected 

Agencies in Our Review, Fiscal Year 2010 through 2017 16

Table 3: Focus Area of Six Selected Agencies’ 18 Programs with 

the Primary Purpose of Addressing Climate Change 21

Figures

Figure 1: OMB-Reported Federal Climate Change Funding by 

Category, from Fiscal Years 2010 through 2017 9

Figure 2: OMB-Reported Federal Climate Change Funding by 

Category, from Fiscal Years 1993 through 2017 58
Page iii GAO-18-223 Climate Change Funding

Abbreviations

ARM Atmospheric Radiation Measurement 

ASR Atmospheric System Research 

ATLAS Advanced Topographic Laser Altimeter System 

Commerce Department of Commerce 

CESD Climate and Environmental Sciences Division 

CESM Climate and Earth System Modeling 

CCTP Climate Change Technology Program 

CLARREO Climate Absolute Radiance and Refractivity Observatory 

CPF Climate Absolute Radiance and Refractivity Observatory

 Pathfinder 

DOD the Department of Defense 

DOE Department of Energy 

ICESat The Ice, Cloud, and Land Elevation Satellite 

ICESat-2 The Ice, Cloud, and Land Elevation Satellite-2 

LASP Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics 

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

NSF National Science Foundation 

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

NIFA National Institute of Food and Agriculture 

NIST National Institute for Standards and Technology 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

OCO-2 Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 

OCO-3 Orbiting Carbon Observatory-3 

SORCE Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment 

TES Terrestrial Ecosystem Science 

TCSR Terrestrial Carbon Sequestration Research

TSIS-1 Total Solar Irradiance Sensor-1 

TSIS-2 Total Solar Irradiance Sensor-2 

USGCRP U.S. Global Change Research Program 

USDA U. S. Department of Agriculture 

UV-B ultraviolet radiation

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, 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.
Page 1 GAO-18-223 Climate Change Funding

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

April 30, 2018

The Honorable Lamar Smith

Chairman

Committee on Science, Space, and Technology

House of Representatives

Dear Mr. Chairman:

Since 1993, the federal government has reported over $154 billion in 

funding for activities to understand and address climate change, 

according to data from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). As 

reported by OMB, this funding has increased over time and is spread 

across the federal government. Specifically, federal climate change 

funding in nominal dollars increased from about $2.4 billion across 10 

agencies in fiscal year 1993 to about $13.2 billion across 19 agencies in 

proposed budget authority for fiscal year 2017.1 Recognizing that each 

department and agency operates under its own authorities and 

responsibilities—and can address climate change in different ways 

relevant to its own mission—federal efforts have followed a decentralized 

approach, with individual agencies deciding how to incorporate climaterelated information into their planning, operations, policies, and programs. 

Entities within the Executive Office of the President, such as the Office of 

Science and Technology Policy and the U.S. Global Change Research 

Program (USGCRP), work together to coordinate federal climate change 

activities.

Given the current fiscal constraints facing the federal government, efforts 

to effectively use resources are particularly important. We previously 

reported on broad principles that could help policymakers make effective 

resource decisions during the budget process.2 Specifically, we reported 

that a budget process should provide information about the long-term 

effect of decisions, provide information needed to understand important 

trade-offs, and provide for accountability and transparency. Additionally, 

 1

When adjusted for inflation, reported climate change funding increased from $3.6 billion 

in 1993 to $12.9 billion in the proposed budget authority for 2017.

2

GAO, Fiscal Exposures: Improving Cost Recognition in the Federal Budget, GAO-14-28 

(Washington, D.C.: Oct. 29, 2013) and The Nation’s Fiscal Health: Action is Needed to 

Address the Federal Government’s Fiscal Future, GAO-17-237SP (Washington, D.C.: 

Jan. 17, 2017).

Letter
Page 2 GAO-18-223 Climate Change Funding

in an October 2013 report, we reviewed risks facing the federal budget 

and found that for some risks, such as weather-related risks, the budget 

provided incomplete information or potentially misleading signals 

regarding the full cost of existing commitments.3 In that report we 

concluded that, consistent with our prior recommendations to provide 

information on fiscal exposures in the federal budget process, developing 

additional information on these budgetary risks could help policymakers 

make better informed decisions.

In prior work, we also found that policymakers face challenges in making 

effective budget decisions for programs and activities to address climate 

change. Specifically, in May 2011, we reviewed federal climate change 

funding from fiscal years 2003 through 2010 and found that it was 

organized across the federal government in a complex, crosscutting 

system.4 We also found that reported funding increased over time but 

was not aligned with strategic priorities because there was no coherent 

government-wide approach for addressing climate change. We 

recommended that the appropriate entities within the Executive Office of 

the President clearly establish strategic climate change priorities that 

consider the full range of federal efforts to address climate change. 

Further, in November 2015, we found that the federal government’s 

climate information—composed of climate data from satellites and 

weather stations, climate model projections, and other tools to inform 

decisions—was fragmented across many individual agencies and did not 

fully meet the needs of decision makers in federal, state, local, and 

private sectors.5 We recommended that the Executive Office of the 

 3

GAO-14-28. According to the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and 

Medicine, the ability to attribute the causes of some extreme event types has advanced 

rapidly since the emergence of event attribution science a little more than a decade ago, 

while attribution of other event types remains challenging. Confidence in attribution of 

specific extreme events is highest for extreme heat and cold events, followed by 

hydrological drought and heavy precipitation. For example, for extreme heat and cold 

events in particular, changes in long-term mean conditions provide a basis for expecting 

that there also should be related changes in extreme conditions. National Academies of 

Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Attribution of Extreme Weather Events in the 

Context of Climate Change. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press. doi: 

10.17226/21852.

4

GAO, Climate Change: Improvements Needed to Clarify National Priorities and Better 

Align Them with Federal Funding Decisions, GAO-11-317 (Washington, D.C.: May 20, 

2011).

5

GAO, Climate Information: A National System Could Help Federal, State, Local, and 

Private Sector Decision Makers Use Climate Information, GAO-16-37 (Washington, D.C.: 

Nov. 23, 2015).
Page 3 GAO-18-223 Climate Change Funding

President direct a federal entity to develop a set of authoritative climate 

change projections and observations and create a national climate 

information system with defined roles for federal agencies and others. 

The Executive Office of the President neither agreed nor disagreed with 

the 2011 and 2015 recommendations and as of June 2017, had not 

implemented the recommendations.

The reported increase in funding and fragmentation of federal climate 

information activities raises questions about whether other federal climate 

change efforts, such as technologies to reduce emissions, may be 

fragmented, overlapping, or duplicative. This report uses definitions to 

describe fragmentation, overlap, and duplication among government 

programs from our prior work.6 Fragmentation refers to circumstances in 

which more than one federal agency (or more than one organization 

within an agency) is involved in the same broad area of national need and

opportunities exist to improve service delivery. Overlap occurs when 

multiple agencies or programs have similar goals, engage in similar 

activities or strategies to achieve their goals, or target similar 

beneficiaries.7 Duplication occurs when two or more agencies or 

programs are engaged in the same activities or provide the same 

services to the same beneficiaries.

You asked us to review federal funding for climate change activities. This 

report examines (1) reported federal climate change funding since 2010 

and the extent to which reports on such funding are clearly linked to the 

federal fiscal exposure to climate change; (2) the extent to which selected 

federal agencies reported climate change funding that supports programs 

for which addressing climate change is the primary purpose, versus 

programs for which addressing climate change is one of multiple 

purposes; and (3) the extent to which primary purpose climate change 

programs are fragmented, overlapping, or duplicative.

To address all three objectives, we (1) reviewed government-wide climate 

change funding reports by OMB from fiscal years 2010 through 2017, and 

(2) reviewed agency reports, budget justifications and planning 

 6

GAO, Fragmentation, Overlap, and Duplication: An Evaluation and Management Guide, 

GAO-15-49SP (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 14, 2015).

7

We have reported that areas of overlap do not necessarily lead to duplication of efforts 

because initiatives sometimes differ in meaningful ways or leverage the efforts of other 

initiatives. See, for example, GAO, Solar Energy: Federal Initiatives Overlap but Take 

Measures to Avoid Duplication, GAO-12-843 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 20, 2012).
Page 4 GAO-18-223 Climate Change Funding

documents for a non-generalizable sample of six departments or 

agencies—the Department of Commerce, the Department of Defense 

(DOD), the Department of Energy (DOE), the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture (USDA), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

(NASA), and the National Science Foundation (NSF). We selected these 

departments or agencies because they represented the largest share (89 

percent) of OMB-reported climate change funding in 2014—the most 

recent OMB data available at the start of our review—and also conducted 

activities in each of the climate change funding categories described in 

OMB’s reports. The results of our analysis of these departments or 

agencies’ activities cannot be generalized to those of departments or 

agencies not included in our review. We also interviewed officials from 

coordinating entities such as the Council on Environmental Quality, and 

USGCRP. We assessed the reliability of OMB and budget data used in 

our analysis by comparing data across multiple sources, reviewing 

documentation about the data, tracing data back to its source, and 

interviewing officials knowledgeable about the data. We determined these 

data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our reporting objectives 

and have noted in our report any limitations associated with the data we 

present.

To determine OMB-reported climate change funding since fiscal year 

2010, we analyzed climate change funding data from OMB climate 

change funding reports by agency and line item. To assess whether these 

reports are clearly linked to federal fiscal exposure to climate change, we 

reviewed relevant reports by OMB and others that describe federal fiscal 

exposure to climate change impacts, and our prior work on providing 

information on federal fiscal exposures to policymakers to inform their 

decisions.

To determine the extent to which reported funding supports programs 

where addressing climate change is the primary purpose, we analyzed 

budget justifications for the six departments or agencies we selected 

against a list of climate change terms from OMB and USGCRP reports. 

For example, we reviewed agency program descriptions for references to 

“climate change,” “renewable energy,” “adaptation,” and “climate 

resilience,” among others. Based on the program purpose and activities 

described in agency budget justifications, we categorized programs as 

primary purpose or multiple-purpose. Primary purpose programs are 

those programs that agencies described as having addressing climate 

change as their main focus (e.g., a climate modeling program). Multiplepurpose programs are those programs that agencies described as having 

several goals in addition to addressing climate change (e.g., a clean 
Page 5 GAO-18-223 Climate Change Funding

energy technology program designed to promote rural economic 

development).

To determine whether primary purpose programs were fragmented, 

overlapping, or duplicative, we reviewed additional program 

documentation—including authorizing legislation, strategic planning 

documents, and performance reports—and evaluated program 

characteristics based on our fragmentation, overlap, or duplication 

criteria. We also applied our fragmentation, overlap, or duplication criteria 

to additional multiple-purpose programs. Specifically, we selected one 

multiple-purpose program from each of the six selected departments or 

agencies and two programs from departments or agencies outside our 

review. We selected these programs because they either had the largest 

reported climate change funding amounts for a multiple-purpose program 

within that particular department or agency, or the program engaged in 

similar activities as primary purpose programs.

The term “funding” in this report refers to budget authority, or the authority 

provided by federal law to enter into financial obligations that will result in 

outlays involving federal government funds, as reported by OMB in its 

climate change funding reports required by law. The term “agencies” in 

this report refers to federal departments or agencies. The term “program”

in this report refers to programs or activities that agencies identify as line 

items in their budget justifications. Unless otherwise stated, we report 

funding in nominal terms (not adjusted for inflation), and all years refer to 

fiscal years.

We conducted this performance audit from August 2016 to April 2018 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Since fiscal year 2010, annual appropriations laws have generally 

required the President to report on use of climate change funds. 

Specifically, the laws have generally required the President to report all 

federal agency funding, domestic and international, for climate change 

programs, projects, and activities to the congressional appropriations 

Background
Page 6 GAO-18-223 Climate Change Funding

committees within 120 days of submitting the President’s annual budget 

request.8 In response to these requirements, OMB has issued three 

reports to congressional appropriations committees. Taken together, the 

three OMB reports describe climate change funding for fiscal years 2010 

through 2017.9 Generally, these reports included federal agency funding 

for the following three categories:10

• Clean Energy Technology, which includes the research, 

development, and deployment of technologies to reduce greenhouse 

gas emissions and the reliance on fossil fuel, such as clean energy 

systems, geothermal, solar, wind, biomass, nuclear, and hydropower 

(water).11 It also includes technologies, programs, and processes to 

increase energy efficiency or reduce energy consumption, such as 

building efficiency, more effective transmission or distribution of 

electricity, and vehicle technologies that improve engine efficiency or 

fuel economy.

 8

Annual appropriations acts prior to fiscal year 2010 have also often included a 

requirement for the President to issue a report on climate change funding. We have 

previously reported on the reports OMB issued in response to these prior requirements. In 

May 1999, we reported about OMB’s April 1999 report summarizing federal agency 

programs related to global climate change. GAO, Climate Change: Observations on the 

April 1999 Report on Climate Change Programs, GAO-T-RCED-99-199 (Washington, 

D.C.: May 20, 1999). In August 2005, we reported on federal funding for climate change 

from 1993 through 2004 as reported by OMB. GAO, Climate Change: Federal Reports on 

Climate Change Funding Should Be Clearer and More Complete, GAO-05-461 

(Washington, D.C.: Aug. 25, 2005). In May 2011, we reported on federal funding for 

climate change for fiscal years 2003 through 2010 as reported by OMB. GAO, Climate 

Change: Improvements Needed to Clarify National Priorities and Better Align Them with 

Federal Funding Decisions, GAO-11-317 (Washington, D.C.: May 20, 2011).

9

Specifically, OMB issued reports in June 2010, August 2013, and January 2017. OMB 

did not issue some of the required reports, such as the report required by the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2017, and did not meet the reporting 

deadlines for the reports required by the Consolidated Appropriations Act for fiscal year 

2014, the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2015, 

and the Consolidated Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2016. OMB’s report issued in 

January 2017 responded to the reporting requirements in these three laws.

10OMB has also reported funding for tax expenditures related to climate change, and in its 

August 2013 report, it included a Natural Resources Adaptation category that captured 

funding for adaptation activities as reported by the Department of the Interior. See 

appendixes III and V for more information on OMB-reported climate change funding by 

category since 1993, and appendix VI for more information on OMB-reported tax 

expenditures.

11Biomass is an energy resource derived from plant- and algae-based material that 

includes crop wastes, forest residues, purpose-grown grasses, woody energy crops, 

algae, industrial wastes, sorted municipal solid waste, urban wood waste, and food waste.
Page 7 GAO-18-223 Climate Change Funding

• Science, which encompasses the activities of USGCRP and includes 

research, modeling, and observing activities to better understand 

climate change; efforts to analyze the cumulative effects on the 

environment of human activities and natural processes; and programs 

to provide climate information to policymakers and the public, in part 

to inform climate change adaptation decisions.12 USGCRP also 

reports annually on funding for climate change science among certain 

participating agencies in its Our Changing Planet reports.13

• International Assistance, which uses bilateral and multilateral 

assistance tools to address three global climate change policy pillars: 

adaptation, clean energy, and sustainable landscapes.14 For example, 

international assistance helps countries invest in energy efficiency 

programs to reduce emissions, as well as activities to help 

communities adapt to climate change.

 12Climate change adaptation—defined as adjusting natural or human systems in response 

to actual or expected climate change—is one way for the federal government to manage 

climate risks.

13USGCRP’s 13 participating agencies include the: Department of Agriculture, 

Department of Commerce, Department of Defense, Department of Energy, Department of 

Health and Human Services, Department of the Interior, Department of State, Department 

of Transportation, Environmental Protection Agency, National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration, National Science Foundation, Smithsonian Institution, and U.S. Agency for 

International Development. The Global Change Research Act of 1990 required the 

Federal Coordinating Council on Science, Engineering, and Technology to report annually 

to Congress the “expenditures required by each agency or department for carrying out its 

portion of the USGCRP,” among other things. Although this reporting requirement was 

terminated by statute in 2000, USGCRP continues to provide this information.

14Sustainable landscapes sequester carbon, clean the air and water, increase energy 

efficiency, restore habitats, and create value through significant economic, social, and 

environmental benefits.
Page 8 GAO-18-223 Climate Change Funding

Annual federal climate change funding across all OMB categories 

increased by $4.4 billion from fiscal year 2010 through fiscal year 2017, 

according to OMB’s three reports on such funding. However, the OMB 

reports did not provide information about climate-related fiscal exposures 

to assist policymakers in understanding budget trade-offs for climate 

change activities.

OMB-reported annual climate change funding across all categories 

increased from $8.8 billion in fiscal year 2010 to $13.2 billion in proposed 

budget authority for fiscal year 2017 in nominal dollars (about 50 percent, 

or 34 percent after adjusting for inflation), with reported agency funding 

for clean energy technologies (i.e., technologies to reduce greenhouse 

gas emissions) accounting for most of the $4.4 billion increase, as shown 

in figure 1.15

 15Nominal dollars are not adjusted for inflation.

OMB-Reported 

Climate Change 

Funding Increased by 

$4.4 Billion since 

2010, but OMB 

Reports Do Not 

Provide Information 

about Fiscal 

Exposures for Budget 

Decisions

OMB-Reported Climate 

Change Funding 

Increased by $4.4 Billion 

from Fiscal Years 2010 

through 2017, with 

Funding for Clean Energy 

Technology Accounting for 

Most of the Increase
Page 9 GAO-18-223 Climate Change Funding

Figure 1: OMB-Reported Federal Climate Change Funding by Category, from Fiscal 

Years 2010 through 2017

Notes: The figure presents enacted budget authority except for fiscal years 2011, 2013, and 2017. 

For fiscal years 2011 and 2017, OMB reported proposed budget authority. For fiscal year 2013, OMB 

reported final operating level funding. Funding is reported in nominal dollars, which are not adjusted 

for inflation.

OMB has also reported on federal funding for wildlife and natural resource adaptation from fiscal 

years 2010 through 2013. However, the data OMB reported in the adaptation category does not fully 

represent adaptation funding as it only includes data from the Department of the Interior. OMB 

reported Department of the Interior funding for adaptation as follows: fiscal year 2010, $65 million; 

fiscal year 2011, $87 million; fiscal year 2012, $88 million. We did not include funding for this category 

in fiscal year 2013 because we used OMB’s fiscal year 2017 report for fiscal year 2013 funding, and 

OMB did not report funding under this category in its 2017 report.

Funding in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Pub. L. No. 111-5 (Feb. 17, 2009)) 

and tax expenditures related to climate change are not included in this figure to maintain 

comparability with earlier GAO reports.

Specifically, reported annual funding for clean energy technology, such as 

nuclear, biomass, wind, and hydropower programs, increased by about 

$3.5 billion from fiscal years 2010 through 2017 in nominal dollars. Over 

the same period, OMB-reported agency funding for science and 

international assistance increased by $653 million and $346 million 

respectively, as shown in table 1.
Page 10 GAO-18-223 Climate Change Funding

Table 1: OMB-Reported Increases in Climate Change Funding by Category, Fiscal 

Years 2010 through 2017

Dollars in millions

 Fiscal Year

Funding category 2010a 2017b Increase

Clean energy technology 5,504 8,978 3,474

Science 2,122 2,775 653

International assistance 1,080 1,426 346

Natural resources adaptationc 65 NA (65)

Adjustments for programs in multiple 

categories

NA (26) (26)

Total 8,771 13,153 4,382

Source: GAO analysis of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) data. I GAO-18-223

Note: Funding is reported in nominal dollars and not adjusted for inflation.

a

Enacted budget authority

b

Proposed budget authority

c

OMB has also reported on federal funding for wildlife and natural resource adaptation from fiscal 

years 2010 through 2013. However, the data OMB reported in the adaptation category does not fully 

represent adaptation funding as it only includes data from the Department of the Interior. OMB did not 

report funding for this category in its January 2017 report.

• Clean Energy Technology. DOE programs accounted for most of the 

$3.5 billion increase in annual clean energy technology funding. 

Specifically, funding for DOE’s fusion, sequestration and hydrogen 

research (about $1.9 billion), energy efficiency and renewable energy 

programs ($656 million), as well as its carbon capture and storage 

and power systems research ($564 million) accounted for about 88 

percent of the $3.5 billion funding increase from fiscal years 2010 

through 2017, with a portion of the increase offset by decreases in 

other DOE programs, according to our analysis of OMB reports for 

this period. Funding for National Science Foundation ($486 million)

and DOD ($417 million) research accounted for another 26 percent of 

the funding increase.16

• Science. NASA programs accounted for most of the $653 million 

increase in annual science funding. In particular, funding for NASA’s 

science programs accounted for about 84 percent ($546 million) of the 

 16Multiple agencies and programs accounted for the remaining portion of the increase.

See appendixes IV and V for more information on reported funding by agency and 

program line item.
Page 11 GAO-18-223 Climate Change Funding

$653 million funding increase from fiscal years 2010 through 2017, 

based on our analysis of OMB reports. Funding for DOE’s biological 

and environmental research accounted for about another 12 percent 

($77 million) of the funding increase.17

• International Assistance. Department of State and Department of 

the Treasury programs accounted for the greatest increases in annual 

international assistance funding. Specifically, State economic support 

funding increased by $428 million and Treasury funding for the Green 

Climate Fund increased by $250 million, with half of the increase 

offset by decreases in other programs.18

OMB also reported annual funding for natural resources adaptation in its 

August 2013 report, but did not include this category in its January 2017 

report. In its August 2013 report, OMB reported funding for certain 

activities at Interior promoting adaptation—adjustments to natural or 

human systems in response to actual or expected climate change—under 

the natural resources adaptation category. We previously reported that 

the Administration was developing criteria to systematically account for a 

broader suite of adaptation programs.19 However, OMB staff we 

interviewed said that it is difficult to parse out adaptation funding for 

federal facilities because agencies do not necessarily separate it out from 

routine planning decisions. For example, an agency planning to build a 

sea-wall to protect a coastal facility might build it higher to accommodate 

rising sea levels but may not track this spending as climate changerelated.

 17The remaining 5 percent of the funding increase was spread across multiple agencies, 

such as the National Science Foundation. See appendixes IV and V for more information 

on reported funding by agency and program line item.

18According to our analysis of OMB reports, the reported funding increase for the 

Treasury’s Green Climate Fund was offset by funding reductions across multiple 

programs, such as the Clean Technology Fund ($300 million), and Strategic Climate Fund 

($75 million). See appendixes IV and V for more information on reported funding by 

agency and program line item.

19GAO, Climate Change: Improvements Needed to Clarify National Priorities and Better 

Align Them with Federal Funding Decisions, GAO-11-317 (Washington, D.C.: May 20, 

2011).
Page 12 GAO-18-223 Climate Change Funding

OMB’s most recent reports to Congress on climate change funding are 

not clearly linked to climate-related federal fiscal exposure, although the 

agency has recently identified climate-related fiscal exposures in the 

President’s budget requests and a separate assessment of the fiscal risks 

from climate change. Specifically, in 2015 and 2016, OMB identified 

areas of the federal budget as climate-related because the costs of these 

programs or activities were likely to increase as a direct or indirect result 

of climate change.20 For example, in a section entitled the Federal Budget 

Exposure to Climate Risks, the President’s budget requests for fiscal 

years 2016 and 2017 stated that the imprint of climate change on the 

federal budget was increasingly apparent in the escalating costs for 

several federal programs or activities. Over the last decade, the federal 

government incurred an estimated $357 billion in direct costs from severe 

weather and fire—for domestic disaster response and relief ($205 billion), 

crop and flood insurance ($90 billion), wildland fire management ($34 

billion), and maintenance and repairs to federal facilities and federally 

managed lands, infrastructure, and waterways ($28 billion).21 While 

acknowledging that it was not possible to identify the portion of these 

costs attributable to climate change, the President’s budget request 

stated that costs for each of these federal programs have been increasing 

and are inherently sensitive to climate change impacts, and can therefore 

be expected to continue to rise as climate change intensifies.

Additionally, in the November 2016 assessment Climate Change: the 

Fiscal Risks Facing the Federal Government, OMB and the Council of 

Economic Advisers estimated that recurring costs incurred by the federal 

government due to climate change could average about $64 billion per 

year across four federal program areas by late century—acknowledging 

 20Individual agencies—such as DOD and USDA—and intergovernmental task forces have 

also published information about certain programs’ fiscal exposures to climate risks since 

2010.

21Office of Management and Budget, Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States 

Government for Fiscal Year 2017 (Washington, D.C.: 2016). OMB staff stated that the 

budget appendix provides detailed information on various appropriations and funds—

including a prior year baseline for disaster-relief outlays—but does not reflect the fiscal 

exposures from climate change over time, such as expenditures related to climate change 

impacts (e.g., hazard mitigation, adaptation, and changes in disaster-relief over time 

attributable to climate change). The President’s Budget request for fiscal year 2018 does 

not include a section on federal budget exposure to climate change.

OMB Reports Are Not 

Clearly Linked to ClimateRelated Federal Fiscal 

Exposure to Assist 

Policymakers in 

Understanding Budget 

Trade-Offs for Climate 

Change Activities
Page 13 GAO-18-223 Climate Change Funding

key limitations and uncertainties.22 The assessment included four federal 

programs or activities—wildland fire suppression, crop insurance, 

healthcare in response to poor air quality, and disaster relief in coastal 

areas—which are outside OMB’s climate change funding categories of 

science, technology, and international assistance. In this assessment, 

OMB identified climate-related fiscal exposures generally aligned with 

three of the five areas of fiscal exposure we identified in our 2017 high 

risk list update: the federal government as property owner, as an insurer 

of property, and as a provider of disaster relief.23

However, the most recent OMB climate change funding reports do not 

include information on the funding of climate-related fiscal exposures 

discussed in the 2016 and 2017 Analytical Perspectives and the 

November 2016 assessment. For example, these reports generally do not 

include information on the funding of actions taken by agencies to 

improve their program and facilities’ resilience to climate change impacts.

In particular, OMB stated in its August 2013 climate change funding 

report that federal agencies were starting to prepare for climate change 

through actions outlined in their Climate Change Adaptation Plans—

however, federal funding associated with these actions was not included 

in OMB’s 2017 report—based on our review.24 Similarly, the OMB climate 

change funding reports we reviewed do not include funding information 

on other programs—such as federal domestic disaster assistance, flood 

insurance, and crop insurance—that OMB and others identified as 

climate-related fiscal exposures.

 22According to this assessment by OMB and the Council of Economic Advisers, these 

ranges are projections of costs that would be incurred by the federal government across 

four program areas given a set of assumptions on which the specific scenarios were 

modeled. The Executive Office of the President, Climate Change: the Fiscal Risks Facing 

the Federal Government (November 2016).

23GAO-17-317. The other two areas of fiscal exposure are the federal government’s role 

as leader of a strategic plan and as the provider of technical assistance to federal, state, 

and other decision-makers.

24For example, key agencies listed under the federal government’s sustainability goals to 

meet its energy efficiency and greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets, such as the 

General Services Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs and Department of 

Homeland Security, are not included in the OMB report. OMB instructions for 

implementing the March 2015 Executive Order 13693, Planning for Federal Sustainability 

in the Next Decade, directs agencies to report their progress implementing and any 

updates to their Climate Change Adaptation Plans as part of their annual Strategic 

Sustainability Performance Plan.
Page 14 GAO-18-223 Climate Change Funding

We have previously reported that a more complete understanding of fiscal 

exposures and the long-term effects of decisions would help policymakers 

make important trade-offs between spending with long-term benefits and 

spending with short-term benefits.25 In May 2011, we identified broad 

principles or criteria for a budget process, including that it should (1) 

provide information about the long-term effects of decisions; (2) provide 

information necessary to make important trade-offs between spending 

with long-term benefits and spending with short-term benefits, and (3) 

provide for accountability and be transparent, among other principles. 

Further, in October 2013 we reported that incorporating more complete 

information on fiscal exposures could help meet these criteria for an 

effective budget process. In particular, we reported that a more complete 

understanding of fiscal exposures and the long-term effects of decisions 

would help policymakers make trade-offs between spending with longterm benefits and spending with short-term benefits, anticipate changes in 

future spending, and enhance control over federal resources.

According to OMB staff, it is difficult to fully account for actions taken by 

agencies to improve their program and facilities’ resilience, because 

successful preparedness efforts often involve integrating climate change 

considerations into existing agency programs, projects, and activities 

rather than establishing separate and distinct programs. Additionally, 

OMB staff said that they do not provide information on federal fiscal 

exposures to climate change in their funding report for two reasons. First, 

OMB staff said that OMB prefers to conduct a broader examination of 

federal fiscal risks as part of agencies’ enterprise risk management 

assessments under OMB Circular A-123. Specifically, agencies are 

responsible for establishing practices that identify, assess, respond, and 

report on risks. According to the circular, these practices must be forwardlooking and designed to help leaders make better decisions, alleviate 

threats, and identify previously unknown opportunities to improve the 

efficiency and effectiveness of government. OMB staff said that each 

agency has discretion to prioritize its risks, decide whether to consider 

climate change as part of this assessment, and to consider its 

significance as a risk to agency goals and operations. Second, OMB staff

said that the agency has limited capacity and knowledge to assess 

climate change risks and predict future expenditures on an annual basis, 

due to the inherent uncertainty in climate projections. In particular, OMB 

 25GAO, Budget Process: Enforcing Fiscal Choices GAO-11-626T (Washington, D.C.: May 

4, 2011) and GAO-14-28.
Page 15 GAO-18-223 Climate Change Funding

staff said that its prior assessments of climate change risks were 

resource-intensive and reflect a previous administration’s priorities. 

Further, OMB staff said that they defer to Congress on whether the 

current funding reports are useful, and Congress has not requested 

information on fiscal exposures as part of OMB funding reports.

However, we and others have reported that understanding the federal 

government’s fiscal exposure to climate change risks is increasingly 

critical for policymakers charged with making sound investment decisions 

and acting as stewards of the federal budget over the long term.26 In 

November 2017, we reported that DOD’s overseas installations do not 

consistently track the costs of impacts of weather effects associated with 

climate change. As a result, the military services lack the information they 

need to adapt infrastructure at overseas installations to climate change 

impacts and develop accurate budget estimates for infrastructure 

sustainment.27 By providing, concurrent with any future climate change 

funding reports to Congress, funding information for federal programs 

with fiscal exposure to climate change, OMB would have better 

assurance that it was providing policymakers with the information 

necessary for them to make decisions about spending trade-offs, as 

called for in our criteria for an effective budget process. This information 

should include costs to repair, replace, and improve the weather-related 

resilience of federally-funded property and resources; costs for federal 

flood and crop insurance programs; and costs for disaster assistance 

programs, among other identified areas of fiscal exposure to climate 

change.28

 26For example, see GAO, Disaster Resilience: Actions Are Underway, but Federal Fiscal 

Exposure Highlights the Need for Continued Attention to Longstanding Challenges, 

GAO-14-603T (Washington, D.C.: May 14, 2014); National Research Council. Disaster 

Resilience: A National Imperative. (Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press, 

2012). Ekins, Paul and Speck, Stefan, 2014. “The Fiscal Implications of Climate Change 

and Policy Responses.” Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, (Vol. 19: 

355 – 374).

27GAO, Climate Change Adaptation: DOD Needs to Better Incorporate Adaptation into 

Planning and Collaboration at Overseas Installations, GAO-18-206 (Washington, D.C.: 

Nov.13, 2017).

28GAO-17-317 and GAO-14-28.
Page 16 GAO-18-223 Climate Change Funding

Based on our review of six selected agencies’ budget justifications for 

fiscal years 2010 through 2017, we identified few federal programs whose 

primary purpose is to address climate change and these programs 

represent a small portion of their total agency-reported climate change 

funding. In particular, we identified 18 out of 533 programs in agency 

budget justifications that met our definition for a primary purpose climate 

change program, based on the program descriptions in the budget 

justifications.29 Seventeen of the 18 primary purpose programs we 

identified fell under OMB’s science category, and one primary purpose 

program fell under OMB’s clean energy technology category (see table 

2), according to our analysis of agency budget justifications and OMB 

reports.

Table 2: Funding for Primary Purpose Programs in Selected Agencies in Our Review, Fiscal Years 2010 through 2017

Dollars in millions

Fiscal Year

OMB 

category

Primary 

purpose 

program Agency 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Science Climate 

Research

Commerce’s 

NOAA

219.9 217.8 139.5 135.5 153.3 157.1 158.0 189.9

Atmospheric 

Radiation 

Measurement 

Climate 

Research Facility

DOE 42.2 45.8 67.9 68.1 68.6 67.4 65.4 65.4

Atmospheric 

System Research

DOE 26.4 27.8 26.3 26.4 26.6 26.0 26.4 26.4

Climate and 

Earth System 

Modeling

DOE 69.1 77.9 70.7 72.9 74.0 71.1 98.7 103.5

 29We reviewed the budget justifications of six agencies—Commerce, DOD, DOE, NASA, 

NSF, and USDA—that accounted for $11.4 billion of the $13.2 billion in fiscal year 2017 

funding to address climate change as reported by OMB. For two of the six agencies—

DOD and NSF—we did not identify any primary purpose climate change programs based 

on program descriptions in their budget justifications.

Selected Agencies’

Programs Whose 

Primary Purpose is 

Addressing Climate 

Change Represent a 

Small Portion of Their 

Total AgencyReported Climate 

Change Funding
Page 17 GAO-18-223 Climate Change Funding

Dollars in millions

Fiscal Year

OMB 

category

Primary 

purpose 

program Agency 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Terrestrial 

Carbon 

Sequestration 

Research

DOE 4.6 3.0 — — — — — —

Terrestrial 

Ecosystem 

Science

DOE 28.7 28.7 40.2 38.8 45.3 44.0 40.0 40.0

CLARREO 

Pathfinder

NASA — — — — — — — 19.3

Glory Mission NASA 31.8 12.9 — — — — — —

Ice, Cloud, and 

Land Elevation 

Satellite

NASA — 3.8 0.7 — — — — —

Ice, Cloud, and 

Land Elevation 

Satellite-2

NASA 38.9 59.7 130.5 165.9 182.2 126.5 117.4 112.4

Orbiting Carbon 

Observatory-2

NASA 62.0 89.0 93.4 80.3 38.2 17.5 — 10.2

Orbiting Carbon 

Observatory-3

NASA — — — 7.4 16.8 1.5 — 26.3

Solar Radiation 

and Climate 

Experiment

NASA — 4.6 5.3 5.2 5.4 5.4 — 5.4

Total Solar 

Irradiance 

Sensor-1

NASA — — — — — 1.0 — 19.6

Total Solar 

Irradiance 

Sensor-2

NASA — — — — — — — 9.6

Agroclimatology

(formerly Global 

Change UV-B 

Monitoring and 

Research)

USDA 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4

Climate Change 

Program Office

USDA 2.9 2.2 2.2 2.0 2.5 2.7 2.6 3.0

Clean 

Energy 

Technology

Climate Change 

Technology 

Program

DOE 9.3 5.5 5.5 5.3 4.9 — — —

Total 537.2 580.1 583.5 609.1 619.2 521.6 509.9 632.4
Page 18 GAO-18-223 Climate Change Funding

Legend: DOE = Department of Energy; NASA = National Aeronautics and Space Administration; Commerce’s NOAA = National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce; USDA = U.S. Department of Agriculture, — = agencies did not report funding for the program for 

that year.

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Commerce, Department of Defense, Department of Energy, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Science Foundation, and U.S. Department of 

Agriculture budget justifications. | GAO-18-223

Notes: Funding is reported in nominal dollars and not adjusted for inflation.

For two of the six agencies—DOD and NSF—we did not identify any primary purpose climate change

programs based on program descriptions in their budget justifications.

Under the science category, 13 of the 18 programs we identified focused 

on collecting observations of climate-related variables, such as 

atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations and polar ice thickness, to 

enhance scientific understanding of climate change. The five remaining 

primary purpose programs we identified focus on other aspects of climate 

change, such as modeling and providing climate information to 

stakeholders to facilitate adaptation. According to USGCRP officials, 

these programs conduct research to support individual agency missions, 

such as agriculture, and address climate change as a cross-cutting issue, 

rather than a primary purpose. Appendix I contains further information on 

the 18 primary purpose programs we identified.

The primary purpose programs we identified represent a small portion of 

total reported climate change funding for these agencies. For the 18 

primary purpose programs we identified, agencies reported about $632 

million in proposed funding for fiscal year 2017 in their budget 

justifications, which represents about 6 percent of the $11.4 billion in total 

proposed funding to address climate change that OMB reported for these 

agencies in fiscal year 2017.30 The majority of the selected agencies’

reported funding supports programs where climate change is one of 

multiple purposes being addressed.

Based on our analysis of agency budget justifications and other 

documents, most programs (515 of the 533) we reviewed did not meet 

our definition of a primary purpose climate change program because they 

were broad-based technology and science programs where climate 

change is one of multiple purposes.

 30Due to differences in the timing of agencies’ budget justification submissions and OMB’s 

climate change funding reports, agencies and OMB reported different types of funding for 

each fiscal year other than 2017. For example, for fiscal year 2013, OMB reported funding 

as “final operating level” whereas agencies generally reported funding for fiscal year 2013 

as “actual budget authority.”
Page 19 GAO-18-223 Climate Change Funding

• For example, 331 of the 515 multiple-purpose programs we identified 

focus on advancing clean energy technologies, primarily for purposes 

other than addressing climate change, such as: reducing energy 

costs, increasing energy security by shifting away from foreign fuel 

sources, advancing economic development, and improving air quality. 

Many of these programs are located in DOE, and the 1977 law 

establishing the agency included congressional findings that the 

country’s increasing shortage of nonrenewable energy resources and 

increasing dependence on foreign energy supplies presented a 

serious threat to national security, among other things.31 One purpose 

of the law that established DOE was to place a major emphasis on the 

development and commercial use of solar, geothermal, recycling, and 

other technologies utilizing renewable energy resources. Clean 

energy technology programs at the six selected agencies accounted 

for roughly $8.7 billion of $13.2 billion (about 66 percent) in proposed 

funding for fiscal year 2017, as reported by OMB.

• Additionally, 137 of the 515 multiple-purpose programs conduct or 

support climate-related scientific research that agency budget 

justifications and other documents described as serving multiple 

purposes, such as weather forecasting or understanding coastal 

ecosystems in the context of multiple factors. For example, several 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) programs 

contribute to observing and modeling the earth’s climate, as part of 

NOAA’s weather and severe storm forecasting responsibilities, to 

ensure the safety of U.S. citizens, public property, and 

infrastructure.32 Additionally, the NSF contributed to the USCGRP 

research program through its broad-based Science, Engineering, and 

Education for Sustainability Program, which provides funding for 

research projects on the sustainability of coastal systems in the 

context of multiple stressors—such as increasing development—in 

addition to climate change-related stressors such as sea-level rise 

and ocean acidification.

• The remaining 47 multiple-purpose programs we identified focus on 

activities such as adaptation or international assistance (23 programs) 

or activities that fell into more than one OMB category (24 programs). 

For example, we identified a USDA program for integrated resource 

 3142 U.S.C. § 7111.

32For example, NOAA collects observational data on a variety of characteristics, such as 

weather patterns, precipitation, ocean temperature, and coastal ecosystem 

characteristics, using satellite and earth-based instruments.
Page 20 GAO-18-223 Climate Change Funding

restoration that promotes watershed resilience through forest 

management, range management, wildlife and fisheries habitat 

management, and other activities. We also identified a DOD program 

on sustainable ranges and lands that provides ecosystem vulnerability 

assessment and ecosystem analysis, observing, modeling and 

mitigation technologies to support sustainable, realistic access and 

use of the Army’s ranges and lands. Neither the integrated resource 

restoration program nor the sustainable ranges and lands program 

falls within one of OMB’s climate change funding categories.

The 18 primary purpose climate change programs we identified from 

selected agency budget justifications are fragmented across multiple 

federal agencies that address climate change in ways specific to their 

agency missions.33 However, we also found that the 18 primary purpose 

programs we identified serve different purposes, target different 

audiences, or operate at different times and scales, among other reasons, 

which minimize potential overlap or duplication among these programs. 

Additionally, USGCRP officials and program managers collaborate to 

avoid potential negative effects of fragmentation, according to USGCRP 

officials we interviewed and National Academies’ reports.

The 18 primary purpose programs we identified are fragmented across 

four of the six agencies we reviewed, and address climate change in the 

context of their agency missions. These programs conduct activities that 

generally fall into three broad climate change areas—observing, 

modeling, and facilitating adaptation to climate impacts (see table 3).34

See appendix I for additional information about the 18 primary purpose 

programs.

 33See appendix I for additional information about the 18 primary purpose programs we 

identified.

34As mentioned previously, fragmentation refers to those circumstances in which more 

than one federal agency (or more than one organization within an agency) is involved in 

the same broad area of national need and opportunities exist to improve service delivery 

(GAO-15-49SP).

Selected Agencies’

Programs Whose 

Primary Purpose Is 

Addressing Climate 

Change Are 

Fragmented but 

Serve Different 

Purposes, Audiences, 

Times, and Scales

Primary Purpose Climate 

Change Programs Are 

Fragmented Across the 

Selected Federal Agencies 

and Reflect Three Types 

of Climate Change 

Activities
Page 21 GAO-18-223 Climate Change Funding

Table 3: Focus Area of Six Selected Agencies’ 18 Programs with the Primary Purpose of Addressing Climate Change 

Program Focus

OMB category Primary purpose program Agency

Climate

observing

Climate 

modeling

Climate 

adaptation 

activities Other

Science Atmospheric Radiation 

Measurement Climate Research 

Facility

DOE X

Terrestrial Ecosystem Science DOE X

Atmospheric System Research DOE X

Climate and Earth System 

Modeling

DOE X

Terrestrial Carbon Sequestration 

Researcha DOE X

Climate Research Commerce’s NOAA X

CLARREO Pathfinder NASA X

Glory Missiona NASA X

Ice, Cloud, and Land Elevation 

Satellitea NASA X

Ice, Cloud, and Land Elevation 

Satellite-2b NASA X

Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2b NASA X

Orbiting Carbon Observatory-3b NASA X

Solar Radiation and Climate 

Experiment

NASA X

Total Solar Irradiance Sensor-1b NASA X

Total Solar Irradiance Sensor-2b NASA X

Agroclimatology

(formerly Global Change UV-B 

Monitoring and Research)

USDA X

Climate Change Program Office USDA X

Clean energy 

technology

Climate Change Technology 

Programa DOE X

Total 18 13 2 1 2

Legend: DOE = Department of Energy; NASA = National Aeronautics and Space Administration; Commerce’s NOAA = National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce; USDA = U.S. Department of Agriculture

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Commerce, Department of Defense (DOD), Department of Energy (DOE), National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), National Science Foundation 

(NSF), and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) budget justifications and program documents. | GAO-18-223

Notes: GAO identified programs in the budget justifications of four of six selected federal agencies 

that the agencies described as having climate change as their primary purpose.

Several of these programs focus on a particular program area, but conduct research that contributes 

to multiple program areas, such as DOE’s Atmospheric Radiation Measurement Climate Research 

Facility, which primarily conducts climate observing, but also includes a modeling component. 

Additionally, several primary purpose programs award research grants.
Page 22 GAO-18-223 Climate Change Funding

a

These programs are no longer listed as separate line items in agency budget justifications.

b

These NASA programs are follow-on projects that will replace satellites that are approaching or have 

reached the end of their mission lifespan.

Thirteen primary purpose programs we identified within NASA, DOE, 

NOAA, and USDA collect a variety of climate data in support of their 

respective agency missions. Specifically, nine NASA earth science 

missions—two satellites of which were operating in fiscal year 2017—

have collected or plan to collect climate observing data, according to our 

review of NASA budget justifications and program documents.35 These 

data include changes in polar ice thickness, varying atmospheric carbon 

dioxide concentrations, and the effects of aerosols on climate change, as 

measured from space using satellites and instruments on the 

International Space Station. NASA provides these data to a wide 

community of users, including other federal agencies, international 

partners, academia, and the public, to better understand the Earth system 

and its response to natural and human-induced changes, according to 

NASA’s 2017 budget justification. Additionally, two DOE programs collect 

climate data, such as observations on the cycling of carbon between 

terrestrial ecosystems and the atmosphere, as well as long-term 

observations of atmospheric variables, such as aerosols, clouds, and 

incoming solar radiation to improve climate projections and inform the 

development of solutions to U.S. energy and environmental challenges.36

One NOAA program collects atmospheric and oceanic observations to 

describe and understand the state of the oceans and climate variability 

across multiple time-scales. Lastly, one USDA program monitors 

ultraviolet radiation (UV-B) reaching the Earth’s surface over wide 

geographic areas of the United States, to improve understanding of 

ultraviolet radiation impacts and climate change on agriculture.

 35The two operating satellites are the Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2, which launched in 

2014, and the Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment satellite, which launched in 2003. 

The Total Solar Irradiance Sensor-1 launched in December 2017 and is expected to start 

returning data in February 2018. Four satellites—the CLARREO Pathfinder, the Ice, 

Cloud, and Land Elevation Satellite-2, the Orbiting Carbon Observatory-3, and the Total 

Solar Irradiance Sensor- 2—are under development as follow-on missions to existing 

satellites or planned satellites and slated to fly in 2018 or later. Two satellite missions—the 

Glory Mission and the Ice, Cloud, and Land Elevation Satellite were no longer listed as 

separate line items in NASA’s budget justification as of 2011 and 2010, respectively.

36According to USGCRP officials, its budget cross-cut includes the basic research 

activities of these DOE programs, not the application of their research by other DOE 

programs or external scientists. 

Observing
Page 23 GAO-18-223 Climate Change Funding

Two primary purpose programs we identified within DOE focus on climate 

modeling, although other primary purpose programs we reviewed also 

include a modeling component in their research. DOE’s Atmospheric 

System Research program uses the agency’s climate observing data to 

model atmospheric processes and develop model parameters to help 

reduce uncertainty in climate change models and projections. DOE’s 

Climate and Earth System Modeling program develops model 

components as well as earth system models that include human impacts 

and natural systems to simulate climate variability and predict change at 

regional and global scales. Improved climate projections from these 

programs help inform DOE’s energy supply and infrastructure decisions, 

as well as the development of solutions to environmental challenges, 

according to DOE program documents.37 Additionally, NOAA’s Climate 

Research program includes a modeling component that uses 

mathematical models and high-performance computer simulations to 

understand atmosphere, ocean, biosphere, and cryosphere dynamics and 

to make projections about future marine ecosystems, atmospheric 

composition, and air quality across multiple time scales. DOE’s 

Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM) Climate Research Facility 

has a modeling component that conducts high resolution modeling of 

atmospheric and cloud processes using the facility’s observational data. 

DOE, NOAA, and other scientists use the model outputs to better 

understand cloud formation, earth system science and severe weather.38

Two primary purpose programs we identified provide climate information 

to stakeholders, in part to facilitate adaptation efforts. USDA’s Climate 

Change Program Office (CCPO) provides data, tools, and pertinent 

information to stakeholders on relevant climate change impacts, such as 

water availability and wildfires. Additionally, NOAA’s Climate Research 

program has a regional climate data and information component that 

incorporates research into information and products, ranging from shortterm weather forecasts to longer-term climate forecasts and assessments 

to improve the ability of decision makers and communities to plan for and 

 37Ibid.

38Other primary purpose programs also use modeling or develop modeling components. 

For example, DOE’s Terrestrial Ecosystem Science program uses Earth system models to 

identify research gaps and design field experiments to address the identified uncertainties. 

USDA’s Agroclimatology program develops modeling tools that integrate observing data, 

ultraviolet effects studies, and satellite observations to study how climate and crop 

production interact and associated effects on management practices and agricultural 

economics.

Modeling

Adaptation
Page 24 GAO-18-223 Climate Change Funding

respond to climate variability and change. Both of these programs also 

coordinate climate research internally and externally, among other 

activities.

Two DOE primary purpose programs we identified focused on reducing 

greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. For example, DOE’s 

Terrestrial Carbon Sequestration Research program conducted research 

on how to enhance the carbon storage potential of soil and vegetation 

through economically competitive methods, such as applying coalcombustion byproducts to soil to absorb additional carbon dioxide. 

Additionally, DOE’s Climate Change Technology program supported 

efforts to accelerate the development and reduce the cost of new and 

advanced technologies that could avoid, reduce, or capture and store 

greenhouse gas emissions and increase economic growth. Both DOE 

programs are no longer listed as separate line items in DOE’s budget 

justifications.39

We found that the 18 primary purpose programs we identified serve 

different purposes, target different audiences, or operate at different time 

periods and global, regional, or local scales. Further, we found that 

USGCRP and agency program managers collaborate to help avoid 

potential negative effects from fragmented climate change programs. 

Therefore, although fragmented, the 18 programs we reviewed do not 

show signs of overlap.

We found that the 18 primary purpose programs we identified serve 

different purposes, target different audiences, or operate at different times 

and scales, among other reasons, which minimizes potential overlap or 

duplication among these programs. For example, primary purpose 

programs we identified across DOE, NASA, NOAA and USDA all collect 

climate observing data related to solar radiance in ways specific to their 

missions. In particular:

 39DOE’s Terrestrial Carbon Sequestration Research program was not listed as a separate 

line item in DOE’s budget justification after fiscal year 2011 and DOE’s Climate Change 

Technology Program was not listed as a separate line item in DOE’s budget justification 

after fiscal year 2014. 

Other Activities

Programs Serve Different 

Purposes, Audiences, 

Times, and Scales, and 

Interagency Collaboration 

Helps Avoid Potential 

Negative Effects from 

Fragmentation

Different Purposes, Audiences, 

Times, and Scales
Page 25 GAO-18-223 Climate Change Funding

• The ARM Climate Research Facility (a DOE program) collects 

observational data on aerosols, radiation, clouds, and atmospheric 

conditions across different climatic regimes to help resolve 

uncertainties in climate and earth system models. According to 

agency documents, DOE uses these models for energy and related 

infrastructure planning. For example, DOE models water availability 

for energy applications, temperature extremes affecting energy use, 

and predicting storm and other weather-related impacts on energy 

delivery.40

• NASA satellites, such as the Total Solar Irradiance Sensor,41 take 

absolute measurements of the sun’s energy input to earth, and the 

distribution of the sun’s energy input across ultraviolet, visible, and 

other wavelengths of light to quantify solar variations and their effect 

on the atmosphere and climate. For example, these data enable 

scientists to study the sun’s natural influence on Earth’s ozone layer in 

support of NASA’s programmatic mission to monitor and assess the 

health of the Earth’s stratosphere. Scientists also use the data to 

understand the sun’s influence on atmospheric circulation, clouds, 

and ecosystems.

• NOAA’s Climate Research program monitors and models atmospheric 

and oceanic conditions to understand the state of the oceans, predict 

climate variability, and develop a variety of products. For example, 

NOAA uses these data to develop short-term weather forecasts, early 

warning systems, and longer-term climate forecasts and assessments 

to improve the ability of decision makers and communities to plan for 

and respond to climate variability and change, such as changes in 

sea-level and extreme weather events. 42

• USDA’s Agroclimatology Program—administered by USDA’s National 

Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA)—monitors surface-level 

ultraviolet and photosynthetically-active radiation and studies its 

 40According to USGCRP officials, its budget cross-cut includes the basic research 

activities of these DOE programs, not the application of their research by other DOE 

programs or external scientists. 

41According to program documents, NASA’s Total Solar Irradiance Sensor missions 

measure the sun’s energy input to Earth. Various satellites have captured a continuous 

record of this solar energy input since 1978.

42For example, NOAA climate data and early warning systems help communities reduce 

vulnerability to extreme weather; prepare for drought and water resource challenges; 

manage risks to coastlines and coastal infrastructure; sustainably manage marine 

ecosystems; and adapt to and mitigate climate impacts, according to agency documents.
Page 26 GAO-18-223 Climate Change Funding

effects on different crop varieties, in accordance with NIFA’s mission 

to invest in and advance agricultural research, education, and 

extension. Scientists use these data to understand the interactions 

between crops, climate, and ultraviolet radiation, and assess the 

effects on management practices and agricultural economics.

Some of the primary purpose programs we identified also target different 

audiences. In particular, both NOAA’s Climate Research program and 

USDA’s Climate Change Program Office (CCPO) provide information to 

help inform decisions about adapting to climate change, but generally 

target different audiences. For example:

• NOAA’s Climate Research program has a regional climate information 

services component that provides information and products to 

improve decision makers’ ability to prepare for and respond to short 

and long-term climate variability and change.43 The program tailors its 

information on climate impacts based on regional stakeholder input to 

help stakeholders and communities expand their capacity to prepare 

for and respond to floods, drought, wildfire, extreme heat, changes in 

water supply and snowpack, melting permafrost, sea level rise, and 

storms.

• USDA CCPO’s Regional Climate Hubs program has incorporated 

data, tools and forecasts from USDA agencies and partners—

including NOAA—into integrated services specific to the agricultural 

and forestry sectors, such as climate impacts on crop varieties, forest 

health and management, grazing lands, and rural communities.44

USDA tailors this information to support climate-informed decisionmaking by farmers, ranchers, and forest landowners, with the goal of 

maintaining agricultural production, managing natural resources, and 

supporting rural economic development under increasing climate 

variability.

Further, some primary purpose programs provide data that supplement 

research by other programs or that are necessary to ensure data validity. 

For example, DOE’s Atmospheric System Research (ASR) program 

conducts short-term, targeted field campaigns on specific atmospheric 

processes to supplement the long-term observational data collected by 

 43Examples of decision makers include water utilities, USDA agricultural extension agents, 

regional, state, and local planners and communities, among others.

44For example, NOAA and USDA collaborate on relevant tools, such as the National 

Integrated Drought Information System.
Page 27 GAO-18-223 Climate Change Funding

the ARM Climate Research Facility, which ASR scientists use to develop 

model parameters for clouds and aerosols. In turn, scientists within 

DOE’s Climate and Earth System Modeling program incorporate ASR’s 

model parameters and observational data the ARM Climate Research 

Facility and Terrestrial Ecosystem Science program into its modeling to 

reduce uncertainty in model representations of atmospheric chemistry, 

aerosols, and the interactions between ecosystems and climate. 

Additionally, according to the 2014 National Plan for Civil Earth 

Observations, USGCRP, and the National Academies, airborne, 

terrestrial, and marine observations supplement satellite observations 

because they provide high degrees of resolution and density and are 

essential to validate satellite-derived data products.45

Moreover, we determined that primary purpose programs with similar 

missions were not overlapping or duplicative because they conducted 

activities over different time periods, at different scale, or collected 

different measurements. Specifically:

• Within NASA, several primary purpose programs focused on 

conducting similar observing activities across different time periods. 

For example, five of NASA’s nine primary purpose programs—Ice, 

Cloud, and Land Elevation Satellite 2, Orbiting Carbon Observatory 2 

and 3, and Total Solar Irradiance Sensors 1 and 2—are follow-on 

missions that are to replace previous or current satellites to maintain 

the continuity of observational data when the current satellites no

longer function. Due to the long lead-time necessary to develop 

satellites, the development stage of follow-on missions may be 

concurrent with the operational stage of existing satellites.

• NASA’s Orbiting Carbon Observatory satellites make space-based 

measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations at 

regional and global scales to increase our understanding of how 

carbon dioxide sources and sinks are geographically distributed, as 

 45Office of Science and Technology Policy, National Plan for Civil Earth Observations.

(Washington, D.C.: July 18, 2014); U.S. Global Change Research Program, National 

Global Change Research Plan 2012 – 2021: A Strategic Plan for the U.S. Global Change 

Research Program (USGCRP) (Washington, D.C.: 2012); U.S. Global Change Research 

Program, National Global Change Research Plan 2012 – 2021: The Triennial Update

(Washington, D.C.: 2017); and The National Academies of Sciences (NAS), Engineering, 

and Medicine, Accomplishments of the U.S. Global Change Research Program

(Washington, D.C.: 2017).
Page 28 GAO-18-223 Climate Change Funding

well as how carbon sink efficiencies are changing over time.46 In 

contrast, DOE’s Terrestrial Ecosystem Science program manages the 

AmeriFlux network, an interagency effort which measures surface 

flows of carbon primarily at sites in North America, and conducts 

targeted field studies on the cycling of carbon, nutrients, and water 

within specific ecosystems that are poorly understood in models—

such as arctic and tropical ecosystems—according to agency 

documents.47 Further, although DOE’s Terrestrial Carbon 

Sequestration Research program also conducted research to 

understand carbon sequestration, it researched how land-based 

ecosystems’ carbon sequestration productivity could be enhanced by 

changes in land-use patterns, or the addition of absorptive materials 

to soil, such as coal by-products, among others.

USGCRP officials identified various collaboration methods that USGCRP 

officials and agency program managers use—such as interagency 

strategic planning, jointly-funded projects, and routine meetings of 

relevant officials—that help to minimize potential overlap and duplication 

among climate change programs.48 For example, USGCRP’s strategic 

planning process includes working with agency program managers to 

establish research priorities across the 13 participating agencies.49

Additionally, NASA and NOAA are statutorily required to submit a joint 

annual report to relevant congressional committees describing how their 

earth science programs, which include their climate-related earth 

observation efforts, will be coordinated.50

 46A carbon sink reabsorbs carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and stores it on Earth. For 

example, trees remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through photosynthesis and 

oceans absorb carbon dioxide.

47DOE, NASA, NOAA, and USDA’s Forest Service supported the formation of the 

AmeriFlux network, which measures carbon flows at over 120 sites.

48In September 2012, GAO identified several key considerations for implementing 

interagency collaboration mechanisms. For the purposes of this report, we did not fully 

assess USGCRP’s efforts against these considerations; however the interagency 

collaboration methods that we identified are consistent with our prior work. For more 

information, see GAO, Managing for Results: Key Considerations for Implementing 

Collaboration Mechanisms, GAO-12-1022 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 27, 2012).

49U.S. Global Change Research Program, National Global Change Research Plan 2012 –

2021. (2012).

5051 U.S.C. § 60505(b).

Collaboration
Page 29 GAO-18-223 Climate Change Funding

Some agencies also jointly-fund projects and collaborate on areas of 

mutual interest. For example, DOE’s Atmospheric Radiation 

Measurement (ARM) Climate Research Facility, NASA and NOAA 

collaborated on a field campaign to study how aerosols and atmospheric 

rivers—regions in the atmosphere that are responsible for most of the 

horizontal transport of water vapor outside of the tropics—contribute to 

forming snowpacks that supply most of the water in the western United 

States.51 According to NOAA, the data will help improve short and long 

term predictions of precipitation, and help decision makers prepare for 

extreme precipitation, hazard response, and management of water 

supply, among other uses. Additionally, we found that although NOAA, 

NASA, DOE, and USDA’s climate observing efforts are designed for 

different purposes, have different geographic coverage, and take 

measurements using different instruments, these agencies also 

collaborate on climate observing activities in areas of mutual interest, 

such as the Arctic.52

Further, USGCRP officials we interviewed said that agency program 

managers meet regularly to coordinate their efforts for addressing climate 

change, including through USGCRP interagency working groups focused 

on specific issues, such as integrative modeling.53 For example, the 

officials said that the program managers use meetings to facilitate 

awareness about different climate change models. Additionally, in 

response to a 2012 report by the National Research Council that 

recommended greater coordination and more consistent evaluation of 

U.S. climate models, USCGRP convenes annual U.S. climate modeling 

 51Other partners include the Scripps Institution of Oceanography and Naval Research 

Laboratory.

52For example, DOE’s ARM Facility and NOAA’s Global Monitoring Division network 

collaborate on measurements at NOAA’s Barrow, Alaska site, and DOE’s Southern Great 

Plains site. NOAA’s Climate Reference Network and USDA’s Agroclimatology network 

both use observations collected by USDA’s Agricultural Research Service at its sites in 

Las Cruces, N. Mex. and Nunn, Colo. NOAA also collaborated with USDA and the 

University of Alaska-Fairbanks for its sites in Alaska, and both USDA and NOAA 

collaborated with the Department of the Interior’s National Park Service for their observing 

sites in Big Bend National Park.

53Integrated models are advanced models that include the physical, chemical, biological, 

and human components of the Earth system, as well as the feedbacks among them, to 

provide more comprehensive and realistic modeling of global change. Other USGCRP 

interagency working groups include process research, observations, carbon cycle, climate 

change and human health, education, international activities, sustained assessment, 

indicators, scenarios, global change information, social-sciences coordination, and 

adaptation science, according to USGCRP’s 2017 update to its strategic plan.
Page 30 GAO-18-223 Climate Change Funding

summits to facilitate coordination on specific items of shared interest,

such as joint modeling activities.54

According to a recent report on USGCRP accomplishments by the 

National Academies, coordination efforts facilitated by USGCRP reduced 

potential duplication, improved efficiency, and enabled key advances.55

Specifically, the National Academies found that USGCRP’s coordination 

efforts enabled key advances in developing global earth observation 

systems, improving modeling, and incorporating advances in 

understanding relevant processes to carbon cycle research, among 

others. For example, USGCRP’s Carbon Cycle Interagency Working 

Group helps coordinate the intensive, interagency field campaigns 

necessary to unite ground-based, airborne, and satellite-based 

observations to understand carbon cycle variability and change. The 

working group supports an interagency call for complementary research 

proposals across USDA, DOE, NASA, and NOAA to improve the 

understanding of changes in the distribution and cycling of carbon 

between the land, ocean, and atmosphere.56 Nonetheless, the National 

Academies and others have emphasized the need for continued 

collaboration among federal agencies regarding their various climate 

change science programs and activities, such as climate modeling.57

However, as we noted earlier, the three funding categories of science, 

technology, and international assistance in recent OMB funding reports 

generally do not capture all climate change-related programs and 

activities, such as actions taken by agencies to increase their resilience to 

climate change impacts and programs with climate-related fiscal 

exposure, such as disaster assistance. Additionally, we found that OMB 

reports and most agency budget justifications we reviewed do not provide 

sufficient detail to identify and track all climate-related programs and 

 54Moss et al., 2016. Understanding Dynamics and Resilience in Complex Interdependent 

Systems: Prospects for a Multi-Model Framework and Community of Practice. Report of a 

workshop held under the auspices of the USGCRP Interagency Group on Integrative 

Modeling, with support from DOE. (December, 2016.)

55The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, Accomplishments of 

the U.S. Global Change Research Program. (2017).

56Another coordination effort, under the Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee, 

leveraged NASA and DOE observations and experiments to provide complementary 

ground and airborne measurements of ecosystem responses to changing conditions.

57National Research Council of the National Academies, A National Strategy for 

Advancing Climate Modeling (Washington, D.C.: 2012).
Page 31 GAO-18-223 Climate Change Funding

activities over time. In particular, most agency budget justifications we 

reviewed provided detailed information on climate change activities under 

multi-purpose programs, but generally did not report funding for these 

climate change activities as separate line items in their budget 

justifications or as line items in OMB’s funding reports.58

Further, we reported in October 2014 that there is no comprehensive list 

of federal programs and funding information—including for governmentwide efforts such as climate change—which would help policymakers 

determine the scope of the federal government’s involvement in particular 

areas, and where action is needed to address crosscutting issues, 

including instances of fragmentation, overlap, or duplication.59 We made 

several recommendations to OMB to ensure the usefulness of a federal 

program inventory, and provide greater transparency and consistency in 

federal program funding and performance information; however, as of 

January 2018, OMB had not implemented them.60

According to OMB staff, its climate change funding reports provide a 

sufficient level of detail for Congress to identify fragmentation, overlap, 

and duplication within climate change funding. OMB also assesses 

potential fragmentation, overlap, and duplication government-wide as part 

of its overall budget process, contained most recently in its Major Savings 

and Reform volume of the President’s budget request for fiscal year 

 58For example, the January 2017 OMB report includes funding for USDA’s National 

Institute for Food and Agriculture (NIFA) under its science category, but does not include 

further detail on which NIFA programs were included in the reported funding. When 

reviewing NIFA’s budget justification, we found several climate change activities under the 

Agriculture and Food Research Initiative and other programs, but NIFA did not track actual 

costs for these activities as line items over time.

59GAO, Government Efficiency and Effectiveness: Inconsistent Definitions and Information 

Limit the Usefulness of Federal Program Inventories, GAO-15-83 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 

31, 2014). In a September 2017 report, we identified a series of iterative steps that can be 

used to develop an inventory and potential benefits. GAO, Federal Programs: Information 

Architecture Offers a Potential Approach for Development of an Inventory, GAO-17-739 

(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 28, 2017).

60For example, we recommended that OMB revise its guidance to direct agencies to 

collaborate with each other in defining and identifying programs that contribute to common 

outcomes, provide complete performance information, and to consult with external 

stakeholders on their program inventories, among other recommendations.
Page 32 GAO-18-223 Climate Change Funding

2018.61 Additionally, OMB staff said that the U.S. already prepares an 

inventory of federal climate change programs as part of its biennial 

Climate Action Report to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate 

Change.

62 Further, OMB staff said that they are taking GAO’s previous 

recommendations—to develop a federal program inventory to provide 

greater transparency and consistently in federal program funding and 

performance information—into account as part of the broader 

implementation of the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 

2014 and GPRA Modernization Act of 2010.63

However, as we previously mentioned, several agency budget 

justifications we reviewed provided detailed information on climate 

change activities under multi-purpose programs, that were not identifiable 

based upon the level of detail within OMB’s funding reports. Additionally, 

GAO’s specific criteria for identifying fragmented, overlapping, and 

duplicative programs includes a detailed comparison of programs across 

several characteristics and a comprehensive assessment of potential 

positive and negative effects of fragmentation, overlap, and duplication, 

but these detailed comparisons are generally not included in OMB’s 

justifications for eliminating programs in its fiscal year 2018 Major Savings 

and Reform volume.64 Moreover, the 2016 Climate Action Report 

prepared for the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change 

provides information on U.S. progress toward meeting its emission 

 61Office of Management and Budget, Major Savings and Reform Volume, Budget of the 

United States Government for Fiscal Year 2018 (Washington: 2017). Under the previous 

administration, OMB’s assessment of overlapping and duplicative funding was reported as 

part of the President’s Budget in a section titled, Cuts, Consolidations, and Savings. 

62The U.S. Department of State published the most recent Climate Action Report in 2016, 

which can be accessed at: 

http://unfccc.int/national_reports/biennial_reports_and_iar/submitted_biennial_reports/item

s/7550.php.

63Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014, Pub. L. No. 113-101, 128 Stat. 

1146 (May 9, 2014); GPRA Modernization Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-352, 124 Stat. 

3866 (Jan. 4, 2011).

64OMB identified 36 programs for elimination or reduction based on fragmentation, 

overlap, or duplication in the Major Savings and Reforms volume of the President’s budget 

request for fiscal year 2018. For 6 of the 36 programs, OMB referenced prior GAO 

analyses of fragmentation, overlap, and duplication in its justification. We could not 

determine what criteria were applied to identify fragmentation, overlap, or duplication for 

the remaining 30 programs because OMB did not include a detailed analysis. For more 

information on GAO’s criteria for evaluating fragmentation, overlap, and duplication among 

programs, see GAO-15-49SP.
Page 33 GAO-18-223 Climate Change Funding

reduction targets and international assistance activities, rather than a 

comprehensive examination of federal climate change programs, 

according to our analysis of the 2016 report. Further, because our review 

focused on six selected agencies’ programs based on OMB-reported 

funding rather than a comprehensive list of federal climate change 

programs, and OMB reports do not include information on programs with 

climate-related fiscal exposures, there may be additional opportunities to 

identify potential fragmentation, overlap, or duplication for federal climate 

change efforts.

Since 2011, we have reported that identifying and addressing 

fragmentation, overlap, and duplication have yielded several benefits, 

such as improved government efficiency, improved program 

effectiveness, and increased assurance that programs comply with laws 

and funds are legally spent.65 We have also reported that increasing 

interagency collaboration on crosscutting issues may help reduce 

fragmentation, overlap, and duplication among programs that have been 

added incrementally over time to address new challenges.66 Because 

OMB collects and reports information on federal climate change funding, 

OMB is uniquely situated to conduct an assessment of potential 

fragmentation, overlap, or duplication across the full range of agencies 

engaged in climate change activities. By providing a detailed analysis of 

such areas to Congress, in conjunction with OMB’s funding reports, OMB 

could help decision makers more effectively target limited resources.

Since 1993, the federal government has reported over $154 billion in 

funding for activities to understand and address climate change, and 

annual funding has increased over time, according to OMB climate 

change reports to Congress. Given the fiscal constraints facing the 

federal government, we have previously reported that a more complete 

understanding of fiscal exposures and the long-term effects of decisions 

would help policymakers make important trade-offs between spending 

with short-term and long-term benefits. However, the most recent OMB 

climate change funding reports do not include funding information on 

federal programs with significant fiscal exposures to climate change 

 65For example, our most recent report on government-wide fragmentation, overlap, and 

duplication is GAO-17-491SP.

66GAO, Managing for Results: GPRA Modernization Act Implementation Provides 

Important Opportunities to Address Government Challenges. GAO-11-617T (Washington, 

D.C.: May 10, 2011) and GAO-12-1022.

Conclusions
Page 34 GAO-18-223 Climate Change Funding

identified by OMB and others—such as federal disaster assistance, flood 

insurance, and crop insurance. By providing, concurrent with any future 

climate change funding reports to Congress, funding information for 

federal programs with fiscal exposure to climate change, OMB would 

have better assurance that it was providing policymakers with the 

information necessary for them to make decisions about spending tradeoffs. This information should include costs to repair, replace, and improve 

the weather-related resilience of federally-funded property and resources; 

costs for federal flood and crop insurance programs; and costs for 

disaster assistance programs, among other identified areas of fiscal 

exposure to climate change.

Additionally, based on our review of six selected agency budget 

justifications, funding for programs whose primary purpose is to address 

climate change represents a small portion of total agency-reported 

climate change funding to OMB, and is fragmented across multiple 

agencies, although we did not find signs of overlap. However, there may 

be additional opportunities to identify potential fragmentation, overlap, or 

duplication for federal climate change efforts because several agency 

budget justifications we reviewed provided information on climate change 

activities under multi-purpose programs that were not identifiable within 

OMB’s funding reports, and detailed analyses of overlapping and 

duplicative programs are generally not included in OMB’s justifications for 

eliminating programs, among other reasons. We have previously reported 

that identifying and addressing fragmentation, overlap, and duplication 

have yielded several benefits, such as improved program effectiveness, 

increased collaboration, and improved government efficiency by 

eliminating or avoiding unnecessary overlap and duplication. By 

providing, concurrent with any future climate change funding reports to 

Congress, a detailed analysis of overlapping or duplicative federal climate 

change programs to Congress, OMB could help decision makers more 

effectively target limited resources.

We are making the following two recommendations to OMB:

The Director of OMB should provide, concurrent with any future climate 

change funding reports to Congress, funding information for federal 

programs with fiscal exposure to climate change. This information should 

include costs to repair, replace, and improve the weather-related 

resilience of federally-funded property and resources; costs for federal 

flood and crop insurance programs; and costs for disaster assistance 

programs. (Recommendation 1)

Recommendations for 

Executive Action
Page 35 GAO-18-223 Climate Change Funding

The Director of OMB should provide, concurrent with any future climate 

change funding reports to Congress, a detailed analysis of federal climate 

change programs it considers to be fragmented, overlapping, or 

duplicative. (Recommendation 2)

We requested comments on a draft of this product from CEQ, OMB, the 

Office of Science and Technology Policy, and USGCRP within the 

Executive Office of the President. CEQ and the Office of Science and 

Technology Policy did not provide comments. USGCRP provided 

technical comments, which we incorporated into the draft as appropriate. 

OMB staff provided oral comments on the draft report. In their comments, 

OMB staff said that they generally agreed with our findings. However, 

they disagreed with our recommendations because the staff said that they 

believe existing budget processes are sufficient for identifying significant 

fiscal risks to agency operations, including climate change, and for 

identifying climate change programs that are fragmented, overlapping, or 

duplicative. 

OMB staff said that they disagreed with our recommendation for OMB to 

provide Congress with funding information on federal programs with fiscal 

exposure to climate change, concurrent with future OMB funding reports 

because OMB prefers to conduct a broader examination of federal fiscal 

risks during the budget process. Specifically, OMB staff said that OMB 

Circular A-123 directs agencies to conduct enterprise risk management 

assessments to identify significant risks to agency goals and operations 

and that agencies have discretion on how to prioritize identified risks and 

whether climate change should be included. Additionally, outside of the 

existing budget process, OMB staff said that there is significant 

uncertainty in climate projections, that the ability to distinguish impacts 

and decisions associated with climate change from other drivers is often 

not possible, and that any analyses to evaluate those distinctions or 

assess future trends in expenditures would require substantial resources. 

Further, OMB staff said that no test exists to identify climate change 

programs with fiscal exposures and that its identification of such 

programs would be subjective and not transparent. OMB staff suggested 

that we revise our first recommendation to reflect that agencies should 

consider fiscal exposure to climate change as part of their enterprise risk 

management assessments under OMB Circular A-123. 

We agree with OMB that it is important to conduct a broad examination of 

federal fiscal risks during the budget process and that agencies should 

Agency Comments

and Our Evaluation
Page 36 GAO-18-223 Climate Change Funding

consider fiscal exposure to climate change as part of their enterprise risk 

management assessments under OMB Circular A-123. However, we 

were asked to review reported federal funding for climate change 

activities, and evaluating agencies’ enterprise risk management 

assessments was outside the scope of our review. For this report, we 

examined the extent to which OMB’s climate change funding reports were 

clearly linked to federal fiscal exposure to climate change and we found 

that they were not. We also found that OMB would have better assurance 

that it was providing policymakers with the information necessary to make 

climate change spending trade-offs, if in addition to the funding 

information for science, technology, and international assistance it has 

previously reported to Congress, OMB also reported similar funding 

information for programs whose costs were likely to increase due to 

climate change impacts. 

We acknowledge OMB’s position that there is significant uncertainty in 

climate projections, that the ability to distinguish impacts and decisions 

associated with climate change from other drivers is often not possible, 

and that any analyses to evaluate those distinctions or assess future 

trends in expenditures would require substantial resources. The first 

recommendation does not explicitly call for OMB to provide information on 

historical or future trends in expenditures related to programs with fiscal 

exposure to climate change impacts. Additionally, our recommendation 

does not call for OMB to analyze or distinguish between climate change 

and other drivers of federal fiscal exposure to climate change impacts, 

such as coastal development. Instead, our recommendation calls for 

OMB to provide funding information for federal programs with fiscal 

exposure to climate change—which could be in the same format as the 

climate change funding OMB has previously provided to Congress for 

science, technology, and international assistance. We disagree with 

OMB’s comment that no test exists to identify climate change programs 

with fiscal exposures and that its identification of such programs would be 

subjective and not transparent. For example, OMB and others have 

previously identified federal programs with fiscal exposure to climate 

change, such as disaster assistance, flood insurance, crop insurance, 

wildfire management, and other programs that annually incur costs due to 

weather-related events and that OMB already collects funding information 

for these programs as part of its preparation of the President’s budget

request. Further, OMB has previously requested that agencies report 

information on funds for agency implementation of sustainability goals 

and resilience measures in the construction and renovation of federal 

facilities, so it is possible to do so. For these reasons, when the President 

is required by statute to report on climate change funding, we continue to 
Page 37 GAO-18-223 Climate Change Funding

believe that implementing our recommendation will provide policymakers 

with more complete information for making important trade-offs between 

spending with long-term benefits and spending with short-term benefits.

OMB staff also disagreed with our recommendation for OMB to provide 

Congress with a detailed analysis of federal climate change programs it 

considers fragmented, overlapping, or duplicative, concurrent with future 

OMB funding reports. According to the OMB staff, our recommendation is 

unnecessary because OMB already assesses potential fragmentation, 

overlap, and duplication as part of its budget process, contained most 

recently in its Major Savings and Reform volume of the President’s 

budget request. OMB staff also stated that the statutory requirements for 

the climate change funding reports have been similar year-after-year. 

Additionally, the OMB staff said that the United States already prepares 

an inventory of federal climate-related activities as part of its Climate 

Action Report to the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change. 

Further, OMB staff also said they are taking our previous 

recommendations—to develop a federal program inventory to provide 

greater transparency and consistency in federal program funding and 

performance information—into account as part of the broader 

implementation of the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 

2014 and GRPA Modernization Act of 2010. OMB staff suggested that we 

revise our second recommendation to direct OMB to more explicitly report 

on fragmented, overlapping, and duplicative federal climate change 

programs as part of OMB budget processes. 

We agree with OMB that it is important to identify potential fragmented, 

overlapping, or duplicative programs during the budget process. 

However, as we mention in the report, the fiscal year 2018 Major Savings 

and Reform volume of the budget request generally does not include 

detailed analyses supporting its justifications for eliminating programs, 

such as comparisons of similar programs across several characteristics 

and a comprehensive assessment of potential positive and negative 

effects of fragmentation, overlap, and duplication, as called for by GAO’s 

criteria. We acknowledge OMB’s comment that the statutory requirements 

for the climate change funding reports have been similar year-after-year. 

However, we continue to believe that OMB’s climate change funding 

reports do not provide sufficient detail for Congress to identify potential 

fragmented, overlapping, or duplicative programs, because several 

agency budget justifications we reviewed included information on climate 

change activities that were not identifiable based on the level of detail in 

OMB’s funding reports. Further, the 2016 Climate Action Report focuses 

on progress toward meeting emissions reduction targets and international 
Page 38 GAO-18-223 Climate Change Funding

assistance activities, rather than a comprehensive list of federal climate 

change programs. We are encouraged by OMB staff’s statement that the 

agency is taking our previous recommendations on federal program 

inventories into account as part of its implementation of the Digital 

Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 and GRPA Modernization 

Act of 2010. However, we continue to believe that because OMB collects 

and reports information on federal climate change funding, OMB is 

uniquely situated to conduct an assessment of potentially fragmented, 

overlapping, or duplicative programs across the full range of agencies 

engaged in climate change activities and that by providing this information 

to Congress in conjunction with its funding reports, OMB could help 

decision makers more effectively target limited resources.

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of 

this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the 

report date. At that time, we will send copies to the appropriate 

congressional committees, the Director of the Office of Management and 

Budget, the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, and 

other interested parties. In addition, the report will be available at no 

charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff 

have any questions about this report, please contact J. Alfredo Gómez at 

(202) 512-3841 or gomezj@gao.gov.

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 

key contributions to this report are listed in appendix VII.

Sincerely yours,

J. Alfredo Gómez

Director, Natural Resources and Environment
Page 39 GAO-18-223 Climate Change Funding

This appendix presents additional information on primary purpose 

programs or activities—those described by agencies as having climate 

change as their primary purpose—as reported by agencies in annual 

budget justifications.

Appendix I: Further Information on 18 

Primary Purpose Programs Identified by 

GAO
Page 40 GAO-18-223 Climate Change Funding

NOAA’s Climate Research activities are authorized by the National 

Climate Program Act.1

Coordination:

NOAA collaborates with other federal agencies through the U.S. Global 

Change Research Program (USGCRP) and interagency working groups.2

 

Further, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and 

NOAA are statutorily required to submit an annual report to relevant 

congressional committees describing how their earth science programs 

will be coordinated. 3

Examples of program activities:

NOAA’s climate research efforts—through its Climate Research 

Laboratories and Cooperative Institutes; Regional Climate Data and 

Information; and Climate Competitive Research—include:

• Collecting atmospheric and oceanic observations to understand the 

state of the oceans and predict climate variability across multiple timescales. NOAA also uses these data for weather forecasts and warning 

systems.

• Modeling to understand atmosphere, ocean, biosphere, and 

cryosphere dynamics to make projections about future marine 

ecosystems, atmospheric composition, and air quality across multiple 

time-scales. NOAA’s modeling helped develop an improved drought 

warning system. 

• Regional climate information services that provide information and 

products to improve decision makers’ ability to plan for and respond to 

climate variability and change. NOAA’s Regional Integrated Sciences 

and Assessments program supports regional teams that increase 

communities’ capacity to prepare for and respond to natural disasters.

 1

15 U.S.C. §§ 2901-2908. The National Climate Program Act requires the President to 

establish a National Climate Program, with the National Climate Program office within 

NOAA serving as the lead entity responsible for administering the program

2

Under the National Science and Technology Council, NOAA is a co-chair of the 

Committee on Environment, Natural Resources, and Sustainability, and has a leadership 

role in the following subcommittees: disaster reduction, ocean science and technology, air 

quality research, and global change research, among others.

3

51 U.S.C. § 60505(b).

1. Climate Research

The Department of Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Climate 

Research program conducts observing and research to predict long-term changes in climate as well as 

shorter-term variations that are of societal and economic importance. 

Program Snapshot

Federal Agency:

Department of Commerce’s National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

Administering Agency and Relevant 

Offices:

Climate Program Office (CPO) and 

Laboratories and Cooperative Institutes within 

NOAA’s Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Research.

Program Focus Area:

Climate observing.

Grant Eligibility:

Researchers at a variety of institutions and 

government agencies.

Intended Benefits:

Research intends to benefit communities, 

decision makers, and other stakeholders’ 

ability to understand and prepare for short 

and long-term climate variations, such as 

droughts and natural disasters. 

Program Status: 

Active.

Sources: GAO analysis of NOAA documents (text); U.S. 

Government Work (image) | GAO-18-223
Page 41 GAO-18-223 Climate Change Funding

According to DOE program documents, the agency created ASR in 2010 

by merging two atmospheric research programs that had focused on

different measurement scales.4

Coordination:

ASR coordinates closely with the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement 

Climate Research Facility program and partners with other Climate and 

Environmental Sciences Division (CESD) modeling programs.5

 ASR 

scientists participate in semi-annual meetings to discuss findings and 

research priorities. At the division level, CESD officials collaborate with 

other federal agencies through the U.S. Global Change Research 

Program, and interagency working groups.6

Examples of program activities:

ASR scientists conduct field campaigns and work with the Atmospheric 

Radiation Measurement Climate Research Facility to conduct research. 

ASR also supports research through grants. 

• Modeling atmospheric processes and developing model parameters 

that incorporate ASR's research on aerosols, clouds, and 

precipitation.7

 

• Targeted observing through short-term field campaigns and 

experiments on specific atmospheric processes to supplement 

Atmospheric Radiation Measurement Climate Research Facility data.8

Scientists have used ASR research to improve their ability to predict 

future changes in precipitation, cloud cover, and atmospheric energy.

 4

Specifically, DOE merged its Atmospheric Radiation Measurement Program and its 

Atmospheric Science Program in 2010 to better utilize the measurement capabilities of the 

newly expanded Atmospheric Radiation Measurement Climate Research Facility in a 

cohesive manner.

5

For example, ASR collaborates with DOE’s Regional and Global Climate Modeling, Earth 

System Modeling, and Terrestrial Ecosystem Science modeling efforts.

6

Under the National Science and Technology Council, DOE is a member of the 

Committee on Environment, Natural Resources, and Sustainability, and the Director of 

CESD participates in the U.S. Group on Earth Observations subcommittee.

7

DOE, Accomplishments in Atmospheric Science 2008 – 2013, DOE-SC-0159.

8

For example, ASR supplements Atmospheric Radiation Measurement Climate Research 

Facility’s long-term observations with laboratory studies and short-term field campaigns 

that target specific atmospheric processes in a variety of locations and atmospheric 

conditions.

Program Snapshot

Federal Agency:

Department of Energy (DOE)

Administering Agency and Relevant 

Offices:

ASR is in the Climate and Environmental 

Sciences Division of the Office of Biological 

and Environmental Research within DOE’s 

Office of Science. 

Program focus:

Climate modeling.

Grant eligibility:

Researchers at a variety of institutions and 

government agencies, excluding DOE labs, 

among others.

Intended Benefits:

To improve climate projections and inform the 

development of solutions to energy and 

environmental challenges. Other applications 

include water forecasts.

Program Status: 

Active.

Sources: GAO analysis of DOE program documents (text); 

DOE (image). | GAO-18-223

2. Atmospheric Systems Research (ASR)

The Department of Energy’s (DOE) ASR quantifies the interactions among aerosols, clouds, precipitation, and 

radiation to improve fundamental understanding of these processes and reduce uncertainty in global and 

regional climate projections. 
Page 42 GAO-18-223 Climate Change Funding

According to DOE program documents, the agency established the ARM 

Climate Research Facility as a national user facility in 2003.9

Coordination:

ARM coordinates closely with DOE’s Atmospheric Systems Research 

program and partners with other programs within DOE’s Climate and 

Environmental Sciences Division (CESD).10 ARM also coordinates with 

federal agencies through its Science Board and constituent groups.

11 At 

the division level, CESD officials collaborate with other federal agencies 

through the U.S. Global Change Research Program, and interagency 

working groups.12 

Examples of program activities:

ARM’s efforts include:

• Collecting long-term data on aerosols, clouds, and other atmospheric 

properties from fixed and mobile instruments. Scientists use these 

data to understand how sunlight, clouds, aerosols, and precipitation 

affect temperature, weather, and climate.

• High resolution modeling of atmospheric and cloud processes using 

ARM data. DOE, NOAA, and other scientists use the model outputs to 

better understand cloud formation, earth system science and severe 

weather.

• Providing the use of highly-instrumented in situ and remote sensing 

observation facilities to researchers. Almost 1200 researchers from 

academia, government, industry and others used ARM facilities in 

2016.13

 9

The observational sites were originally established under DOE’s ARM Program, which 

DOE established in 1990 and merged with its Atmospheric Science Program in 2010 to 

become the Atmospheric Systems Research program.

10For example, ARM collaborates with CESD’s Climate and Earth System Modeling, 

Environmental System Science, and the Environmental Molecular Sciences Laboratory 

efforts.

11For example, the ARM Science Board, which reviews research proposals, includes 

NASA and DOD officials. Constituent groups such as ARM’s User Executive Committee, 

and Unmanned Aerial Systems Advisory Panel, include representatives from NOAA, the 

NSF-funded National Center for Atmospheric Research and NASA.

12Under the National Science and Technology Council, DOE is a member of the 

Committee on Environment, Natural Resources, and Sustainability, and the Director of 

CESD participates in the U.S. Group on Earth Observations subcommittee.

13DOE/SC-ARM-16-056.

Federal Agency:

Department of Energy (DOE)

Administering Agency and Relevant 

Offices:

ARM is a scientific user facility within the 

Climate and Environmental Sciences Division 

of the Office of Biological and Environmental 

Research within DOE’s Office of Science. An 

infrastructure board manages the facility, and 

components of the facility are operated by 

DOE laboratories. 

Program focus:

Climate observing.

Grant eligibility:

Not applicable.

Intended Benefits:

To improve the predictive understanding of 

Earth’s climate, and inform solutions to U.S. 

energy and environmental challenges. Other 

applications include storm prediction.

Program Status: 

Active.

Sources: GAO analysis of DOE program documents (text); 

DOE (image). | GAO-18-223

3. Atmospheric Radiation Measurement 

(ARM) Climate Research Facility 

The Department of Energy’s (DOE) ARM Climate Research Facility provides researchers with observation 

facilities to improve the understanding and model representation of clouds and aerosols, as well as their 

interactions with the Earth’s surface. 
Page 43 GAO-18-223 Climate Change Funding

According to DOE program documents, the agency created TES by 

consolidating predecessor programs on carbon processes and ecological 

science.14

Coordination:

TES coordinates closely with DOE’s Subsurface Biogeochemical 

Research program and partners with other programs within DOE’s 

Climate and Environmental Sciences Division and research at DOE 

scientific facilities.15 TES also collaborates with other federal agencies 

through the U.S. Global Change Research Program and interagency 

working groups.16 

Examples of program activities:

TES efforts include:

• Collecting long-term data on carbon flows between land and 

atmosphere, generally in North America. Scientists at DOE, NOAA, 

the U.S. Forest Service and others use the data to understand carbon 

sources and sinks and how they are affected by a variety of factors, 

such as land-use, disturbance, and climate, among others.17

• Using Earth system models to identify research gaps and designing 

field experiments to address uncertainties. TES provides research 

results to modeling efforts, to improve climate projections.

• Conducting long-term field experiments focused on regionally or 

globally significant ecosystems and processes to study their 

interactions with the climate. Scientists use these data to predict the 

responses and feedbacks between the climate and these ecosystems, 

such as permafrost.18

 14In particular, DOE consolidated its Terrestrial Carbon Processes and Program in 

Ecological Research programs to become the TES program. 

15For example, TES and the Subsurface Biogeochemical Research program hold joint 

investigator meetings annually to discuss ongoing research. TES also coordinates closely 

with the Climate and Earth System Modeling program, among others.

16For example, TES participates in the Carbon Cycle Interagency Working Group that 

includes representatives from 12 agencies, including NOAA, NASA, USDA, NSF and 

USGS. As part of the Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee, TES coordinates its 

Arctic research with NASA’s Arctic research, among others.

17DOE, NASA, NOAA, and the U.S. Forest Service supported the formation of the 

AmeriFlux network—an observation network to measure carbon flows at over 120 sites.

18TES is studying ecosystems in the Arctic and in tropical rainforests, and whether their 

stored carbon will be affected by changing climate conditions.

4. Terrestrial Ecosystem Science (TES)

The Department of Energy’s (DOE) TES seeks to improve the representation of terrestrial ecosystem 

processes in Earth system models to improve climate projections and inform energy decisions. 

Program Snapshot

Federal Agency:

Department of Energy (DOE)

Administering Agency and Relevant 

Offices:

TES is in the Climate and Environmental 

Sciences Division of the Office of Biological 

and Environmental Research within DOE’s 

Office of Science. 

Program focus:

Climate observing.

Grant eligibility:

Researchers at a variety of institutions and 

government agencies.

Intended Benefits:

To improve climate projections and inform 

DOE’s energy decisions. 

Program Status: 

Active.

Sources: GAO analysis of DOE program documents (text); 

DOE (image). | GAO-18-223
Page 44 GAO-18-223 Climate Change Funding

According to DOE’s budget justification, Terrestrial Carbon Sequestration 

Research first appeared as a separate line item in fiscal year 2010.19

Coordination:

Terrestrial Carbon Sequestration Research was a joint effort of DOE’s 

Office of Science and DOE’s Office of Fossil Energy. At the department 

level, DOE also coordinated with federal agencies through the Climate 

Change Technology Program.20 

Examples of program activities:

Terrestrial Carbon Sequestration Research efforts included:

• Supporting research to enhance the carbon storage productivity of 

terrestrial ecosystems, such as by applying additives to the soil or 

managing plant root systems.

• Supporting research to develop models, methods and tools to 

evaluate carbon sequestration strategies. 

• Fostering partnerships between landowners, government agencies, 

and energy producers, such as coal and utility companies to help 

develop the best approaches for increasing carbon sequestration in 

soils and plants.

 19However, DOE conducted carbon sequestration research as part of other programs prior 

to 2010 as well as after DOE stopped listing Terrestrial Carbon Sequestration Research

as a separate line item in its budget justifications

20According to DOE program documents, the Climate Change Technology Program was 

created to coordinate and prioritize the federal government’s investments in climate 

related technology, research, development, demonstration, and deployment.

5.Terrestrial Carbon Sequestration Research

The Department of Energy’s (DOE) Terrestrial Carbon Sequestration Research supported efforts to identify, 

understand, and predict the fundamental physical, chemical, biological, and genetic mechanisms controlling 

carbon sequestration in terrestrial ecosystems.

Program Snapshot

Federal Agency:

Department of Energy (DOE)

Administering Agency and Relevant 

Offices:

DOE’s National Energy Technology 

Laboratory (NETL) managed the Terrestrial 

Carbon Sequestration Research program.

Program focus:

Other.

Grant eligibility:

Researchers at a variety of institutions, 

industry, and DOE labs.

Intended Benefits:

Provide economically competitive and 

environmentally safe options for offsetting the 

projected increase in carbon dioxide 

emissions. Concurrent benefits could include 

creating wildlife habitat, preventing soil 

erosion, and boosting local economies, 

among others.

Program Status: 

No longer funded as a separate line item in 

DOE’s budget justification after fiscal year 

2011.

Sources: GAO analysis of DOE program documents (text); 

USDA photo by Lance Cheung (image). | GAO-18-233
Page 45 GAO-18-223 Climate Change Funding

According to DOE’s budget justification, CESM first appeared as a 

separate line item in fiscal year 2010.21

Coordination:

CESM works in partnership with modeling and other programs within 

CESD conducting research relevant to modeling.22 CESM also 

coordinates with modeling efforts at other agencies through joint projects, 

the U.S. Global Change Research Program, and interagency working 

groups.23 

Examples of program activities:

CESM efforts include:

• Earth System Modeling that develops models to enhance climate 

projection capabilities, improving climate feedbacks simulations, 

tipping points, and responses to past and possible future energy 

pathways.

• Regional and Global Climate Modeling investments to develop model 

validation metrics and conduct climate analyses to inform DOE’s earth 

system model development and related research.

• Integrated Assessment Research that examines the interactions 

between human and natural systems, to explore energy system 

dynamics, future energy technologies and options, land use, and 

water use, among other topics.

 21However, DOE and its predecessor agency’s involvement in climate modeling date back 

to the 1960s, with the development of the Livermore Atmospheric Model at Lawrence 

Livermore National Laboratories.

22For example, CESD’s Atmospheric Radiation Measurement Climate Research Facility, 

Atmospheric System Research, Terrestrial Ecosystem Science and others conduct 

research or collect data relevant for CESM’s modeling. CESM also partners with DOE’s 

Advanced Scientific Computing Research program, which is investing in code and 

algorithm designs for optimal model computation. 

23For example, NSF and CESM jointly fund the Community Earth System Model, a 

coupled climate model. NOAA, DOE, NSF and NASA jointly funded the North American 

Multi-Model Ensemble II project, and NSF, USDA, and DOE jointly funded research on 

decadal and regional climate predictions. Also, CESD partners with other agencies, such 

as NOAA, to support workshops that share expertise and how to address research 

priorities in the context of available resources. Additionally, the Interagency Group on 

Integrative Modeling coordinates global change modeling activities across ten participating 

agencies, including NSF, USDA, NASA, NOAA, USGS and EPA, among others. 

Program Snapshot

Federal Agency:

Department of Energy (DOE)

Administering Agency and Relevant 

Offices:

CESM is in the Climate and Environmental 

Sciences Division of the Office of Biological 

and Environmental Research within DOE’s 

Office of Science. 

Program focus:

Climate modeling,

Grant eligibility:

Researchers at a variety of institutions and 

government agencies, including DOE labs.

Intended Benefits:

To reduce uncertainty in Earth system 

models, including regional climate projections 

and how extreme events and sea-level will 

change to inform energy supply and 

infrastructure decisions. Other applications 

include water forecasts and agricultural 

impacts. 

Program Status: 

Active.

Sources: GAO analysis of DOE program documents (text); 

DOE (image). | GAO-18-223

6. Climate and Earth System Modeling (CESM)

The Department of Energy’s (DOE) CESM develops model components as well as Earth system models that 

include human impacts and natural systems to simulate climate variability (e.g., El Niño) and predict change 

from decades to centuries at regional and global scales.
Page 46 GAO-18-223 Climate Change Funding

CCTP was created by the President in 2002—and was subsequently 

codified by the Energy Policy Act of 2005.25 

Coordination:

CCTP assisted an interagency committee on climate change technology, 

led by DOE, with participation by the following federal agencies: 

Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Interior, State, Transportation, the 

Environmental Protection Agency, Health and Human Services, National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National Science Foundation, 

and the U.S. Agency for International Development.26

Examples of program activities:

CCTP efforts included:

• Providing strategic direction and leadership through interagency 

coordination of research and development planning, programming, 

and budgeting.

• Conducting portfolio and policy analyses, technology assessments 

and inventories, and progress reviews, in support of strategic and 

leadership functions.27

• Led international cooperative initiatives, such as launching the Clean 

Energy Ministerial process and the Clean Energy Solutions Center, 

among others.28

 24U.S. Climate Change Technology Program, Strategic Plan, DOE/PI-0005, (Sept. 2006)

2542 U.S. C. § 13389(d). The Energy Policy Act of 2005 states that this program is to, 

among other things, assist the Climate Change Technology Committee with the 

interagency coordination of climate change technology research, development, 

demonstration and deployment to reduce greenhouse gas intensity.

26DOE/PI-0005.

27DOE, Office of Chief Financial Officer, FY 2010 Congressional Budget Request, 

DOE/CF-036, Vol. 2 (May 2009).

28DOE, Office of Chief Financial Officer, FY 2014 Congressional Budget Request

DOE/CF-0085, Vol. 2 (April 2013).

7. Climate Change Technology Program 

(CCTP)

The Department of Energy’s (DOE) CCTP supported efforts to accelerate the development and reduce the 

cost of new and advanced technologies that could significantly avoid, reduce, or capture and store greenhouse 

gas emissions.24

Program Snapshot

Federal Agency:

Department of Energy (DOE)

Administering Agency and Relevant 

Offices:

DOE’s Office of Policy and International 

Affairs within Departmental Administration.

Program focus:

Other.

Grant eligibility:

Not applicable.

Intended Benefits:

Provided analytical and technical support to 

interagency working groups and advisory 

committees to the President.

Program Status: 

No longer funded as a separate line item in 

DOE’s budget justification after fiscal year 

2014.

Sources: GAO analysis of DOE program documents (text); 

DOE (image). | GAO-18-223
Page 47 GAO-18-223 Climate Change Funding

NASA’s Earth Science program was established in response to a 

requirement in the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 1993.29

Coordination:

The CLARREO team coordinates with NASA’s Goddard Space Flight 

Center and Jet Propulsion Laboratory. The CLARREO team also 

coordinates with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA), the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST), the 

Department of Energy (DOE), and academic partners.30 At the division 

level, NASA Earth Science collaborates directly with NOAA, and with 

other federal agencies through the U.S. Global Change Research 

Program and interagency working groups.31

Examples of program activities:

CPF Mission efforts include:

• Develop and demonstrate one highly accurate spectrometer 

instrument to measure reflected solar energy and to serve as an inorbit standard to calibrate and improve the accuracy of other satellite 

instruments.

• One year of operation on the International Space Station, and one 

year of data analysis.

 29Pub. L. No. 102-588, tit. I, § 102(g) (Nov. 4, 1992) (requiring the NASA Administrator to 

carry out an Earth Observing System program that addresses the highest priority 

international climate change research goals). 

30For example, the full CLARREO mission includes inter-calibration and comparison 

software developed jointly by NASA and NOAA. The NASA and NOAA Administrators are 

required to review and monitor, through a joint working group, the agencies’ missions to 

ensure maximum coordination in the design, operation, and transition of missions, where 

appropriate, and submit annual reports to relevant congressional committees on how their 

earth science programs will be coordinated. 51 U.S.C. §§ 60505(a),(b).

31For example, under the NTSC, NASA is a member of the Committee on Environment, 

Natural Resources, and Sustainability, and the former Council on Climate Preparedness 

and Resilience. NASA also has a leadership role in the Working Group on Ocean 

Acidification. NASA coordinates with international and commercial partners through its 

data system communities, such as the Committee on Earth Observation Satellites.

Program Snapshot

Federal Agency:

National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA)

Administering Agency and Relevant 

Offices:

CPF is a component of the CLARREO 

mission within NASA’s Earth Systematic 

Missions, in its Earth Science Division, which 

is part of NASA’s Science Mission Directorate. 

NASA’s Langley Research Center leads the 

CLARREO mission.

Program focus:

Climate observing.

Grant eligibility:

Not applicable.

Intended Benefits:

CPF will reduce risks for the CLARREO 

mission by demonstrating calibration 

approaches with other satellite instruments. 

CPF’s establishment of a calibration standard 

for other orbiting sensors will also improve 

weather forecasting and the accuracy of 

climate observations.

Program Status: 

Projected launch no earlier than 2022.

Sources: GAO analysis of NASA program documents (text); 

NASA (image). | GAO-18-223

8. CLARREO Pathfinder (CPF) Mission

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) CPF Mission’s goal is to demonstrate the 

essential measurement and calibration technologies for one of the instruments needed for the full CLARREO 

mission.
Page 48 GAO-18-223 Climate Change Funding

The Glory Mission was part of NASA’s Earth Science program, which was 

established in response to a requirement in the National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 1993.32 The Glory 

Mission was reauthorized by the National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration Authorization Act of 2008.33

Coordination:

The Glory Mission team coordinated closely with NASA’s Goddard 

Institute for Space Studies. The Glory team also coordinated with the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the National 

Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST), the Naval Research 

Laboratory, and other partners.34 At the division level, NASA Earth 

Science collaborates directly with NOAA, and with other federal agencies 

through the U.S. Global Change Research Program and interagency 

working groups.35 

Examples of program activities:

Glory Mission efforts included:

• Developing and testing two instruments, the Aerosol Polarimetry 

Sensor and the Total Irradiance Monitor, which were intended to 

supply highly accurate measurements of aerosol properties and 

incoming solar radiation.

• The Glory Mission spacecraft launched in March 2011, but failed to 

reach orbit due to a launch vehicle equipment failure.36

 32Pub. L. No. 102-588, tit. I, § 102(g) (Nov. 4, 1992).

33Pub. L. No. 110-422, tit. II, § 206(a) (Oct. 15, 2008). 

34For example, the NASA and NOAA Administrators are required to review and monitor, 

through a joint working group, the agencies’ missions to ensure maximum coordination in 

the design, operation, and transition of missions, where appropriate, and submit annual 

reports to relevant congressional committees on how their earth science programs will be 

coordinated. 51 U.S.C. §§ 60505(a),(b). 

35For example, under the NTSC, NASA is a member of the Committee on Environment, 

Natural Resources, and Sustainability, and the former Council on Climate Preparedness

and Resilience. NASA also has a leadership role in the Working Group on Ocean 

Acidification. NASA coordinates with international and commercial partners through its 

data system communities, such as the Committee on Earth Observation Satellites. 

36NASA, Overview of the Glory Mishap Investigation Results for Public Release. 

Program Snapshot

Federal Agency:

National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA)

Administering Agency and Relevant 

Offices:

Glory was located in NASA’s Earth 

Systematic Missions, in its Earth Science 

Division, which is part of NASA’s Science 

Mission Directorate. NASA’s Goddard Space 

Flight Center led the Glory Mission.

Program focus:

Climate observing.

Grant eligibility:

Not applicable.

Intended Benefits:

Glory would have increased the accuracy of 

aerosol and solar energy measurements to 

improve understanding of the Earth’s energy 

budget and climate change regional impacts.

Program Status: 

No longer funded as a separate line item in 

NASA’s budget justification. The satellite 

failed to reach orbit in fiscal year 2011.

Sources: GAO analysis of NASA program documents (text); 

NASA (image). | GAO-18-223

9. Glory Mission

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) Glory Mission’s goal was to examine how 

aerosols and solar energy affect the climate, by collecting data on atmospheric aerosol properties and 

incoming solar energy.
Page 49 GAO-18-223 Climate Change Funding

ICESat is part of NASA’s Earth Science program, which was established 

in response to a requirement in the National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 1993.37

Coordination:

The ICESat mission team coordinated with industry and academic 

partners.38 At the division level, NASA Earth Science collaborates directly 

with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and 

with other federal agencies through the U.S. Global Change Research 

Program and interagency working groups.39 

 

Examples of program activities:

ICESat mission efforts included:

• Developing and launching one instrument, the Geoscience Laser 

Altimeter System, which quantified ice sheet mass balance and 

measured global distributions of clouds and aerosols, topography, sea 

ice and vegetation cover. 

• ICESat data led to scientific advances in measuring changes in the 

mass of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets and polar sea ice 

thickness.40 It also led to detailed records of land elevation, tree 

canopies, global standing carbon stocks and terrestrial water storage 

capacity. 

• ICESat completed its mission goal to provide detailed ice elevation 

data in 2008, and ceased operation in fiscal year 2010.41 

 37Pub. L. No. 102-588, tit. I, § 102(g) (Nov. 4, 1992).

38NASA, Goddard Space Flight Center, ICESat: Ice, Cloud, and Land Elevation Satellite, 

FS-2002-9-047-GSFC. 

39For example, under the NTSC, NASA is a member of the Committee on Environment, 

Natural Resources, and Sustainability, and the former Council on Climate Preparedness 

and Resilience. NASA also has a leadership role in the Working Group on Ocean 

Acidification. NASA coordinates with international and commercial partners through its 

data system communities, such as the Committee on Earth Observation Satellites.

40According to NASA, the Geoscience Laser Altimeter System instrument allowed 

scientists to measure the multi-year height of atmospheric cloud and aerosol layers for the 

first time to improve understanding of the Earth’s climate. For a list of publications that 

used ICESat data, see http://nsidc.org/data/icesat/research.html.

41ICESat operated from 2003 to 2009 and completed its original mission goal in 2008. NP2010-7-160-GSFC and NASA, ICESat: Ice, Cloud, and Land Elevation Satellite 2 (ICESat2) Application Plan.

Program Snapshot

Federal Agency:

National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA)

Administering Agency and Relevant 

Offices:

ICESat was located in NASA’s Earth 

Systematic Missions, in its Earth Science 

Division, which is part of NASA’s Science 

Mission Directorate. NASA’s Goddard Space 

Flight Center led the ICESat mission.

Program focus:

Climate observing.

Grant eligibility:

Not applicable

Intended Benefits:

ICESat provided data on ice sheet changes to 

better understand the climate system.

Program Status: 

No longer funded as a separate line item in 

NASA’s budget justification after completing 

its mission in fiscal year 2010.

Sources: GAO analysis of NASA program documents (text); 

NASA (image). | GAO-18-223

10. The Ice, Cloud, and Land Elevation 

Satellite (ICESat)

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) ICESat measured changes in ice sheet mass 

and elevation to understand how changing conditions affect ice and sea level.
Page 50 GAO-18-223 Climate Change Funding

ICESat-2 is part of NASA’s Earth Science program, which was 

established in response to a requirement in the National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 1993.42

Coordination:

The ICESat-2 team coordinates with the U.S. Geological Survey, National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), academic partners, 

and others.43 At the division level, NASA Earth Science collaborates 

directly with NOAA, and with other federal agencies through the U.S. 

Global Change Research Program and interagency working groups.44 

Examples of program activities:

ICESat-2 mission efforts include:

• Developing, testing, and launching one instrument, the Advanced 

Topographic Laser Altimeter System (ATLAS) to provide highresolution elevation data.45 

• IceSat-2 will measure changes in polar ice sheet mass, sea ice 

thickness, and vegetation-canopy heights. It will also provide 

atmospheric profiles, ocean elevation, and inland water elevations. 

• Other data applications may include improving the Navy’s ice 

forecasting system and improving global forecasting for floods and 

droughts.

• Data will be sent to the National Snow and Ice Data Center, which is 

jointly supported by NASA, NOAA, and the National Science 

Foundation. 

 42Pub. L. No. 102-588, tit. I, § 102(g) (Nov. 4, 1992).

43Scientists from NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory also assisted with IceSat-2.

44For example, under the NTSC, NASA is a member of the Committee on Environment, 

Natural Resources, and Sustainability, and the former Council on Climate Preparedness 

and Resilience. NASA also has a leadership role in the Working Group on Ocean 

Acidification. NASA coordinates with international and commercial partners through its 

data system communities, such as the Committee on Earth Observation Satellites.

45We previously reported that ICESat-2 has encountered problems with cracked crystals 

in the flight lasers in ATLAS that will likely cause it to miss its committed launch date and 

could cause it to exceed its current cost baseline. The project was previously re-baselined 

in 2014 because of development and design issues, and now plans to launch no earlier 

than September 2018—11 months later than its previously planned October 2017 launch 

date. GAO, NASA: Assessment of Major Projects, GAO-17-303SP (Washington, D.C.: 

May 17, 2016.) 

11. The Ice, Cloud, and Land Elevation 

Satellite-2 (ICESat-2)

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) ICESat-2 will continue ICESat’s mission to 

measure changes in ice sheet mass and elevation to understand how changing conditions affect ice and sea 

level.

Program Snapshot

Federal Agency:

National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA)

Administering Agency and Relevant 

Offices:

ICESat-2 is located in NASA’s Earth 

Systematic Missions, in its Earth Science 

Division, which is part of NASA’s Science 

Mission Directorate. NASA’s Goddard Space 

Flight Center leads the ICESat-2 mission.

Program focus:

Climate observing.

Grant eligibility:

Not applicable.

Intended Benefits:

To improve the measurement precision for 

polar ice sheet mass, sea ice, and other 

elevation data to better understand the 

Earth’s climate system.

Program Status: 

Projected launch in 2018.

Sources: GAO analysis of NASA program documents (text); 

Orbital Sciences Corporation (image). | GAO-18-223
Page 51 GAO-18-223 Climate Change Funding

OCO-2 is part of NASA’s Earth Science program, which was established 

in response to a requirement in the National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 1993.46 The National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2000 required 

NASA to develop a carbon cycle remote sensing applications research 

program.47

Coordination:

The OCO-2 team coordinated with NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center 

and Langley Research Center. The team also coordinated with the 

Department of Energy, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA) and others.48 At the division level, NASA Earth Science 

collaborates directly with NOAA, and with other federal agencies through 

the U.S. Global Change Research Program and interagency working 

groups.49 

 

Examples of program activities:

OCO-2 mission efforts include:

• Developed and launched one instrument with three spectrometers to 

provide high-resolution measurements of carbon dioxide 

concentrations globally. 

• OCO-2 measures carbon dioxide concentrations and its geographic 

distribution to improve understanding of the global carbon cycle and 

predictions of global climate change. Other applications may include 

evaluating carbon cycle impacts for land use and energy policy 

options.50

 46Pub. L. No. 102-588, tit. I, § 102(g) (Nov. 4, 1992). 

47Pub. L. No. 106-391, tit. III, § 315(a)(1) (Oct. 30, 2000).

48The OCO team worked with international research institutions and private sector 

partners for the original mission that failed during launch in 2009. NASA reformulated the 

OCO science team to continue their work for the follow-on mission, OCO-2.

49For example, under the NTSC, NASA is a member of the Committee on Environment, 

Natural Resources, and Sustainability, and the former Council on Climate Preparedness 

and Resilience. NASA also has a leadership role in the Working Group on Ocean 

Acidification. NASA coordinates with international and commercial partners through its 

data system communities, such as the Committee on Earth Observation Satellites.

50NASA, Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 Launch Press Kit (July 2014).

12. Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 (OCO-2)

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) OCO-2 measures carbon dioxide 

concentrations, to better understand the carbon cycle.

Program Snapshot

Federal Agency:

National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA)

Administering Agency and Relevant 

Offices:

OCO-2 is located in NASA’s Earth System 

Science Pathfinder program in its Earth 

Science Division, which is part of NASA’s 

Science Mission Directorate. NASA’s Jet 

Propulsion Laboratory leads the OCO-2 

mission.

Program focus:

Climate observing.

Grant eligibility:

Not applicable.

Intended Benefits:

To improve global carbon dioxide 

measurements to better understand the 

carbon cycle.

Program Status: 

Operational since 2014.

Sources: GAO analysis of NASA program documents (text); 

NASA (image). | GAO-18-223
Page 52 GAO-18-223 Climate Change Funding

OCO-3 is part of NASA’s Earth Science program, which was required 

established in response to a requirement in the National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 1993.51 The National 

Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2000 required 

NASA to develop a carbon cycle remote sensing applications research 

program.52

Coordination:

The OCO-3 team coordinated with NASA’s Human Exploration and 

Operations Mission Directorate, among others. The team also 

coordinated with the Department of Energy, the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and others.53 At the division level, 

NASA Earth Science collaborates directly with NOAA, and with other 

federal agencies through the U.S. Global Change Research Program and 

interagency working groups.54 

Examples of program activities:

OCO-3 mission efforts include:

• Developing and launching one spectrometry instrument to the 

International Space Station to provide high-resolution measurements 

of carbon dioxide and chlorophyll fluorescence globally. 

• OCO-3 will use an improved sampling strategy to provide highly 

accurate measurements of carbon dioxide concentrations, including 

the ability to explore daily variations in carbon dioxide at a regional 

scale—as they relate to changes in urban population and fossil fuel 

use—to improve understanding of the carbon cycle.55

 51Pub. L. No. 102-588, tit. I, § 102(g) (Nov. 4, 1992). 

52Pub. L. No. 106-391, tit. III, § 315(a)(1) (Oct. 30, 2000).

53NASA worked with international research institutions and private sector partners for the 

original OCO mission that failed in 2009. The OCO-3 mission will use the OCO-2 

mission’s spare spectrometer, which was based on the original OCO design.

54For example, under the NTSC, NASA is a member of the Committee on Environment, 

Natural Resources, and Sustainability, and the former Council on Climate Preparedness 

and Resilience. NASA also has a leadership role in the Working Group on Ocean 

Acidification. NASA coordinates with international and commercial partners through its 

data system communities, such as the Committee on Earth Observation Satellites.

55Eldering et. al., The OCO-3 Mission: Overview of Science Objectives and Status,

Geophysical Research Abstracts, Vol. 18, EGU2016-5189 (2016).

Program Snapshot

Federal Agency:

National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA)

Administering Agency and Relevant 

Offices:

OCO-3 is located in NASA’s Earth System 

Science Pathfinder program in its Earth 

Science Division, which is part of NASA’s 

Science Mission Directorate. NASA’s Jet 

Propulsion Laboratory leads the OCO-3 

mission.

Program focus:

Climate observing.

Grant eligibility:

Not applicable.

Intended Benefits:

To improve carbon dioxide measurements to 

better understand the carbon cycle.

Program Status: 

Launch date to be determined.

Sources: GAO analysis of NASA program documents (text); 

NASA (image). | GAO-18-223

13. Orbiting Carbon Observatory-3 (OCO-3)

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) OCO-3 will continue OCO-2’s mission 

measuring carbon dioxide concentrations, to better understand the carbon cycle
Page 53 GAO-18-223 Climate Change Funding

SORCE is part of NASA’s Earth Science program, which was established 

in response to a requirement in the National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 1993.56

Coordination:

SORCE is a joint partnership between NASA and the University of 

Colorado’s Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics (LASP) in 

Boulder, Colorado. LASP designed, built, and tested the scientific 

instruments. LASP also processes and distributes SORCE data.57 At the 

division level, NASA Earth Science collaborates directly with the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and with other federal 

agencies through the U.S. Global Change Research Program and 

interagency working groups.58 

Examples of program activities:

SORCE mission efforts include:

• Developing and launching a satellite with four instruments to measure 

the wavelengths of incoming solar radiation (e.g., x-ray, ultraviolet, 

visible, and near-infrared) and total solar radiation. 

• Improving the precision of previous solar radiation measurements and 

continuing the long-term data record of solar observations.59

Provided data to help estimate past and future solar behavior and climate 

response and inform research on long-term climate change, natural 

variability and enhanced climate prediction, as well as atmospheric ozone 

and ultraviolet radiation.

 56Pub. L. No. 102-588, tit. I, § 102(g) (Nov. 4, 1992). 

57Goddard Space Flight Center, NASA Facts: Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment 

(SORCE), FS-2002-12-052-GSFC. Goddard Earth Sciences Data and Information 

Services Center archives SORCE data.

58For example, under the NTSC, NASA is a member of the Committee on Environment, 

Natural Resources, and Sustainability, and the former Council on Climate Preparedness 

and Resilience. NASA also has a leadership role in the Working Group on Ocean 

Acidification. NASA coordinates with international and commercial partners through its 

data system communities, such as the Committee on Earth Observation Satellites.

59SORCE was designed to operate from 2003 to 2009, but has continued operating 

beyond its planned lifespan.

14. Solar Radiation and Climate Experiment 

(SORCE)

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) SORCE measures solar radiation properties to 

better understand solar variability and its effects.

Program Snapshot

Federal Agency:

National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA)

Administering Agency and Relevant 

Offices:

SORCE is located in NASA’s Earth 

Systematic Missions in its Earth Science 

Division, which is part of NASA’s Science 

Mission Directorate. NASA’s Goddard Space 

Flight Center provides scientific and 

management oversight and support.

Program focus:

Climate observing.

Grant eligibility:

Not applicable.

Intended Benefits:

To measure solar radiation to better 

understand solar variability and its climate 

effects.

Program Status: 

Operational since 2003.

Sources: GAO analysis of NASA program documents (text); 

NASA (image). | GAO-18-223
Page 54 GAO-18-223 Climate Change Funding

TSIS-1 is part of NASA’s Earth Science program, which was established 

in response to a requirement in the National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 1993.60

Coordination:

TSIS-1 is a joint partnership between NASA and the University of 

Colorado’s Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics (LASP) in 

Boulder, Colorado. LASP designed, built, and tested the instruments, 

and will process the data. At the division level, NASA Earth Science 

collaborates directly with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA), and with other federal agencies through the U.S. 

Global Change Research Program and interagency working groups.61 

Examples of program activities:

TSIS-1 mission efforts include:

• Developing and launching two instruments to the International Space 

Station to measure incoming solar radiation properties and total solar 

radiation. 

• Improving the precision of SORCE’s solar radiation measurements 

and continuing the long-term data record of solar observations.62

• Data can be used to study the sun’s influence on the ozone layer, 

atmospheric circulation, clouds, and ecosystems. These 

measurements are also critical to understanding current and future 

climate conditions.63

 60Pub. L. No. 102-588, tit. I, § 102(g) (Nov. 4, 1992). 

61For example, under the NTSC, NASA is a member of the Committee on Environment, 

Natural Resources, and Sustainability, and the former Council on Climate Preparedness 

and Resilience. NASA also has a leadership role in the Working Group on Ocean 

Acidification. NASA coordinates with international and commercial partners through its 

data system communities, such as the Committee on Earth Observation Satellites.

62To bridge the potential data gap between the aging SORCE satellite and the TSIS-1 

mission, NASA developed the Total Solar Irradiance Calibration Transfer Experiment 

using spare parts, which was launched in 2013 as part of the Air Force Space Test 

Program Satellite, to help calibrate measurements between SORCE and TSIS-1.

63NASA, TSIS-1: Measuring the Sun’s Energy Input to Earth, accessed at 

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/tsis_fact_sheet-042617-v1.pdf.

15. Total Solar Irradiance Sensor-1 (TSIS-1)

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) TSIS-1 continues SORCE’s mission measuring 

solar radiation properties to better understand solar variability and its effects.

Program Snapshot

Federal Agency:

National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA)

Administering Agency and Relevant 

Offices:

TSIS-1 is located in NASA’s Earth Systematic 

Missions in its Earth Science Division, which 

is part of NASA’s Science Mission Directorate. 

NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center 

manages and oversees the project.

Program focus:

Climate observing.

Grant eligibility:

Not applicable.

Intended Benefits:

To measure solar radiation to understand 

solar variability and its climate effects.

Program Status: 

Launched successfully in December 2017. 

Instruments powered on in March 2018.

Sources: GAO analysis of NASA program documents (text); 

NASA (image). | GAO-18-223
Page 55 GAO-18-223 Climate Change Funding

TSIS-2 is part of NASA’s Earth Science program, which was established 

in response to a requirement in the National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration Authorization Act, Fiscal Year 1993.64

Coordination:

NASA has contracted with the University of Colorado’s Laboratory for 

Atmospheric and Space Physics (LASP) in Boulder, Colorado for a study 

on two compact instruments for TSIS-2. At the division level, NASA Earth 

Science collaborates directly with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 

Administration (NOAA), and with other federal agencies through the U.S. 

Global Change Research Program and interagency working groups.65 

Examples of program activities:

TSIS-2 mission efforts will include:

• Developing and launching two instruments to the International Space 

Station to measure incoming solar radiation properties and total solar 

radiation. 

• Sustain TSIS-1’s mission to continue the long-term data record of 

solar observations.

• Data may be used to study the sun’s influence on the ozone layer, 

atmospheric circulation, clouds, and ecosystems. These 

measurements are also critical to understanding current and future 

climate conditions.66

 64Pub. L. No. 102-588, tit. I, § 102(g) (Nov. 4, 1992). 

65For example, under the NTSC, NASA is a member of the Committee on Environment, 

Natural Resources, and Sustainability, and the former Council on Climate Preparedness 

and Resilience. NASA also has a leadership role in the Working Group on Ocean 

Acidification. NASA coordinates with international and commercial partners through its 

data system communities, such as the Committee on Earth Observation Satellites.

66NASA, TSIS-1: Measuring the Sun’s Energy Input to Earth, accessed at 

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/tsis_fact_sheet-042617-v1.pdf.

16. Total Solar Irradiance Sensor-2 (TSIS-2)

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) TSIS-2 will continue TSIS-1’s mission 

measuring solar radiation properties to better understand solar variability and its effects.

Program Snapshot

Federal Agency:

National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration (NASA)

Administering Agency and Relevant 

Offices:

TSIS-2 is located in NASA’s Earth Systematic 

Missions in its Earth Science Division, which 

is part of NASA’s Science Mission Directorate.

Program focus:

Climate observing.

Grant eligibility:

Not applicable.

Intended Benefits:

To measure solar radiation to understand 

solar variability and its climate effects.

Program Status:

Projected launch in 2022.

Sources: GAO analysis of NASA program documents (text); 

NASA (image). | GAO-18-223
Page 56 GAO-18-223 Climate Change Funding

USDA established the Ultraviolet Monitoring and Research Program in 

1992 pursuant to the Competitive, Special, and Facilities Research Grant 

Act.67 

Coordination:

The program is affiliated with other academic facilities, including the joint 

NASA – University of Maryland Earth System Science Interdisciplinary 

Center.68 USDA’s National Institute for Food and Agriculture (NIFA) 

coordinates with several other USDA agencies, such as the Agricultural 

Research Service.69 NIFA also collaborates with other federal agencies, 

contributes to the U.S. Global Change Research Program, and 

participates in interagency working groups.

70

Examples of program activities:

Program efforts include: 

• Observing ultraviolet radiation and photosynthetically-active radiation 

through a network of 38 sites that provide the only source of long-term 

surface measurements of ultraviolet radiation.71

• Studying ultraviolet radiation effects and assessing the combined 

effect of ultraviolet radiation with other climate stress factors, such as 

moisture, temperature, and carbon dioxide.

• Developing modeling tools that integrate observing data, ultraviolet 

effects studies, and satellite observations to study how climate and 

crop production interact and associated effects on management 

practices and agricultural economics.

 67Pub. L. No. 89-106, § 2 (Aug. 4, 1965) (codified as amended at 7 U.S.C. § 3157). 

According to agency documents, USDA established the Ultraviolet Monitoring and 

Research Program to measure ultraviolet radiation levels over wide geographic areas of 

the United States and to assess the impact of ultraviolet radiation on crops, plants, 

animals, and ecosystems. 

68The program is also affiliated with the Soil-Plant-Atmosphere-Research Facility at 

Mississippi State University. 

69NIFA coordinates with USDA’s Forest Service and USDA’s Natural Resources 

Conservation Service, among others.

70For example, NIFA collaborates with Commerce, DOD, DOE, Interior, EPA, and NSF, 

among others. Under the interagency National Science and Technology Council, USDA is 

a member of the Committee on Environment, Natural Resources, and Sustainability.

71Data users have included researchers from about 134 academic institutions, 51 state 

and federal agencies, 15 international agencies, and 42 commercial enterprises, among 

others.

Program Snapshot

Federal Agency:

U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National 

Institute for Food and Agriculture (NIFA) 

Administering Agency and Relevant 

Offices:

Colorado State University’s Natural Resource 

Ecology Laboratory administers the program. 

NIFA’s Division of Agricultural Systems, within 

its Institute of Food Production and 

Sustainability, provides grant funding and 

oversight.

Program focus:

Climate observing.

Grant eligibility:

Land-grant institutions, among others.

Intended Benefits:

To improve understanding of ultraviolet 

radiation impacts and climate change on 

agriculture. Other applications include 

atmospheric, biological, ecological, human 

health and materials sciences.

Program Status: 

Active.

Sources: GAO analysis of USDA program documents (text); 

USDA photo by Jack Dykinga (image). | GAO-18-223

17. Agroclimatology 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Agroclimatology (formerly Global Change, Ultraviolet Monitoring 

and Research Program) supports an ultraviolet radiation observing network, and uses the data to inform 

climate forecasting models and assess ultraviolet radiation effects.
Page 57 GAO-18-223 Climate Change Funding

USDA created the CCPO in 2010 within the Office of the Chief 

Economist.72

Coordination:

CCPO coordinates climate change program and policy issues 

department-wide.73 CCPO is USDA’s focal point for climate change with 

other federal agencies, the U.S. Global Change Research Program, and 

interagency working groups.

74

Examples of program activities:

CCPO’s efforts include:

• Leading USDA adaptation planning efforts to identify how climate 

change may affect USDA’s mission and to ensure adaptation is 

integrated into USDA programs, policies and operations. 

• Publishing the greenhouse gas inventory for agriculture and forestry, 

in conjunction with other USDA and external partners.

• Representing USDA and coordinating USDA participation and 

technical support for interagency working groups and international 

meetings.

• Providing data, tools and information to assist land managers, 

stakeholders and USDA agencies to prepare for relevant climate 

change impacts, such as changes in water availability and wildfires, 

with adaptation assessments, planning and implementation, as well 

as guidance for measuring greenhouse gas emissions.

 72Prior to 2010, USDA’s Global Change Program Office facilitated the agency’s 

participation in the U.S. Climate Change Science Program and the U.S. Climate Change 

Technology Program, according to USDA’s fiscal year 2010 budget justification.

73For example, CCPO’s Director served as the Chair of USDA’s Global Change Task 

Force, which included representatives from twenty USDA agencies and offices. 

74Under the interagency National Science and Technology Council, USDA is a member of 

the Committee on Environment, Natural Resources, and Sustainability, among others. 

18. Climate Change Program Office (CCPO)

The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) CCPO coordinates agricultural, rural and forestry-related climate 

change program and policy issues department-wide.

Program Snapshot

Federal Agency:

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)

Administering Agency and Relevant 

Offices:

CCPO is located within USDA’s Office of the 

Chief Economist, in USDA’s Office of the 

Secretary.

Program focus:

Climate adaptation.

Grant eligibility:

Not applicable.

Intended Benefits:

To provide leadership, support and 

coordination across USDA agencies in 

helping the US agriculture and forestry 

sectors assess and manage greenhouse gas 

emissions as well as prepare for and adapt to 

climate change. 

Program Status: 

Active.

Sources: GAO analysis of USDA program documents (text); 

USDA photo by Jack Dykinga (image). | GAO-18-223
Page 58 GAO-18-223 Climate Change Funding

As reported by OMB, federal funding for climate change research, clean 

energy technology, international assistance, and adaptation in nominal 

dollars has increased from about $2.4 billion in fiscal year 1993 to about 

$13.2 billion in proposed budget authority for fiscal year 2017, with an 

additional $26.1 billion for climate change programs and activities 

provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.1 As 

shown in figure 2, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has 

reported federal climate change funding in three main categories since 

1993—clean energy technology to reduce emissions, science to better 

understand climate change, and international assistance for adaptation, 

clean energy, and sustainable landscapes.

Figure 2: OMB-Reported Federal Climate Change Funding by Category, from Fiscal Years 1993 through 2017

Note: The figure presents actual budget authority except for fiscal years 2011, 2013, and 2017. For 

fiscal years 2011 and 2017, OMB reported proposed budget authority. For fiscal year 2013, OMB 

reported final operating level funding. Funding is reported in nominal dollars, which are not adjusted 

for inflation.

 1

When adjusted for inflation, reported climate change funding increased from $3.6 billion 

in 1993 to $12.9 billion in the proposed budget authority for 2017. 

Appendix II: OMB-Reported Climate Change

Funding Since 1993
Page 59 GAO-18-223 Climate Change Funding

OMB has also reported on federal funding for wildlife and natural 

resource adaptation from fiscal years 2010 through 2013. However, the 

data OMB reported in the adaptation category does not fully represent 

adaptation funding as it only includes data from the Department of the 

Interior. OMB reports Department of the Interior funding for adaptation as 

follows: fiscal year 2010 $65 million, fiscal year 2011 $87 million, fiscal 

year 2012 $88 million. We did not include funding for this category in 

2013 because we used OMB’s fiscal year 2017 report for 2013 funding, 

and OMB did not report funding under this category in its 2017 report.

Funding in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Pub. 

L. No. 111-5 (Feb. 17, 2009)) and tax expenditures related to climate 

change are not included in this figure to maintain comparability with 

earlier GAO reports.
Appendix III: Climate Change Funding by Category as Reported by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) from Fiscal Years 1993 through 2017

Page 60 GAO-18-223 Climate Change Funding

Dollars in millions

Funding 

Category 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Technology 845 1,038 1,283 1,106 1,056 1,251 1,694 1,793 1,675 1,637 2,555 2,868 2,808 2,789 3,485 4,196 5,386 5,504 5,690 6,121 5,755 6,567 6,999 7,539 8,978 

Science 1,306 1,444 1,760 1,654 1,656 1,677 1,657 1,687 1,728 1,667 1,766 1,976 1,864 1,691 1,825 1,832 2,023 2,122 2,561 2,506 2,417 2,492 2,461 2,584 2,775 

International 

Assistancea 201 186 228 192 164 186 325 177 218 224 270 252 234 249 188 227 373 1,080 1,494 958 916 1,013 1,252 1,527 1,426 

Natural 

Resources 

Adaptationb

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 65 87 88 — — — — —

Adjustments for 

programs 

included in 

multiple 

categories

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — (24) (26) (27) (23) (23) (26)

Total 2,352 2,668 3,271 2,952 2,876 3,114 3,535 3,511 3,603 3,522 4,584 5,090 5,269 5,876 5,498 6,255 7,782 8,771 9,832 9,649 9,062 10,045 10,689 11,627 13,153

Source: GAO analysis of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) reports. | GAO-18-223

Notes: Dashes indicate that OMB did not report a value for the account for that year.

Totals may not add due to rounding.

The table presents actual budget authority except for fiscal years 2011, 2013, and 2017. For fiscal years 2011 and 2017, OMB reported proposed budget authority. For fiscal year 2013, OMB reported final operating 

level funding. Funding is reported in nominal dollars, which are not adjusted for inflation.

Funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Pub. L. No. 111-5 (Feb. 17, 2009)) and tax expenditures related to climate change are not included in this table to maintain comparability with 

earlier GAO reports. 

a

International Assistance includes congressionally appropriated assistance by core agencies (i.e. Department of State, Department of Treasury, U.S. Agency for International Development), as well as 

complementary agencies (e.g. Environmental Protection Agency), but does not include indirect climate assistance nor development finance and export credit agencies. Additionally, the International Assistance total 

contains funds that are also counted in the Science and Technology totals. Table total line excludes this double count. 

b

In fiscal year 2010 through 2013, OMB reported the Department of the Interior funding for adaptation under interim categories called "wildlife adaptation" and “natural resources adaptation,” while the 

administration developed criteria to systematically account for a broader suite of adaptation programs. However, the data OMB reported in the adaptation category does not fully represent adaptation as it only 

includes data from the Department of the Interior. We did not include funding for this category in 2013 because we used OMB’s fiscal year 2017 report for 2013 funding, and OMB did not report funding under this 

category in its 2017 report.

Appendix III: Climate Change Funding by Category as Reported by the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) from Fiscal Years 1993 through 2017
Appendix IV: Climate Change Funding by Agency as Reported by the Office and Management and Budget (OMB), from Fiscal Years 1993 through 2017

Page 61 GAO-18-223 Climate Change Funding

Appendix IV: Climate Change Funding by Agency as Reported by the Office 

and Management and Budget (OMB), from Fiscal Years 1993 through 2017

Dollars in millions

Agency 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Department of Agriculture 55 56 60 52 57 53 138 132 54 59 104 116 110 110 109 116 322 567 426 394 274 517 418 405 446

Department of Commerce 66 63 120 113 102 89 93 91 93 100 156 144 146 253 258 286 392 378 455 359 349 384 367 337 397

Department of Defense — — — — — — — — — — 83 51 59 77 101 176 261 226 143 481 458 469 486 618 643

Department of Energy 963 1,113 1,173 1,008 968 1,186 1,536 1,652 1,665 1,636 2,214 2,519 2,469 2,504 3,158 3,791 4,711 4,564 5,074 4,599 4,404 4,931 5,410 5,844 7,058

Department of Health and 

Human Services — — — — — 35 40 47 54 56 61 62 57 50 47 4 5 4 4 14 10 8 8 8 8

Department of Housing and 

Urban Development — — — — — — 10 10 — — — — — — — — — — — — 0 0 <0.5 7 7

Department of Interior 22 29 27 26 26 26 27 27 27 26 29 29 29 27 27 34 45 128 168 147 55 54 58 57 63

Department of State 1 1 1 3 3 5 7 7 7 7 6 6 7 12 41 59 55 199 149 133 126 127 147 595 632

Department of Transportation — — 5 6 13 5 3 — — — 27 9 3 17 18 20 45 128 80 92 67 39 28 41 54

Department of Treasury 0 12 35 14 14 18 60 14 54 43 56 52 44 46 46 46 46 421 744 377 380 356 346 331 350

Environmental Protection 

Agency 26 73 124 114 99 103 126 124 146 136 124 127 130 128 121 131 139 164 172 144 137 135 145 150 170

Millennium Challenge 

Corporation — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2 25 41 0 103 352 219 0

National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration 888 999 1,305 1,218 1,218 1,210 1,155 1,161 1,176 1,090 1,299 1,548 1,449 1,082 1,223 1,221 1,205 1,195 1,422 1,686 1,682 1,744 1,780 1,872 1,965

National Science Foundation 124 142 222 216 222 214 222 229 181 189 212 226 209 215 230 229 293 348 403 680 668 686 703 712 861

Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 83 68 91 69 86 90

Peace Corps — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 12 12 12 12 12

Smithsonian Institution 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 11 8 8 8 8 8 9

Tennessee Valley Authority — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 9 11 10 10 10 16

U.S. Agency for International 

Development 200 173 192 175 147 163 236 156 157 179 214 195 183 190 114 136 222 383 491 348 334 351 331 304 352

U.S. Trade and Development 

Agency — — — — — — 16 — — — — — — — — — 10 17 21 16 19 22 27 32 42

Total 2,352 2,668 3,271 2,952 2,876 3,114 3,535 3,511 3,603 3,522 4,584 5,090 4,900 4,716 5,499 6,255 7,757 8,731a 9,788 9,649 9,062 10,045 10,689 11,627 13,156

Source: GAO analysis of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) reports. | GAO-18-223

Notes: Dashes indicate that OMB did not report a value for the account for that year. Zeros indicate the funding that OMB reported for the agency for that year.

Totals may not add due to rounding.
Appendix IV: Climate Change Funding by Agency as Reported by the Office and Management and Budget (OMB), from Fiscal Years 1993 through 2017

Page 62 GAO-18-223 Climate Change Funding

The table presents actual budget authority except for fiscal years 2011, 2013, and 2017. For fiscal years 2011 and 2017, OMB reported proposed budget authority. For fiscal year 2013, OMB reported final operating 

level funding. Funding is reported in nominal dollars, which are not adjusted for inflation.

a

Total 2010 funding of $8.731 billion as presented by OMB and reported in this appendix does not match the total of $8.771 billion presented in appendixes III and V. In its June 2010 report that presented these 

data, OMB noted that totals may not add due to rounding and subtraction of double-counts.
Appendix V: Climate Change Funding by Line Item as Reported by the Office and Management and Budget (OMB), from Fiscal Years 1993 through 2017

Page 63 GAO-18-223 Climate Change Funding

Appendix V: Climate Change Funding by Line Item as Reported by the Office 

and Management and Budget (OMB), from Fiscal Years 1993 through 2017

Dollars in millions

ACCOUNT 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 ARRAa 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

TECHNOLOGY

Direct 

Technology

Department of 

Agriculture — — — — — — 0 0 3 3 42 45 48 49 48 51 271 453 0 265 275 164 400 319 306 319

Agricultural 

Research Service — — — — — — 0 — 0 — 2 2 2 2 2 2 5 5 0 1 — — — — — —

Salaries and 

Expensesb — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 33 32 32 33 30 31

Bioenergy 

Researchb — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 4 — — — — — —

Rural Business 

Service

Renewable 

Energy 

Program

— — — — — — — — — 0 22 23 23 23 23 — — — — — — — — — — —

Value Added 

Producer 

Grants 

(Cooperative 

Development 

Grants)c

— — — — — — — — — — — — 2 3 3 5 6 4 0 4 1 1 6 1 1 1

Rural Energy 

For Americac — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 36 5 39 0 39 3 3 53 48 47 69

Biorefinery 

Assistance 

Programc

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0 0 0 0 17 — — — — — —

Biorefinery 

Program for 

Advanced 

Biofuelsc

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 55 55 0 — — — — — — —

Forest Service 

Forest and 

Rangeland 

Research

— — — — — — 0 0 3 — 1 0 2 2 2 1 1 5 0 — — 0 6 6 6 6
Appendix V: Climate Change Funding by Line Item as Reported by the Office and Management and Budget (OMB), from Fiscal Years 1993 through 2017

Page 64 GAO-18-223 Climate Change Funding

ACCOUNT 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 ARRAa 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Research and 

Development

—Inventories 

of Carbon 

Biomass

— — — — — — — — — — 1 0 1 1 1 — — — — — — — — — — —

Biofuels/ 

Biomass, 

Forest and 

Rangeland 

Researchb

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 5 — — — — — —

Commerciali

zation / 

Renewable 

Energyb

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 26 22 21 20 26 26

Natural Resources 

Conservation Service

Carbon Cycle — — — — — — — — — — 1 1 1 1 1 0 9 7 0 7 — — — — — —

Biomass 

Research and 

Development

— — — — — — — — — 3 14 14 13 14 14 0 — — — — — — — — — —

Conservation 

Operationsb — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 6 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5

Farm Security 

and Rural 

Investment 

Programsb,d

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 16 14 13 13 13 13

Cooperative State 

Research, Education 

and Extension 

Service

Biofuels/ 

Biomass 

Research, 

Formula Funds, 

National 

Research 

Initiative

— — — — — — — — — — 3 5 5 3 3 5 5 5 0 5 — — — — — —

Office of the Chief 

Economist 

Methane to 

Marketsc — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0 0 — — — — — — — — — — —

Salaries and 

Expensesb — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 4 3 5 2 2 2
Appendix V: Climate Change Funding by Line Item as Reported by the Office and Management and Budget (OMB), from Fiscal Years 1993 through 2017

Page 65 GAO-18-223 Climate Change Funding

ACCOUNT 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 ARRAa 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

National Agricultural 

Statistics Servicec — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0 0 0 — — — — — — —

Rural Business 

Service 

Rural Energy 

For Americac,d — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0 55 60 0 70 22 0 0 0 0 0

Repowering 

Assistance 

Programc,d

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0 35 0 0 0 — — — — — —

Biorefinery 

Assistance 

Programc,d

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0 75 245 0 0 — 0 100 30 27 0

Energy 

Assistance 

Payments 

(formerly titled 

Bioenergy 

Program for 

Advanced 

Biofuels)b,d

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 85 65 0 27 14 15 15

Rural Business 

Cooperative Serviceb

Guaranteed 

Business and 

Industry Loansb

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 4 5 7 8 4 4

Rural Economic 

Development 

Loansb

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0 < 0.5 0 < 0.5 < 0.5 1

National Institute of 

Food and Agriculture 

Biomass 

Research and 

Developmentc,d

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2 20 28 0 28 40 0 3 3 3 3

Research and 

Education 

Activitiesb

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 31 56 49 53 48 67

Economic Research 

Serviceb — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2 2 2 2 2 2

Rural Utilities 

Serviceb

High Cost 

Energy Grantsb — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 4 4 4 8 10 0
Appendix V: Climate Change Funding by Line Item as Reported by the Office and Management and Budget (OMB), from Fiscal Years 1993 through 2017

Page 66 GAO-18-223 Climate Change Funding

ACCOUNT 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 ARRAa 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Rural Energy 

Savings 

Program 

Account (Rural 

Energy for 

America Sec. 

9007)b

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0 8 0

Farm Service 

Agency 

Biomass Crop 

Assistance 

Programb,d

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 17 0 25 23 3 25

Commodity 

Credit 

Corporationb,d

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0 22 47 56 60 54

Department of 

Commerce — — — — — — — — — — — — 26 18 22 14 15 18 4 18 40 48 55 55 54 55

National Institutes of 

Standards and 

Technology 

— — — — — — — — — — 40 28 26 18 — — — — — — — — — — — —

Industrial 

Technical 

Services—

Advanced 

Technology 

Program

— — — — — — — — — — 30 18 8 10 6 4 7 15 4 — — — — — — —

Industrial 

Technical 

Services—

Technology 

Innovation 

Programb

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1 — — — — — —

Scientific and 

Technical 

Services 

Research 

Services

— — — — — — 0 2 — — 10 10 18 8 — — — — — 15 40 48 54 54 54 54

International Trade 

Administration

Operations and 

Administrationc — — — — — — — — — — — — 0 0 0 2 2 2 0 2 — — — — — —
Appendix V: Climate Change Funding by Line Item as Reported by the Office and Management and Budget (OMB), from Fiscal Years 1993 through 2017

Page 67 GAO-18-223 Climate Change Funding

ACCOUNT 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 ARRAa 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric 

Administration 

Operationsb

Research and 

Facilitiesb — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0 1 1 1 0 1

Department of 

Defense — — — — — — — — — — 83 51 59 77 101 176 261 226 139 143 481 458 469 486 618 643

Research, 

Development, Test 

and Evaluation, Army

— — — — — — — — — — 45 15 27 49 69 98 98 93 44 28 32 34 37 36 32 38

Research, 

Development, Test 

and Evaluation, Navy

— — — — — — — — — — 16 17 18 17 13 44 54 13 18 11 231 176 210 194 124 152

Research, 

Development, Test 

and Evaluation, 

Air Force

— — — — — — — — — — 3 1 1 0 13 34 108 120 35 104 118 205 181 216 427 418

Research, 

Development, Test 

and Evaluation, 

Defense-wide

— — — — — — — — — — 19 19 13 11 6 0 0 0 42 0 101 43 41 40 35 36

Defense 

Advanced 

Research 

Projects 

Agencyc

— — — — — — — — — — — 17 11 7 6 — — — — — — — — — — —

Office of the 

Secretary of 

Defensec

— — — — — — — — — — — 2 2 4 0 — — — — — — — — — — —

Department of 

Energy 595 753 829 683 658 729 890 980 1,050 1,519 2,099 2,390 2,342 2,374 3,032 3,663 4,543 4,399 25,223 4,883 4,388 4,195 4,714 5,196 5,606 6,816

Energy Conservation — — — — — — — — — 897 880 868 — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Energy 

Conservation 

Research and 

Development

346 435 468 415 414 457 518 577 619 622 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

State Energy 

Grants — — — — — — — — — 45 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Weatherization — — — — — — — — — 230 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Energy Supply / 

Energy Supply and 

Conservation

249 318 361 268 244 272 332 315 375 400 667 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Appendix V: Climate Change Funding by Line Item as Reported by the Office and Management and Budget (OMB), from Fiscal Years 1993 through 2017

Page 68 GAO-18-223 Climate Change Funding

ACCOUNT 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 ARRAa 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Nuclear Energy 

Research 

Initiative

— — — — — — — — — 32 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Electricity / 

Electricity 

Supply and 

Distribution / 

Electricity 

Delivery and 

Energy 

Reliability

— — — — — — — — — — 88 73 57 77 120 130 113 109 4340 143 133 123 140 140 196 226

Renewables 249 318 361 268 244 272 332 310 370 368 322 352 — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Nuclear — — — — — — 0 5 5 — 257 309 291 343 513 682 787 747 0 793 772 738 873 884 936 912

Energy 

Efficiency and 

Renewable 

Energyc

— — — — — — — — — — — — 1,234 1,166 1,411 1,722 2,179 2,242 16,800 2,355 1,819 1,772 1,913 1,937 2,073 2,898

Fossil Energy 

Research and 

Development

— — — — — — 24 52 18 184 253 455 374 397 493 611 762 560 3,400 — — — — — — —

Sequestration 

Research and 

Development

— — — — — — — — — 32 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Greenhouse 

Gas Emission 

Reduction

— — — — — — — — — 152 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Efficiency and 

Sequestrationb — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 545 — — — — — —

Carbon Capture 

and Storage 

and Power 

Systemsb

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 472 436 490 503 533 564

Science — — — — — — 13 33 35 35 298 333 386 391 487 512 700 723 283 — — — — — — —

Sequestration — — — — — — — — — 32 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Fusion, 

Sequestration, 

and Hydrogenb

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 738 902 859 1,007 1,441 1,578 1,853

Energy Information 

Administration — — — — — — 3 3 3 3 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Appendix V: Climate Change Funding by Line Item as Reported by the Office and Management and Budget (OMB), from Fiscal Years 1993 through 2017

Page 69 GAO-18-223 Climate Change Funding

ACCOUNT 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 ARRAa 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Departmental 

Administration—

Climate Change 

Technology Program 

Directionc

— — — — — — — — — — — 0 0 0 1 1 2 9 0 9 — — — — — —

Innovative 

Technology Loan 

Guarantee Programc

— — — — — — — — — — — — — 0 7 5 — — — — — — — — — —

Advanced Research 

Projects Agency — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Energy 

(ARPA-E)c — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0 9 0 300 275 251 280 281 291 350

Energy 

(ARPA-E) 

Recovery Actc

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0 0 0 400 0 — — — — — —

Bonneville Power 

Administration Fundb — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 15 17 10 10 0 13

Race to the Top for 

Energy Efficiency 

and Grid 

Modernizationb

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0 0 0 0 0 0

HomeStarb — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0 0 0 0 0 0

Energy Security 

Trustb — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0 0 0 0 0 0

Environmental 

Protection Agency — 43 102 96 86 90 109 103 123 115 102 110 110 109 105 114 111 133 0 140 117 111 108 120 122 139

Environmental 

Programs and 

Management

— 35 91 81 70 73 72 76 96 89 82 89 91 90 92 97 94 113 0 123 99 95 100 95 95 108

Science and 

Technology — 8 11 15 16 17 37 27 27 26 20 22 19 19 13 17 17 20 0 17 18 16 8 9 8 11

Department of 

Housing and Urban 

Development

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — < 0.5 7 7

Research and 

Technology — — — — — — 10 10 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Management and 

Administration--

Transformation 

Initiativeb

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0 3 3

Policy Development 

and Research--

Research and 

Technologyb

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — < 0.5 7 7
Appendix V: Climate Change Funding by Line Item as Reported by the Office and Management and Budget (OMB), from Fiscal Years 1993 through 2017

Page 70 GAO-18-223 Climate Change Funding

ACCOUNT 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 ARRAa 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Department of 

Interior

U.S. Geological 

Survey—Surveys, 

Investigations and 

Research—Geology 

Discipline, Energy 

Program

— — — — — — — — — — 1 1 2 — — — — — — — — — — — — —

National 

Aeronautics and 

Space 

Administration

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 287 313 363 338 348

Exploration, Science 

& Aeronautics — — — — — — — — — — 152 227 208 129 139 137 119 124 31 137 — — — — — —

Aeronauticsb — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 259 255 282 323 305 321

Explorationb — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 9 6 5 5 3 4

Space Technologyb — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 28 25 26 36 29 23

National Science 

Foundation

Research and 

Related Activities — — — — — — — — — — 9 11 11 18 21 22 24 26 2 27 341 346 370 370 372 512

Department of 

Transportation — — — — — — — — — — 27 5 2 16 17 19 43 125 100 77 91 67 39 27 40 54

Federal Transit 

Administration

Capital 

Investment 

Grants

— — — — — — — — — — 26 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Research and 

University 

Centers and 

Formula and 

Bus Grantsc

— — — — — — — — — — — — — 14 16 18 19 94 100 53 52 33 0 0 0 0

Office of the 

Secretary of 

Technology

Transportation, 

Policy, 

Research and 

Development

— — — — — — — — — — 1 4 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Appendix V: Climate Change Funding by Line Item as Reported by the Office and Management and Budget (OMB), from Fiscal Years 1993 through 2017

Page 71 GAO-18-223 Climate Change Funding

ACCOUNT 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 ARRAa 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Research and 

Special Programs 

Administration

Research and 

Special 

Programs

— — — — — — — — — — 0 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

National Highway 

Traffic Safety 

Administration

— — — — — — — — — — — 0 < 0.5 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 10 8 10 0 11 12

Research and 

Innovative 

Technology 

Administration

Research and 

Development — — — — — — — — — — — 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 0 1

Federal Highways 

Administration

Federal-aid 

Highwaysc — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 19 19 0 19 — — — — — —

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

Research, 

Engineering, 

and 

Developmentc

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 3 11 0 5 21 20 21 22 25 25

Facilities and 

Equipmentb — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 7 4 6 4 0 0

Federal Railroad 

Association

Railroad 

Research and 

Developmentb

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1 1 2 0 3 15

Pipelines and 

Hazardous Materials 

Safety Administration

Hazardous 

Materials 

Safetyb

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1 1 1

Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission

Salaries and 

Expensesb — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 83 68 91 69 86 90
Appendix V: Climate Change Funding by Line Item as Reported by the Office and Management and Budget (OMB), from Fiscal Years 1993 through 2017

Page 72 GAO-18-223 Climate Change Funding

ACCOUNT 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 ARRAa 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Tennessee Valley 

Authorityb — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 9 11 10 10 10 16

Direct Technology 

Total 595 796 931 779 744 819 1,009 1,095 1,176 1,637 2,555 2,868 2,808 2,789 3,485 4,196 5,386 5,504 25,499 5,690 6,121 5,755 6,567 6,999 7,539 8,978

National Climate 

Change 

Technology 

Initiativec

Department of 

Energy — — — — — — — — — — — — 162 289 — — — — — — — — — — — —

Energy Supply and 

Conservation

Energy 

Efficiency and 

Renewable 

Energyc

— — — — — — — — — — — — 65 66 — — — — — — — — — — — —

Nuclearc — — — — — — — — — — — — 9 102 — — — — — — — — — — — —

Fossil Energy 

Research and 

Development

Efficiency and 

Sequestrationc — — — — — — — — — — — — 89 121 — — — — — — — — — — — —

Departmental 

Administration

Climate Change 

Technology 

Program 

Directionc

— — — — — — — — — — — — 0 0 — — — — — — — — — — — —

Environmental 

Protection Agency

Environmental 

Programs and 

Managementc

— — — — — — — — — — — — 11 10 — — — — — — — — — — — —

National Climate 

Change 

Technology 

Initiative Total

— — — — — — — — — — — — 173 299 — — — — — — — — — — — —
Appendix V: Climate Change Funding by Line Item as Reported by the Office and Management and Budget (OMB), from Fiscal Years 1993 through 2017

Page 73 GAO-18-223 Climate Change Funding

ACCOUNT 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 ARRAa 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Indirect Technology 

Department of 

Energy 250 242 231 212 201 351 417 434 499 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Fossil Energy 

Research and 

Development

250 242 231 212 201 196 233 242 274 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Coal-Efficient 

Combustion & 

Utilization

186 166 144 120 101 105 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Natural Gas--

Efficient 

Combustion & 

Utilization

64 76 87 92 100 91 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Energy Supply

Nuclear Energy 

Research and 

Development

— — — — — 0 18 22 34 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Energy Conservation 

Research and 

Development

Weatherization 

& State Energy 

Grants

— — — — — 155 166 169 191 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Biobased Products 

& Bioenergy — — — — — — 195 200 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Department of 

Agriculture — — — — — — 86 76 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Agriculture Research 

Service — — — — — — 44 46 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Cooperative State 

Research, 

Education, & 

Extension Service

Research and 

Education 

Assistance

— — — — — — 11 11 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Initiative for 

Future 

Agriculture & 

Food Systems

— — — — — — — 9 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Appendix V: Climate Change Funding by Line Item as Reported by the Office and Management and Budget (OMB), from Fiscal Years 1993 through 2017

Page 74 GAO-18-223 Climate Change Funding

ACCOUNT 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 ARRAa 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Forest Service

Forest and 

Rangeland 

Management

— — — — — — 9 9 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Executive Operations — — — — — — 1 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Departmental 

Administration — — — — — — < 0.5 < 0.5 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Alternative 

Agricultural 

Research and 

Commercialization

— — — — — — 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Natural Resources 

Conservation Service

Forestry 

Incentives 

Program

— — — — — — 16 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Rural Development

Rural 

Community 

Advancement 

Program

— — — — — — 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Department of 

Energy — — — — — — 109 124 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Energy Supply

Solar and 

Renewable 

Energy 

Research and 

Development

— — — — — — 40 70 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Energy Conservation 

Research and 

Development

— — — — — — 41 11 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Fossil Energy 

Research and 

Development 

— — — — — — 0 13 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Science (Basic 

Science) — — — — — — 27 30 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Appendix V: Climate Change Funding by Line Item as Reported by the Office and Management and Budget (OMB), from Fiscal Years 1993 through 2017

Page 75 GAO-18-223 Climate Change Funding

ACCOUNT 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 ARRAa 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Partnership for a 

New Generation of 

Vehicles 

— — — — — — 73 64 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Department of 

Commerce — — 63 56 42 29 30 22 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Under Secretary for 

Technology / Office 

of Technology Policy

— — — — — — 1 0 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Salaries and 

Expenses — — 0 1 1 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

National Institutes of 

Standards and 

Technology 

— — — — — — 29 22 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Scientific and 

Technical 

Research and 

Services

— — — 7 7 7 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Industrial 

Technology 

Services

— — — 56 48 34 22 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

National Science 

Foundation

Research and 

Related Activities — — 53 53 56 47 40 42 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Department of 

Transportation

National Highway 

Traffic Safety 

Administration (and 

FTA prior to FY 

1999)

Operations and 

Research — — 5 6 13 5 3 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Indirect Technology 

Total 250 242 352 327 312 432 685 698 499 e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e

Technology Total 845 1,038 1,283 1,106 1,056 1,251 1,694 1,793 1,675 1,637 2,555 2,868 2,808 2,789 3,485 4,196 5,386 5,504 25,499 5,690 6,121 5,755 6,567 6,999 7,539 8,978
Appendix V: Climate Change Funding by Line Item as Reported by the Office and Management and Budget (OMB), from Fiscal Years 1993 through 2017

Page 76 GAO-18-223 Climate Change Funding

ACCOUNT 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 ARRAa 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

SCIENCE

U.S. Global Change 

Research Program

Department of 

Agriculture 55 56 60 52 57 53 52 56 51 56 60 70 62 61 61 65 47 109 0 157 116 108 115 97 98 124

Agricultural 

Research Service 17 18 24 24 26 27 26 28 29 30 35 37 38 38 40 39 20 20 0 22 36 38 38 45 45 65

Cooperative State 

Research, 

Education, & 

Extension Services

Research and 

Education 11 12 10 10 12 7 7 9 4 9 8 16 5 4 2 4 — — — — — — — — — —

Economic Research 

Service 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 <0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 2 2 1 2 3

Natural Resources 

Conservation 

Services

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1 1 1 2 3 3

Conservation 

Operations 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Forest Service

Forest and 

Rangeland 

Research

24 23 23 15 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 18 18 19 22 22 32 0 28 26 26 27 25 28 28

National Institute of 

Food and 

Agriculturec

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 5 56 0 106 50 40 43 20 15 19

National Agricultural 

Statistics Serviceb — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 1 1 1 1 1 1

Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection 

Serviceb

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0 < 0.5 < 0.5

Farm Service 

Agencyb — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0 1 1

Office of Chief 

Economistb — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 3 3 3
Appendix V: Climate Change Funding by Line Item as Reported by the Office and Management and Budget (OMB), from Fiscal Years 1993 through 2017

Page 77 GAO-18-223 Climate Change Funding

ACCOUNT 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 ARRAa 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Department of 

Commerce — — — — — — — — — — — — — 235 236 272 377 360 218 437 319 301 329 312 283 342

National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric 

Administration

Operations, 

Research, and 

Facilities

66 63 57 57 60 60 63 67 93 100 98 116 120 226 229 265 274 309 0 315 245 233 285 264 252 307

Procurement, 

Acquisition and 

Constructionc

— — — — — — — — — — — — — 9 7 7 101 49 218 120 69 64 40 44 28 31

National Institute of 

Standards and 

Technology 

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0 0 2 2 0 2 5 4 4 4 4 4

Department of 

Energy

Science—Biological 

& Environmental 

Research

118 118 113 113 109 106 114 114 116 117 112 129 127 130 126 128 168 165 65 191 211 209 217 214 238 242

Environmental 

Protection Agency

Science and 

Technology 26 30 22 18 13 13 17 21 23 21 22 17 20 19 16 17 18 21 0 22 18 17 18 16 19 22

Department of 

Health and Human 

Services 

— — — — — 35 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 14 10 8 8 8 8

National Institutes of 

Health — — — — — 35 40 47 54 56 61 62 57 50 47 4 5 4 0 4 8 10 8 8 8 8

National 

Institute of 

Environmental 

Health Sciences

— — — — — 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

National Eye 

Institutes — — — — — 9 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

National Cancer 

Institute — — — — — 21 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
Appendix V: Climate Change Funding by Line Item as Reported by the Office and Management and Budget (OMB), from Fiscal Years 1993 through 2017

Page 78 GAO-18-223 Climate Change Funding

ACCOUNT 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 ARRAa 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

National 

Institute of 

Arthritis and 

Musculoskeletal 

& Skin 

Diseases

— — — — — < 0.5 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Centers for 

Disease Control 

and Prevention

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 6 — — — — —

Department of the 

Interior

U.S. Geological 

Survey

Surveys, 

Investigations, 

and Research

22 29 27 26 26 26 27 27 27 26 28 28 27 27 27 34 45 63 0 81 59 55 54 58 57 63

National 

Aeronautics and 

Space 

Administration

Science, 

Aeronautics, and 

Technology

888 999 1,305 1,218 1,218 1,210 1,155 1,161 1,176 1,090 1,144 1,321 1,241 953 1,084 1,084 — — — — — — — — — —

Sciencec — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0 0 1,086 1,071 237 1,285 1,390 1,395 1,431 1,417 1,534 1,617

National Science 

Foundation

Research and 

Related Activities 124 142 169 163 166 167 182 187 181 189 188 215 198 197 207 207 269 319 121 370 333 316 313 331 339 348

Smithsonian 

Institution

Salaries and 

Expenses 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 0 11 8 8 8 8 8 9

Department of State

International 

Organizations and 

Programsc

— — — — — — — — — — — 1 — — — — — — — 39 — — — — — —

Other- non-addb — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 3 3 3 — — —

Department of 

Transportation — — — — — — — — — — — 4 1 1 1 1 2 3 0 3 1 1 1 1 1 1
Appendix V: Climate Change Funding by Line Item as Reported by the Office and Management and Budget (OMB), from Fiscal Years 1993 through 2017

Page 79 GAO-18-223 Climate Change Funding

ACCOUNT 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 ARRAa 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Federal Highways 

Administration

Federal-aid 

Highwaysc — — — — — — — — — — — 4 1 < 0.5 < 0.5 1 < 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Federal Aviation 

Administration

Research, 

Engineering, 

and 

Developmentc

— — — — — — — — — — — 0 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 2 3 0 3 1 1 1 1 1 1

Federal Transit 

Administration

Research and 

University 

Research 

Centers and 

Formula Bus 

Grantsc

— — — — — — — — — — — — — < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

U.S. Agency for 

International 

Development

Development 

Assistance — — — — — — — — — 6 6 6 6 13 14 14 17 36 0 43 — — — — — —

Development 

Assistance- non-addb — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 11 11 11 6 9 10

U.S. Global 

Change Research 

Program Total 

1,306 1,444 1,760 1,654 1,656 1,677 1,657 1,687 1,728 1,667 1,725 1,803 1,660 1,488 1,825 1,832 2,023 2,122 641 2,561 2,506 2,417 2,492 2,461 2,584 2,775

Climate Change 

Research Initiative

Department of 

Agriculture — — — — — — — — — — 2 6 8 8 — — — — — — — — — — — —

Agricultural 

Research Service — — — — — — — — — — 0 1 2 2 — — — — — — — — — — — —

Forest Service

Forest and 

Rangeland 

Research

— — — — — — — — — — 1 5 6 6 — — — — — — — — — — — —

Department of 

Commerce
Appendix V: Climate Change Funding by Line Item as Reported by the Office and Management and Budget (OMB), from Fiscal Years 1993 through 2017

Page 80 GAO-18-223 Climate Change Funding

ACCOUNT 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 ARRAa 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric 

Administration

Operations, 

Research, and 

Facilities

— — — — — — — — — — 18 34 46 34 — — — — — — — — — — — —

Department of 

Energy

Science—Biological 

& Environmental 

Research

— — — — — — — — — — 3 27 25 28 — — — — — — — — — — — —

National 

Aeronautics and 

Space 

Administration

Science, 

Aeronautics, and 

Technology

— — — — — — — — — — 3 65 94 95 — — — — — — — — — — — —

National Science 

Foundation

Research and 

Related Activities — — — — — — — — — — 15 30 25 25 — — — — — — — — — — — —

Department of State

International 

Organizations and 

Programs

— — — — — — — — — — — 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Department of 

Transportation — — — — — — — — — — — 4 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Federal Highway 

Administration

Federal-aid--

Highways — — — — — — — — — — — 4 1 0 — — — — — — — — — — — —

Federal Transit 

Administration

Formula Grants 

and Research — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Federal Aviation 

Administration
Appendix V: Climate Change Funding by Line Item as Reported by the Office and Management and Budget (OMB), from Fiscal Years 1993 through 2017

Page 81 GAO-18-223 Climate Change Funding

ACCOUNT 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 ARRAa 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Research, 

Engineering, 

and 

Development

— — — — — — — — — — — 0 0 — — — — — — — — — — — — —

U.S. Agency for 

International 

Development

Development 

Assistance — — — — — — — — — — — 6 6 13 — — — — — — — — — — — —

Climate Change 

Research Initiative 

Total

— — — — — — — — — — 41 173 204 203 — — — — — — — — — — — —

Science Total 1,306 1,444 1,760 1,654 1,656 1,677 1,657 1,687 1,728 1,667 1,766 1,976 1,864 1,691 1,825 1,832 2,023 2,122 641 2,561 2,506 2,417 2,492 2,461 2,584 2,775

INTERNATIONAL 

ASSISTANCE

Core Agencies

Department of 

State — — — — — — — — — — — 5 7 12 41 59 55 199 — 149 133 126 127 147 595 632

International 

Organizations and 

Programs

1 1 1 3 3 5 7 7 7 7 6 5 6 6 6 29 29 39 — 39 37 35 36 36 36 46

Economic Support 

Fundc — — — — — — — — — — — 0 1 6 32 26 24 158 — 110 96 91 92 112 559 586

Diplomatic and 

Consular Affairsc — — — — — — — — — — — — 0 0 3 4 2 2 — 0 0 — — — — —

Department of 

Treasury — — — — — — — — — 43 56 52 44 46 46 46 46 421 — 744 377 380 356 346 331 350

International 

Development 

Assistance

Global 

Environment 

Facilityf

— 12 35 14 14 8 60 14 41 38 56 32 20 26 26 26 26 26 — 89 60 62 72 82 101 88

Debt Restructuring

Tropical Forest 

Conservation — — — — — — — — 13 5 — 20 24 20 20 20 20 20 — 20 12 11 0 0 0 0

Asian Development 

Bankc — — — — — — — — — — — — 0 — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Clean Technology 

Fundc — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0 0 0 300 — 400 230 196 210 201 171 0

Strategic Climate 

Fundc — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0 0 75 — 235 75 110 75 63 60 0
Appendix V: Climate Change Funding by Line Item as Reported by the Office and Management and Budget (OMB), from Fiscal Years 1993 through 2017

Page 82 GAO-18-223 Climate Change Funding

ACCOUNT 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 ARRAa 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Green Climate 

Fundb — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0 0 0 0 250

Central American 

and Caribbean 

Catastrophe Risk 

Insurance Programb

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0 0 0 0 13

U.S. Agency for 

International 

Development

— — — — — — 236 156 157 174 208 195 183 190 100 122 222 383 — 491 348 334 351 331 304 352

Development 

Assistance 200 173 192 175 147 163 169 109 112 116 140 125 134 118 89 88 113 313 — 446 322 308 296 272 268 310

Development Credit 

Authority — — — — — — 1 1 1 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Economic Support 

Fund — — — — — — 19 8 — 12 6 9 5 33 0 6 94 44 — 19 12 27 55 59 21 42

Assistance for the 

Independent States 

of the Former Soviet 

Union 

— — — — — — 35 34 31 30 48 47 34 30 5 15 — — — — — — — — — —

Assistance for 

Eastern Europe and 

the Baltic States 

— — — — — — 12 4 13 11 8 7 5 6 3 11 — — — — — — — — — —

Assistance for 

Europe, Eurasia, 

and Central Asiac

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0 15 26 — 26 15 0 0 0 16 0

International 

Disaster Assistance — — — — — — — — — 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 — 0 0 — — — — —

Andean 

Counterdrug 

Initiative 

— — — — — — — — — — 2 3 2 0 0 — — — — — — — — — — —

P.L. 480 Title II 

Food Aidc — — — — — — — — — — — 1 1 1 0 — — — — — — — — — — —

Core Agencies 

Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 323 1,003 — 1,384 858 840 834 824 1,230 1,334

Complementary 

Agenciesc

Department of 

Agriculture

Forest Service

Forest and 

Rangeland 

Researchc

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 4 5 — 4 3 3 3 3 1 3
Appendix V: Climate Change Funding by Line Item as Reported by the Office and Management and Budget (OMB), from Fiscal Years 1993 through 2017

Page 83 GAO-18-223 Climate Change Funding

ACCOUNT 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 ARRAa 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Department of 

Commerce — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 11 11 — 11 — — — — — —

National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric 

Administration

Operations, 

Research and 

Facilitiesc

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 9 9 — 9 — — — — — —

International Trade 

Administration

Operations and 

Administrationc — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2 2 — 2 — — — — — —

Department of 

Energy — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0 13 — 13 13

Energy Supply

Solar and 

Renewable 

Energy 

Research and 

Development

— — — — — — 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

Energy 

Efficiency and 

Renewable 

Energyc

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0 8 — 8 9 — — — — —

Fossil Energy 

Research and 

Development

Efficiency and 

Sequestrationc — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0 3 — 3 — — — — — —

Carbon 

Capture and 

Storage and 

Power 

Systemsb

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 3 — — — — —

Sciencec — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0 3 — 3 1 — — — — —

Energy Programsb — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 13 13 9 9 9

Adjustments for 

programs included 

in multiple 

categories

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — (13) (13) (13) (9) (9) (9)
Appendix V: Climate Change Funding by Line Item as Reported by the Office and Management and Budget (OMB), from Fiscal Years 1993 through 2017

Page 84 GAO-18-223 Climate Change Funding

ACCOUNT 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 ARRAa 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Environmental 

Protection Agency

Environmental 

Programs and 

Managementc

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 20 21 — 21 18 16 17 17 17 19

Adjustments for 

programs included 

in multiple 

categories

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — (9) (7) (8) (8) (8) (10)

Millennium 

Challenge 

Corporationc

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0 2 — 25 41 0 103 352 219 0

National 

Aeronautics and 

Space 

Administration

Sciencec — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 2 2 — 6 3 6 6 6 6 7

Adjustments for 

programs included 

in multiple 

categories

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — (3) (6) (6) (6) (6) (7)

National Science 

Foundation

Research and 

Related Activities — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 3 6 — 9 6 6 4 2 1 1

Peace Corps

Peace Corps — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 13 12 12 12 12

U.S. Trade and 

Development 

Agency

— — — — — — 16 — — — — — — — — — 10 17 — 21 16 19 22 27 32 42

Complementary 

Agencies Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 50 77 — 110 100 76 180 428 297 93

International 

Assistance Total 201 186 228 192 164 186 325 177 218 224 270 252 234 249 188 227 373 1,080 — 1,494 958 916 1,013 1,252 1,527 1,426

WILDLIFE 

ADAPTATIONg

Department of 

Interior

National Park 

Service 
Appendix V: Climate Change Funding by Line Item as Reported by the Office and Management and Budget (OMB), from Fiscal Years 1993 through 2017

Page 85 GAO-18-223 Climate Change Funding

ACCOUNT 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 ARRAa 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Operation of 

the National 

Park Servicec

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0 10 0 10 — — — — — —

Fish and Wildlife 

Service 

Resource 

Managementc — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0 40 0 59 — — — — — —

State and 

Tribal Wildlife 

Grantsb

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0 — — — — — —

Bureau of Land 

Management 

Management 

of Lands and 

Resourcesc

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0 15 0 18 — — — — — —

Bureau of Indian 

Affairs

Operation of Indian 

Programsb — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0 — — — — — —

Wildlife Adaptation 

Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0 65 0 87 — — — — — —

NATURAL 

RESOURCES 

ADAPTATIONe

National Park 

Service

Operation of 

the National 

Park Serviceb

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 3 — — — — —

Fish and Wildlife 

Service 

Resource 

Managementb — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 60 — — — — —

Bureau of Land 

Management

Management 

of Lands and 

Resourcesc

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 18 — — — — —

Bureau of Indian 

Affairs
Appendix V: Climate Change Funding by Line Item as Reported by the Office and Management and Budget (OMB), from Fiscal Years 1993 through 2017

Page 86 GAO-18-223 Climate Change Funding

ACCOUNT 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 ARRAa 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Operation of 

Indian 

Programsb

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0 — — — — —

Bureau of 

Reclamation

Cooperative 

Landscape 

Conservationb

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 7 — — — — —

Natural Resources 

Adaptation Total — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 88 — — — — —

Total Climate 

Change Funding 2,352 2,668 3,271 2,952 2,876 3,114 3,535 3,511 3,603 3,522 4,584 5,090 5,269 5,876 5,498 6,255 7,782 8,771 26,140 9,788 9,649 9,062 10,045 10,689 11,627 13,156

Source: GAO analysis of Office of Management and Budget reports. | GAO-18-223

Notes: Dashes indicate that OMB did not report a value for the account for that year. Zeros indicate the funding that OMB reported for the account for that year.

Totals may not add due to rounding.

The table presents actual budget authority except for fiscal years 2011, 2013, and 2017. For fiscal years 2011 and 2017, OMB reported proposed budget authority. For fiscal year 2013, OMB reported final operating 

level funding. Funding is reported in nominal dollars, which are not adjusted for inflation.

Climate-related tax expenditures are not included in this table to maintain comparability with our 2005 report, Climate Change: Federal Reports on Climate Change Funding Should Be Clearer and More Complete, 

GAO-05-461 and our 2011 report, Climate Change: Improvements Needed to Clarify National Priorities and Better Align Them with Federal Funding Decisions, GAO-11-317.

a

In its June 2010 report, OMB reported funding for climate change programs and activities in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Pub. L. No. 111-5 (Feb. 17, 2009)).

b

Funding for this account has been added since our 2011 report, Climate Change: Improvements Needed to Clarify National Priorities and Better Align Them with Federal Funding decisions, GAO-11-317. 

c

Funding for this account has been added since our 2005 report, Climate Change: Federal Reports on Climate Change Funding Should Be Clearer and more Complete, GAO-05-461.

d

OMB identified funding for this account as mandatory under the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (Pub. L. No. 110-234 (May 22, 2008)).

e

OMB did not distinguish between indirect and direct technology funding for this year.
Appendix VI: Climate Change Tax Expenditures as Reported by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), from Fiscal Years 2003 through 2017

Page 87 GAO-18-223 Climate Change Funding

Appendix VI: Climate Change Tax Expenditures as Reported by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB), from Fiscal Years 2003 through 2017

Dollars in millions

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Tax provisions that may reduce greenhouse gases

Energy production credit (without coal)a 380 330 219 440 410 900 360 780 1,020 1,452 1,719 1,759 1,540 1,940 2,240

Credit for alternative motor vehicles and refueling propertyb 90 70 70 110 260 170 130 240 260 100 180 260 540 550 670

Exclusion of utility conservation subsidies 110 100 80 110 120 120 140 140 130 270 250 250 430 450 470

Credit for holding clean renewable energy bonds — — 0 20 20 40 70 80 100 70 70 70 70 70 70

Allowance of deduction for certain energy efficient commercial building property — — 0 80 190 170 60 80 90 70 70 40 30 (10) (30)

Credit for construction of new energy efficient homes — — 0 10 20 30 30 20 20 70 40 20 760 20 0

Credit for energy efficiency improvements to existing homes — — 0 230 380 230 570 1,950 1,460 780 0 0 270 0 0

Credit for energy efficient appliances — — 0 120 80 120 130 130 50 210 300 130 — — —

Credit for residential energy efficient propertyc — — 0 10 10 20 110 180 180 910 1,010 1,140 850 770 460

Credit for business installation of qualified fuel cells — — 0 30 30 0 — — — — — — — — —

Energy investment creditd — — — — — 40 270 530 600 1,040 1,270 1,360 1,010 1,470 970

Qualified energy conservation bonds — — — — — 0 0 10 40 20 30 30 30 30 30

Industrial CO2 capture and sequestration tax credit — — — — — — — — — 60 60 70 80 110 150

Advanced nuclear power production credit — — — — — — — — — — — — 0 140 140

Total energy tax provisions that may reduce greenhouse gases 580 500 369 1,160 1,520 1,840 1,870 4,140 3,950 5,052 4,999 5,129 5,610 5,540 5,170
Appendix VI: Climate Change Tax Expenditures as Reported by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), from Fiscal Years 2003 through 2017

Page 88 GAO-18-223 Climate Change Funding

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

Energy grants

Energy grants in lieu of energy investment creditd,e — — — — — — 1,050 3,090 4,460 5,080 8,080 4,710 2,300 1,200 650

Total (tax provisions plus grants) 580 500 369 1,160 1,520 1,840 2,920 7,230 8,410 10,132 13,079 9,839 7,910 6,740 5,820

Source: GAO analysis of Office of Management and Budget reports. | GAO-18-223

Notes: Dashes indicate that OMB did not report a value for the account for that year. Zeros indicate the funding that OMB reported for the agency for that year.

OMB did not report revenue effects for existing tax expenditures that may reduce greenhouse gases from fiscal years1993 through 2002. OMB began reporting revenue effects for existing climate-related tax 

expenditures in response to recommendations from our 2005 report, Climate Change: Federal Reports on Climate Change Funding Should Be Clearer and more Complete, GAO-05-461. Data for 2003 and 2004 

were presented in OMB’s April 2006 report. Data for 2011 was presented in OMB’s June 2010 report. 

a

Estimates of revenue loss from coal provisions have been removed from the tax expenditure estimate in the budget. In previous years, the Energy Investment Credit was contained within the New Technology 

Credit. Prior to OMB’s August 2013 report, the energy production credit was referred to as the new technology credit (without coal). 

b

Prior to OMB’s August 2013 report, the tax credit for alternative motor vehicles and refueling property was referred to as the tax credit and deduction for clean-burning vehicles.

c

Prior to OMB’s August 2013 report, the credit for residential energy efficient property was referred to as the credit for residential purchases/ installations of solar and fuel cells.

d

In previous years, the energy investment credit was contained within the New Technology Credit. The Energy Investment Credit also includes the business installation of fuel cells, which was an independent entry 

in tables from previous years. Estimates of revenue loss from the micro-turbine provision have been removed from the tax expenditure estimate in the budget. 

e

Firms can take an energy grant in lieu of the energy production credit or the energy investment credit for facilities placed in service in 2009, 2010, or 2011 or whose construction commenced in 2009, 2010, or 2011. 

The grants are considered outlays and are direct substitutes for the energy tax provisions.
Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 89 GAO-18-223 Climate Change Funding

J. Alfredo Gómez, (202) 512-3841 or gomezj@gao.gov

In addition to the individual contact named above, Joseph Dean 

Thompson (Assistant Director), Lisa Van Arsdale (Analyst in Charge), 

Emily Gerken, Cindy Gilbert, Holly Halifax, Jeanette Soares, Sara 

Sullivan, and Kiki Theodoropoulos made key contributions to this report.

Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(101097)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 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.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through GAO’s website (https://www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO 

posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, go to https://www.gao.gov

and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of production and 

distribution and depends on the number of pages in the publication and whether 

the publication is printed in color or black and white. Pricing and ordering 

information is posted on GAO’s website, https://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, MasterCard, 

Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube.

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.

Visit GAO on the web at https://www.gao.gov.

Contact:

Website: https://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Orice Williams Brown, Managing Director, WilliamsO@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400, 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125, 

Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

James-Christian Blockwood, Managing Director, spel@gao.gov, (202) 512-4707

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7814, 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Strategic Planning and 

External Liaison

Please Print on Recycled Paper.