a

GAO

United States Government Accountability Office

Report to Congressional Requesters

August 2005 CLIMATE CHANGE

Federal Reports on 

Climate Change 

Funding Should Be 

Clearer and More 

Complete

GAO-05-461
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-461.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact John B. 

Stephenson at (202) 512-3841, or 

stephensonj@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-05-461, a report to 

congressional requesters 

August 2005

CLIMATE CHANGE

Federal Reports on Climate Change 

Funding Should Be Clearer and More 

Complete 

Federal funding for climate change increased from $2.4 billion in 1993 to $5.1 

billion in 2004 (116 percent), as reported by OMB, or from $3.3 billion to $5.1 

billion (55 percent) after adjusting for inflation. During this period, inflationadjusted funding increased for technology and science, but decreased for 

international assistance. The share for technology increased (36 to 56 

percent), while the shares for science and international assistance decreased 

(56 to 39 percent and 9 to 5 percent, respectively). However, it is unclear 

whether funding changed as much as reported because modifications in the 

format and content of OMB reports limit the comparability of funding data 

over time. For example, OMB reported that it expanded the definitions of 

some accounts to include more activities, but did not specify how it changed 

the definitions. Also, while OMB’s totals for science funding were generally 

comparable to CCSP’s totals, the more detailed data in CCSP reports were 

difficult to compare over time because CCSP introduced new categorization 

methods without explaining how they related to the previous methods. OMB 

officials stated that changes in their reports were due, in part, to the short 

timeline for completing them, and that it has not been required to follow a 

consistent reporting format from one year to the next. The Director of CCSP 

said that its reports changed as the program evolved. GAO was unable to 

compare climate-related tax expenditures over time because OMB reported 

data on proposed, but not on existing tax expenditures. For example, while 

OMB reported no funding for existing climate-related tax expenditures in 

2004, GAO identified four such tax expenditures in 2004, including revenue 

loss estimates of $330 million to develop certain renewable energy sources. 

OMB reported that 12 of the 14 agencies that funded climate change 

programs in 2004 increased such funding between 1993 and 2004, but 

unexplained changes in the reports’ contents limit the comparability of data 

on funding by agency. GAO found that OMB reported funding for certain 

agencies in some years but not in others, without explanation. For example, 

OMB reported funding of $83 million for the Department of Defense in 2003, 

but did not list any such funding in prior reports. OMB told GAO that it 

relied on agency budget offices to submit accurate data. 

Reported Federal Climate Change Funding by Category, 1993-2004 

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Inflation-adjusted discretionary budget authority in billions of dollars

International Assistance

Science

Technology

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Fiscal year

Source: GAO analysis of OMB data.

The Congress has required the 

administration to report annually 

on federal spending on climate 

change. The Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) reports funding 

in four categories: technology (to 

reduce greenhouse gas emissions), 

science (to better understand the 

climate), international assistance 

(to help developing countries), and 

tax expenditures (to encourage 

reductions in emissions). The 

Climate Change Science Program 

(CCSP), which coordinates many 

agencies’ activities, reports only on 

science. To measure funding, OMB 

and CCSP use budget authority, the 

authority provided in law to enter 

into financial obligations that will 

result in government outlays. 

GAO was asked to examine federal 

climate change funding for 1993 

through 2004, as reported by both 

agencies, including (1) how total 

funding and funding by category 

changed and whether funding data 

are comparable over time and (2) 

how funding by agency changed 

and whether funding data are 

comparable over time. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends, among other 

things, that OMB and CCSP explain 

any changes in their reports’ 

content or format. GAO also 

recommends that OMB include 

data on existing climate-related tax 

expenditures. OMB agreed with 

most of GAO’s recommendations 

and is studying the others. CCSP 

agreed with all of GAO’s 

recommendations. 
Page i GAO-05-461 Climate Change Funding

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 3

Background 7

Reported Federal Climate Change Funding Increased for Three of 

the Four Funding Categories, but Data May Not Be Comparable 

Over Time 9

Reported Funding for Most Agencies Increased, but Unexplained 

Changes in Report Content Limit the Comparability of Data Over 

Time 23

OMB Reports Presented Information on Budget Authority Rather 

Than—as Required by the Congress—on Expenditures and 

Obligations 25

Conclusions 27

Recommendations for Executive Action 28

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 28

Appendixes

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 30

Appendix II: Climate Change Funding by Category as Reported by OMB 34

Appendix III: Climate Change Funding by Agency as Reported by OMB 35

Appendix IV: Analysis of OMB Funding Report Accounts 36

Appendix V: Comments from the Climate Change Science Program 44

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 47

Tables Table 1: Reported Federal Climate Change Funding by Category, 

Selected Years 10

Table 2: Reported Technology Funding, Selected Accounts and 

Years 11

Table 3: Reported Science Funding by Agency or Program, Selected 

Years 16

Table 4: Reported International Assistance Funding, Selected 

Accounts and Years 20

Table 5: Reported Climate Change Funding by Agency, Selected 

Years 24

Table 6: Federal Climate Change Funding by Category as Reported 

by OMB, 1993-2004 34

Table 7: Climate Change Funding by Agency as Reported by OMB, 

1993-2004 35
Contents

Page ii GAO-05-461 Climate Change Funding

Table 8: Analysis of OMB Funding Report Accounts, 1993-2004 36

Abbreviations

CBO Congressional Budget Office

CCRI Climate Change Research Initiative

CCSP Climate Change Science Program

CCTP Climate Change Technology Program

DOD Department of Defense

DOE Department of Energy

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

GEF Global Environment Facility

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

NIH National Institutes of Health

NSF National Science Foundation

OMB Office of Management and Budget

USAID United States Agency for International Development

USGCRP United States Global Change Research Program

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

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. 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-05-461 Climate Change Funding

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

A

August 25, 2005 Letr

The Honorable John McCain

The Honorable John Kerry

United States Senate

The earth’s average temperature has increased by about 1 degree 

Fahrenheit over the last 100 years. While this increase seems small, 

projected additional changes in temperature, as well as other aspects of the 

climate, may alter human social and economic activities. For example, 

changes in the frequency and intensity of rainfall, both possible effects of 

climate change, could impact crop yields in certain locations. For more 

than a decade, the federal government has funded programs to study the 

earth’s climate and to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and other 

greenhouse gases linked to climate change. According to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB), 9 of the 15 cabinet-level executive 

departments, along with 5 other federal agencies, received funding for 

climate change activities in 2004.

OMB, in annual reports and testimony before the Congress, reported 

climate change funding for 1993 through 2004 using four categories: 

• Technology, which includes the research, development, and 

deployment of technologies and processes to reduce greenhouse gas 

emissions or increase energy efficiency. Funding for this category 

focuses on programs for energy conservation, renewable energy, and 

related efforts.

• Science, which includes research and monitoring to better understand 

climate change, such as measuring changes in forest cover and land use.

• International assistance, which helps developing countries to 

address climate change by, for example, providing funds for energy 

efficiency programs. 
Page 2 GAO-05-461 Climate Change Funding

• Tax expenditures related to climate change, which are federal income 

tax provisions that grant preferential tax treatment to encourage 

emission reductions by, for example, providing tax incentives to 

promote the use of renewable energy.1

Over the same time period, the administration also reported annually on 

funding specifically for climate change science, one of the four categories 

used in OMB reports. The Climate Change Science Program (CCSP)—a 

multi-agency coordinating group—is currently responsible for preparing 

the climate change science reports.

At your request, we examined (1) how total funding and funding by 

category changed and the extent to which data on such funding are 

comparable over time and (2) how funding by agency changed and the 

extent to which data on such funding are comparable over time. We also 

examined whether OMB and CCSP reports provided the data required by 

the Congress.

To determine how federal climate change funding by category and agency 

changed, we analyzed data from annual OMB and CCSP reports, as well as 

congressional testimony. To determine the extent to which the data on 

climate change funding were comparable, we analyzed and compared the 

contents of the reports. If changes in the reports were not explained, we 

asked responsible officials to explain the changes. To examine whether 

OMB and CCSP reports provided the data required by the Congress, we 

reviewed the reporting requirements, the legislative history of these 

requirements, and the data presented by OMB and CCSP in their reports. 

The term “funding” in this report reflects discretionary budget authority, or 

the authority provided in law to incur financial obligations that will result 

in outlays, as reported by OMB and CCSP in their reports.2

 Unless 

otherwise stated, we report funding in nominal terms (not adjusted for 

inflation), and all years refer to fiscal years. When we adjusted for inflation, 

we used a fiscal year price index that we calculated based on a calendar 

1

The revenue losses resulting from provisions of federal tax laws may, in effect, be viewed as 

expenditures channeled through the tax system. The Congressional Budget and 

Impoundment Control Act of 1974, as amended, requires that the budget include the level of 

tax expenditures under existing law. Like the annual lists of tax expenditures prepared by 

the Department of the Treasury, this report considers only tax expenditures related to 

individual and corporate income taxes and does not address excise taxes.

2

An OMB official stated that there is no mandatory budget authority for climate change 

programs.
Page 3 GAO-05-461 Climate Change Funding

year price index published by the Department of Commerce’s Bureau of 

Economic Analysis. Unless otherwise specified, figures represent actual 

funding (not estimates), with the exception of 1993, 1994, and 2004, where 

we present estimated funding reported by CCSP because actual data are 

not available. For the purposes of this report, the term “agency” includes 

executive departments and agencies, and we use the term “account” to 

describe the budget accounts, line items, programs, and activities 

presented in OMB and CCSP reports. Throughout this report, we 

characterize all climate change science reports from 1993 through 2004 as 

CCSP reports, even though CCSP has been in existence only since 2002, 

and reports prior to 2002 were published by a predecessor organization. 

Totals and percentages may not add due to rounding. A more detailed 

description of our scope and methodology is presented in appendix I. For 

presentation purposes, we show federal climate change funding for 1993, 

1997, 2001, and 2004 in report tables. Funding data for 1993 through 2004 

are shown in appendixes II, III, and IV. We performed our work between 

July 2004 and August 2005 in accordance with generally accepted 

government auditing standards.

Results in Brief Federal funding for climate change, as reported by OMB, increased from 

$2.35 billion in 1993 to $5.09 billion in 2004 (116 percent), or from $3.28 

billion to $5.09 billion (55 percent) after adjusting for inflation, and funding 

increased for three of the four categories between 1993 and 2004. However, 

changes in reporting methods limit the comparability of funding data over 

time, and therefore it is unclear whether total funding actually increased as 

much as reported. We were unable to compare changes in the fourth 

category–climate-related tax expenditures–because OMB reported 

estimates for proposed but not existing tax expenditures from 1993 

through 2004. Specifically, we found that: 

• Technology funding increased from $845 million to $2.87 billion (239 

percent), or from $1.18 billion to $2.87 billion in inflation-adjusted 

dollars (143 percent). The share of total climate change funding devoted 

to technology increased from 36 percent to 56 percent. However, we 

identified several ways that technology funding presented in OMB’s 

more recent reports may not be comparable to previously reported 

technology funding. For example, OMB added accounts to the 

technology category that were not reported before or were presented in 

different categories, but it did not explain whether these accounts 

reflected the creation of new programs, or a decision to count existing 

programs for the first time. OMB also expanded the definitions of some 
Page 4 GAO-05-461 Climate Change Funding

accounts to include more activities without clarifying how the 

definitions were changed. 

• Science funding increased from $1.31 billion to $1.98 billion (51 

percent), according to both OMB and CCSP, or from $1.82 billion to 

$1.98 billion in inflation-adjusted dollars (9 percent). However, its share 

of total climate change funding decreased from 56 percent to 39 percent. 

OMB and CCSP generally presented consistent climate change science 

funding totals from 1993 through 2004. CCSP reports also presented 

more detailed data, but these data were difficult to compare over the 

entire time period because CCSP periodically introduced new 

categorization methods without explaining how the new methods 

related to the ones they replaced. Specifically, from 1993 through 2004, 

CCSP used seven different methods to present detailed science funding 

data, making it impossible to develop consistent funding trends over the 

entire timeframe.

• International assistance funding increased from $201 million to $252 

million (a 25 percent increase), but decreased from $280 million to $252 

million in inflation-adjusted dollars (a 10 percent decrease). Moreover, 

its share of total climate change funding decreased from 9 percent to 5 

percent. International assistance funding reported by OMB was 

generally comparable over time, although several new accounts were 

added without explanation. 

• Tax expenditures were not fully reported by OMB for any year, even 

though climate-related tax expenditures amounted to hundreds of 

millions of dollars in revenue forgone by the federal government in 

fiscal year 2004. Although not required to do so, OMB reported proposed

climate-related tax expenditures. However, OMB did not report revenue 

loss estimates for existing climate change-related tax expenditures. 

Whereas OMB reported no funding for existing climate change-related 

tax expenditures in 2004, the most recent federal budget listed four tax 

expenditures related to climate change in that year, including estimated 

revenue losses of $330 million for incentives to develop certain 

renewable energy sources. 

OMB and CCSP officials told us that time constraints and other factors 

contributed to changes in report structure and content over time. For 

example, OMB officials said that the short timeline for completing the 

report required by the Congress (within 45 days of submitting the 

upcoming fiscal year’s budget for the three most recent reports) limited 
Page 5 GAO-05-461 Climate Change Funding

OMB’s ability to analyze data submitted by agencies. They also noted that 

each report was prepared in response to a one-time requirement and that 

they were not directed to use the same report format over time or explain 

differences in methodology from one report to another. The director of 

CCSP told us that changes to climate change science reports, such as the 

creation and deletion of different categorization methods, were made 

because CCSP was changing towards a goals-oriented budget, and 

categorization methods changed as the program evolved. The director also 

said that future reports will explicitly present budget data as it was 

reported in prior reports to retain continuity, even if new methods are 

introduced. Regarding tax expenditures, OMB officials said that they 

consistently included in the reports those proposed tax expenditures 

where a key purpose was specifically to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 

They also stated that they have not included existing tax expenditures that 

may have greenhouse gas benefits but were enacted for other purposes, 

and that the Congress has not provided any guidance to suggest that 

additional tax expenditure data should be included in the annual reports.

OMB reported that 12 of the 14 agencies that received funding for climate 

change programs in 2004 received more funding in that year than they had 

in 1993, but it is unclear whether funding changed as much as was reported 

by OMB because unexplained modifications in the reports’ contents limit 

the comparability of agencies’ funding data. Reported funding for the 

Department of Energy (DOE), the agency with the most reported climaterelated funding in 2004, increased from $963 million to $2.52 billion (162 

percent), or from $1.34 billion to $2.52 billion after adjusting for inflation 

(88 percent). DOE and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

(NASA) accounted for 81 percent of the reported increase in funding from 

1993 through 2004. However, because agency funding totals are composed 

of individual accounts, the changes in the reports’ contents discussed 

earlier, such as the unexplained addition of accounts to the technology 

category, limit the comparability of agencies’ funding data over time. For 

example, OMB reported Army, Navy, Air Force, and Defense-wide funding 

totaling $83 million in 2003, and $51 million in 2004, in accounts titled 

Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, but did not report these 

accounts in prior years. OMB did not explain whether these accounts 

reflected the creation of new programs or a decision to count existing 

programs for the first time. Accordingly, there is some uncertainty about 

the Department of Defense’s (DOD) climate change funding over time. 

OMB stated that it consistently reported funding data for the 3 years 

presented in each report and that there has been no requirement to use a 
Page 6 GAO-05-461 Climate Change Funding

consistent format from one report to the next or to explain differences in 

methodology from one report to another.

We found that OMB reports presented information on budget authority, 

not—as required by the Congress--on expenditures and obligations. The 

Congress has required that information be provided on expenditures and 

obligations, the amounts actually spent or committed to be spent, while 

OMB reports generally have presented information on a different measure, 

budget authority, or the amount of funding provided by the Congress. OMB 

officials told us that they adopted their approach because the relevant 

congressional committees generally use budget authority. They told us that 

they continued to report on this basis because these committees have not 

objected to OMB’s approach. Currently, CCSP is responsible for reporting 

information relating to the federal budget and federal funding for climate 

change science, not climate change expenditure information. CCSP has 

fulfilled recent reporting requirements by providing budget authority 

information.

We are recommending that OMB and CCSP, from year-to-year, each use the 

same format for presenting data, to the extent that they are able to do so 

and remain in compliance with reporting requirements, explain changes in 

report content or format when they are introduced, and provide and 

maintain a crosswalk comparing new and old report structures when 

changes in report format are introduced. We are also recommending that 

OMB include data on existing climate-related tax expenditures in future 

reports. Finally, we are recommending that OMB request that the Congress 

clarify whether future reports should be presented in terms of expenditures 

and obligations or in terms of budget authority, and if the Congress prefers 

the former, OMB should request the necessary time to prepare reports on 

that basis. 

We received oral comments from OMB on August 1, 2005, and written 

comments from CCSP in a letter dated July 28, 2005. OMB agreed with the 

recommendations relating to report content and format and said it was 

studying the other recommendations. CCSP agreed with all of our 

recommendations. 
Page 7 GAO-05-461 Climate Change Funding

Background In 1990, the Congress enacted the Global Change Research Act.3

 This act, 

among other things, required the administration to (1) prepare and at least 

every 3 years revise and submit to the Congress a national global change 

research plan, including an estimate of federal funding for global change 

research activities to be conducted under the plan; (2) in each annual 

budget submission to the Congress, identify the items in each agency’s 

budget that are elements of the United States Global Change Research 

Program (USGCRP), an interagency long-term climate change science 

research program; and (3) report annually on climate change “expenditures 

required” for the USGCRP.4

 In 1992, the United States signed and ratified 

the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which was 

intended to stabilize the buildup of greenhouse gases in the earth’s 

atmosphere, but did not impose binding limits on emissions. Five years 

later, the United States participated in drafting the Kyoto Protocol, an 

international agreement to specifically limit greenhouse gas emissions. The 

Protocol did not impose limits on developing nations’ emissions, and its 

possible effect on the U.S. economy was the subject of numerous studies. 

Although the U.S. government signed the Protocol in 1998, it was not 

submitted to the Senate for ratification. In March 2001, President Bush 

announced that he opposed the Protocol.

In response to the requirements of the 1990 act, the administration 

reported annually from 1990 through 2004 on funding for climate change 

science in reports titled Our Changing Planet.5

 From 1990 through 2001, 

the reports presented detailed science funding data for the USGCRP. 

Federal climate change science programs were reorganized in 2001 and 

2002. In 2001, the Climate Change Research Initiative (CCRI) was created 

to coordinate short-term climate change research focused on reducing 

uncertainty, and in 2002, CCSP was created to coordinate and integrate 

USGCRP and CCRI activities. Since 2002, CCSP has been responsible for 

3

Pub. L. No. 101-606, 104 Stat. 3096 (1990) (partially terminated pursuant to the Federal 

Reports Elimination and Sunset Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-66, § 3003 (1995)).

4

The annual reporting requirement for climate change expenditures was terminated 

effective May 15, 2000. The reporting requirement had called for “(A) the amounts spent 

during the fiscal year most recently ended; (B) the amounts expected to be spent during the 

current fiscal year; and (C) the amounts requested for the fiscal year for which the budget is 

being submitted.”

5

To maintain consistency with OMB data, which are available from 1993 through 2004, we 

reviewed reported science funding from 1993 through 2004.
Page 8 GAO-05-461 Climate Change Funding

meeting the reporting requirement and has published the Our Changing 

Planet reports. The most recent report in this series was published in July 

2004, and the next report is expected to be available in late-2005. 

In March 1998, OMB, in response to a congressional requirement for a 

detailed account of climate change expenditures and obligations, issued a 

brief report summarizing federal agency programs related to global climate 

change. In August 1998, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), in 

response to a request from the Senate Committee on the Budget, issued a 

more detailed report on the same topic. OMB produced another climate 

change expenditures report in March 1999, in response to a similar 

requirement. OMB’s 1999 report and CBO’s 1998 report both presented 

federal climate change funding using four categories: technology, science, 

international assistance, and tax expenditures. As we testified in 1999, 

these reports presented generally comparable information.6

 In response to 

a request at that hearing, OMB provided climate change funding data for 

1993 through 1998 for the hearing record.

Each year since 1999, the Congress has included a provision in annual 

appropriations laws requiring OMB to report in detail all federal agency 

obligations and expenditures, domestic and international, for climate 

change programs and activities. As a result of these reporting requirements, 

OMB annually publishes the Federal Climate Change Expenditures Report 

to Congress, which presents federal climate change funding for the 

technology, science, and international assistance categories, and tax 

expenditures. The climate change activities and associated costs presented 

in OMB reports must be identified by line item as presented in the 

President’s budget appendix. OMB has interpreted this to mean that the 

data in the reports must be shown by budget account. For the last 3 years, 

the Congress has required that the administration produce reports for 

climate change expenditures and obligations for the current fiscal year 

within 45 days after the submission of the President’s budget request for 

the upcoming fiscal year. OMB’s most recent report was released in March 

2005. 

OMB reports include a wide range of federal climate-related programs and 

activities. Some activities, like scientific research on global environmental 

change by USGCRP, are explicitly climate change programs, whereas 

6

Climate Change: Observations on the April 1999 Report on Climate Change Programs, 

GAO/T-RCED-99-199, May 20, 1999.
Page 9 GAO-05-461 Climate Change Funding

others, such as many technology initiatives, are not solely for climate 

change purposes. For example, OMB reports included some programs that 

were started after the United States ratified the Framework Convention in 

1992, and were specifically designed to encourage businesses and others to 

reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, for example, by installing more 

efficient lighting. OMB reports also included programs that were expanded 

or initiated in the wake of the 1973 oil embargo to support such activities as 

energy conservation (to use energy more efficiently), renewable energy (to 

substitute for fossil fuels), and fossil energy (to make more efficient use of 

fossil fuels), all of which can help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but 

were not initially developed as climate change programs.

Reported Federal 

Climate Change 

Funding Increased for 

Three of the Four 

Funding Categories, 

but Data May Not Be 

Comparable Over Time 

Federal climate change funding, as reported by OMB, increased from $2.35 

billion in 1993 to $5.09 billion in 2004 (116 percent), or from $3.28 billion to 

$5.09 billion (55 percent) after adjusting for inflation and also increased for 

technology, science, and international assistance between 1993 and 2004, 

as shown in table 1. However, changes in reporting methods limit the 

comparability of funding data over time, and therefore it is unclear whether 

funding increased as much as reported by OMB. Technology funding 

increased as a share of total funding over time, while science and 

international assistance funding declined as shares of the total because 

technology funding increased at a faster rate than the other categories. 

OMB did not report estimates for existing climate-related tax expenditures 

during this time period, although climate-related tax expenditures 

amounted to hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue forgone by the 

federal government in fiscal year 2004. OMB officials told us that changes 

in reporting methods were due to such reasons as the short amount of time 

available to prepare the report, the fact that the reporting requirement is 

not permanent law, but appears each year in appropriations legislation, and 

changes in administration policy and priorities. 
Page 10 GAO-05-461 Climate Change Funding

Table 1: Reported Federal Climate Change Funding by Category, Selected Years

Source: GAO analysis of OMB data.

a

OMB did not report revenue loss estimates for existing climate-related tax expenditures from 1993 

through 2004.

Technology From 1993 through 2004, technology funding increased as a share of total 

federal climate funding from 36 percent to 56 percent, as reported by OMB. 

Over this time period, technology funding increased from $845 million to 

$2.87 billion (239 percent), or adjusted for inflation, from $1.18 billion to 

$2.87 billion (143 percent). For example, funding for energy conservation 

increased from $346 million to $868 million, and funding for renewable 

energy increased from $249 million to $352 million. Funding data for the 

seven largest accounts, which accounted for 92 percent of technology 

funding in 2004, are presented for selected years in table 2. Year-by-year 

data on technology funding are available in appendixes II and IV.

Discretionary budget authority in millions of dollars

Category 1993 1997 2001 2004

Technology $845 $1,056 $1,675 $2,868

Science 1,306 1,656 1,728 1,976

International assistance 201 164 218 252

Tax expendituresa

Total $2,352 $2,876 $3,603 $5,090
Page 11 GAO-05-461 Climate Change Funding

Table 2: Reported Technology Funding, Selected Accounts and Years

Source: GAO analysis of OMB data.

Note: Blank cells indicate that OMB did not report a value in the technology category for this account 

for this year.

a

Sequestration can be defined as the capture and isolation of gases that otherwise could contribute to 

global climate change.

b

For 2001 Energy Supply - Nuclear funding, we counted the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative and 

Energy Supply - Nuclear budget accounts as presented by OMB. OMB did not separately present 

these accounts for 2004, and included funding for the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative within the 

Energy Supply - Nuclear account. 

We identified three ways that the figures on technology funding presented 

in OMB’s three most recent reports may not be comparable to the figures 

presented in previous reports. First, OMB added accounts that were not 

previously presented. For example, OMB reported that NASA had $152 

million in funding for technology-related activities that included research 

to reduce emissions associated with aircraft operations in 2003. OMB did 

not report this account in the technology category in 2002. Additional 

NASA funding in the same account was reported in the science category in 

2002 and 2003. Further, OMB reported that the Department of Commerce’s 

National Institute of Standards and Technology received funding of $40 

million in 2003, to develop climate change measurement instruments and 

standards, among other activities. OMB did not report this account in 2002. 

About 47 percent of the reported $918-million increase in technology 

funding from 2002 to 2003, the largest year-to-year increase of the time 

period we studied, was due to the inclusion of new accounts that were not 

previously reported. In addition, OMB included and removed some 

Discretionary budget authority in millions of dollar

Agency Account 1993 1997 2001 2004

Department of Energy Energy Conservation $346 $414 $810 $868

Energy Supply - Fossil Energy Research and 

Development (R&D)

250 201 292 455

Energy Supply - Renewable Energy 249 244 370 352

Science (Fusion, Sequestration, and 

Hydrogen)a

35 333

Energy Supply - Nuclearb 39 309

National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration

Exploration, Science, and Aeronautics 227

Environmental Protection 

Agency

Environmental Programs and Management 70 96 89

Other 127 33 235

Total $845 $1,056 $1,675 $2,868
Page 12 GAO-05-461 Climate Change Funding

accounts, without explanation, from reports in years other than 2003. For 

example, OMB reported combined funding of $195 million in 1999, and $200 

million in 2000, for bio-based products and bio-energy at the Departments 

of Energy and Agriculture. No funding for these accounts was reported 

from 1993 through 1998 or from 2001 through 2004. In each of these cases, 

OMB did not explain whether the new accounts reflected the creation of 

new programs, a decision to count an existing program for the first time, or 

a decision to re-classify funding from different categories as technology 

funding. 

According to OMB officials, these changes in report structure and content 

for technology funding, as well as similar changes in science and 

international assistance funding, were the result of time constraints and 

other factors. They told us that the short timeline required by the Congress 

for completing the report (within 45 days of submitting the upcoming year’s 

budget for the three most recent reports) limited OMB’s ability to analyze 

data submitted by agencies. They said that they must rely on funding 

estimates quickly developed by agencies in order to produce the report 

within the specified timeframe, and that the reports are often compilations 

of agency activities and programs, some of which may or may not have 

been presented separately in prior years. Moreover, these officials told us 

that the presentation of data has changed over time for a variety of other 

reasons, including changes in administration priorities and policy, changes 

in congressional direction, changes to budget and account structures, and 

attempts to more accurately reflect the reporting requirement as specified 

in the annual appropriations language. The officials also stated that in each 

report, they ensured consistency for the 3 years covered (prior year, 

current year, and budget year).

Furthermore, OMB officials told us that the presentation of new accounts 

in the technology category, as well as the international assistance category, 

was due to the establishment of new programs and the inclusion of existing 

programs. They told us that the account-by-account display in the reports 

has been changed over time as the CCSP and the Climate Change 

Technology Program (CCTP), a multi-agency technology research and 

development coordinating structure similar to the CCSP, have become 

better defined.
Page 13 GAO-05-461 Climate Change Funding

Second, OMB reported that it expanded the definitions of some accounts to 

include more activities, but did not specify how the definitions were 

changed. We found that over 50 percent of the increase in technology 

funding from 2002 to 2003 was due to increases in two existing DOE 

accounts: nuclear energy supply and science (fusion, sequestration, and 

hydrogen). OMB reported funding of $32 million in 2002, and $257 million 

in 2003, for the nuclear energy supply account.7

 Further, OMB reported 

funding of $35 million in 2002, and $298 million in 2003, for the science 

(fusion, sequestration, and hydrogen) account. Although OMB stated in its 

May 2004 report that 2003 funding data included more activities within 

certain accounts, including the research and development of nuclear and 

fusion energy, the report was unclear about whether the funding increases 

for these two existing accounts were due to the addition of more programs 

to the accounts or increased funding for existing programs already counted 

in the accounts. Further, if new programs were counted in these accounts, 

OMB did not specify what programs were added and why. 

OMB officials told us that the definitions of some accounts were changed 

to include more nuclear programs because, while the prior administration 

did not consider nuclear programs to be part of its activities relating to 

climate change, the current administration does consider them to be a key 

part of the CCTP.

Third, OMB did not maintain the distinction that it had made in previous 

reports between funding for programs whose primary focus is climate 

change and programs where climate change is not the primary focus. As a 

result, certain accounts in the technology category were consolidated into 

larger accounts. From 1993 through 2001, OMB presented funding data as 

directly or indirectly related to climate change. The former programs are 

those for which climate change is a primary purpose, such as renewable 

energy research and development. The latter are programs that have 

another primary purpose, but which support climate change goals. For 

example, grants to help low-income people weatherize their dwellings are 

intended primarily to reduce heating costs, but may also help reduce the 

consumption of fossil fuels. OMB did not maintain the distinction between 

the two kinds of programs for 2002, 2003, and 2004 funding data. For 

7

We counted the Nuclear Energy Research Initiative (NERI) account as Nuclear Energy 

Supply funding for 2002. The NERI account is counted in the aggregate Energy Supply – 

Nuclear budget account in OMB’s 2004 and 2005 reports, and is no longer presented 

separately.
Page 14 GAO-05-461 Climate Change Funding

example, OMB presented energy conservation funding of $810 million in 

2001, including $619 million in direct research and development funding, 

and $191 million in indirect funding for weatherization and state energy 

grants. In contrast, 2002 funding data presented by OMB reflected energy 

conservation funding of $897 million, including $622 million in research 

and development, $230 million for weatherization, and $45 million for state 

energy grants, but did not distinguish between direct and indirect funding. 

OMB presented energy conservation funding of $880 million in 2003, and 

$868 million in 2004, as single accounts without any additional detail. 

OMB officials stated that they had adopted a different approach to 

reporting climate change funding to reflect the new program structures as 

the CCSP and CCTP were being established. They stated that the result 

was, in some cases, an aggregation of activities that may have previously 

been reported in separate accounts. According to the officials, the 2003 and 

2004 data more accurately reflect the range of climate change-related 

programs as they are now organized. OMB included a crosswalk in its May 

2004 report that showed 2003 funding levels as they would have been 

presented using the methodology of previous reports. While the crosswalk 

identified funding for accounts that were presented in previous reports, it 

did not identify new funding reported by OMB or specify whether such 

funding was the result of counting new programs, a decision to start 

counting existing programs as climate change-related, or shifts between 

categories. OMB officials told us that the reporting methodology has 

changed since the initial reports and that it may be difficult to resolve the 

differences because of changes in budget and account structure. Finally, 

they noted that each report has been prepared in response to a one-time 

requirement and that there has been no requirement for a consistent 

reporting format from one year to the next or to explain differences in 

methodology from one report to another. 
Page 15 GAO-05-461 Climate Change Funding

Science According to both OMB and CCSP, the share of total climate change 

funding devoted to science decreased from 56 percent in 1993 to 39 percent 

in 2004, even though science funding increased from $1.31 billion to $1.98 

billion (51 percent), or from $1.82 billion to $1.98 billion (9 percent) after 

adjusting for inflation. For example, according to OMB, funding for NASA 

on activities such as the satellite measurement of atmospheric ozone 

concentrations increased from $888 million to $1.26 billion.8

OMB reported new science funding for 2003 and 2004 to reflect the creation 

of CCRI. Funding for CCRI increased from $41 million in 2003, the first year 

funding for CCRI was presented, to $173 million in 2004, and included 

funding by most of the agencies presented in table 3. We present funding 

for CCRI as a separate program to illustrate the new organization’s role in 

increasing reported climate change funding. Table 3 presents funding as 

reported by OMB for the eight largest agencies and programs in the science 

category, which account for 99 percent of the science total for 2004. Yearby-year data on science funding are available in appendixes II and IV.

8

The $1.26 billion figure includes NASA’s reported funding for the United States Global 

Change Research Program. NASA funding for CCRI is reported separately.
Page 16 GAO-05-461 Climate Change Funding

Table 3: Reported Science Funding by Agency or Program, Selected Years

Source: GAO analysis of OMB data.

Note: Blank cells indicate that OMB generally presented climate science funding with one account per 

agency. 

a

Beginning in 2004, NASA funding reflects full-cost accounting, meaning institutional activities such as 

personnel and facilities (which had been held in separate accounts) are included. NASA’s climate 

change funding varies based on changes in its budget for space observing platforms, the natural 

development cycle of its satellites, and revisions to mission profiles.

Discretionary budget authority in millions of dollars

Agency or program Account 1993 1997 2001 2004

NASAa

 Science, Aeronautics, and Technology $888 $1,218 $1,176 $1,256

National Science Foundation Research and Related Activities 124 166 181 185

CCRI Various accounts for eight agencies 173

DOE Science (Biological and Environmental 

Research)

118 109 116 102

Department of Commerce - National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

Operations, Research, and Facilities 66 60 93 82

Department of Agriculture Agriculture Research Service and 4 

other accounts

55 57 51 64

Department of Health and Human 

Services

National Institutes of Health (NIH) 54 62

Department of Interior - U.S. Geological 

Survey

Surveys and Research 22 26 27 28

Other 33 20 30 24

Total $1,306 $1,656 $1,728 $1,976
Page 17 GAO-05-461 Climate Change Funding

Science funding data from 1993 through 2004, as reported by OMB and 

CCSP, were generally comparable, although there were more discrepancies 

in earlier years than in later years.9

 Science funding totals reported by 

CCSP from 1993 through 1997 were within 3 percent of the OMB totals for 

all years except 1996 and 1997. Science funding totals reported by CCSP in 

1996 and 1997 were $156 million (9 percent) and $162 million (10 percent) 

higher than those reported by OMB. Over 90 percent of the difference for 

these years occurred because CCSP reported greater funding for NASA 

than OMB reported. CCSP stated in its fiscal year 1998 report that it 

increased its 1996 and 1997 budget figures to reflect the reclassification of 

certain programs and activities in some agencies that were not previously 

included in the science funding total. 

Total science funding reported by OMB and CCSP from 1998 through 2004 

was identical for 4 of the 7 years. The largest difference for the 3 years that 

were not identical was $8 million in 2001, which represented less than 1 

percent of the science funding total reported by OMB for that year. The 

other differences in total science funding were $3 million in 2002, and $1 

million in 1999, and each represented less than 1 percent of the OMB 

science total for those years. 

Science funding by agency, as presented by OMB and CCSP from 1993 

through 1997, differed in many cases, with the exception of funding for the 

National Science Foundation (NSF), which was nearly identical over that 

time period. For example, CCSP reported $143 million more funding for 

NASA in 1996 than OMB reported, and OMB reported $24.9 million more 

funding for DOE in 1994 than CCSP reported. The greatest dollar difference 

related to NASA’s funding in 1997. Whereas OMB reported funding of $1.22 

billion, CCSP reported funding of $1.37 billion—$151 million, or 12 percent 

more than the OMB amount. The greatest percentage difference related to 

the Department of the Interior’s funding in 1993. Whereas OMB reported 

funding of $22 million, CCSP reported funding of $37.7 million—$15.7 

million, or 71 percent more than reported by OMB. Further, from 1993 

through 1997, OMB did not report science funding by some agencies that 

were reported by CCSP. For example, CCSP reported that DOD’s funding 

ranged from $5.7 to $6.6 million from 1993 through 1995, and that the 

9

CCSP’s most recent report (July 2004) presents estimated 2004 funding, whereas OMB’s 

most recent report (March 2005) presents actual 2004 funding. Whenever we compare 2004 

science funding as reported by OMB and CCSP, we are comparing estimated 2004 funding 

presented in OMB’s May 2004 report and CCSP’s July 2004 report.
Page 18 GAO-05-461 Climate Change Funding

Tennessee Valley Authority received funding of $1 million or less per year 

from 1993 through 1997, but OMB did not report any such funding.

OMB officials told us that data used for the 1993 through 1997 science 

funding comparison with CCSP were collected too long ago to be able to 

identify the differences. However, they stated that the data from early years 

were produced in a very short period for use in testimony or questions for 

the record. According to OMB, this quick turnaround did not allow time for 

a thorough consistency check with other data sources. 

From 1998 through 2004, OMB and CCSP data on funding by agency were 

nearly identical. Both OMB and CCSP reported science funding for nine 

agencies over the entire 7-year period, for a total of 63 agency funding 

amounts. Of these, 52, or 83 percent, matched exactly. Of the 11 

differences, there was one difference of $8 million, one of $2 million, and 

nine of $1 million or less. The greatest difference from 1998 through 2004 

was $8 million in funding for the Department of Commerce in 2001, which 

was 9 percent of the Department of Commerce total, or less than 1 percent 

of total science funding as reported by OMB for that year. 

In addition to presenting data on funding by agency and total science 

funding, CCSP included more detailed science data in its Our Changing 

Planet reports. CCSP used several ways of categorizing data on science 

funding in its reports, but the data were difficult to compare over the entire 

time period because CCSP periodically introduced new categorization 

methods without explaining how the new methods could be compared with 

the ones they replaced. Specifically, from 1993 through 2004, in addition to 

reported funding by agency, CCSP used seven different methods to present 

detailed science funding data, making it impossible to develop consistent 

funding trends over the entire timeframe. For example, CCSP presented 

climate change science funding from 1993 through 1998 by budget function, 

a method that presents funding by agency in categories such as energy, 

agriculture, and natural resources and environment. CCSP presented 

science funding data for 1998 by budget function and also by research 

element, a new categorization method that divided funding by major 

components of the earth’s environmental systems, such as “Global Water 

Cycle” and “Atmospheric Composition.” In subsequent Our Changing 

Planet reports, CCSP continued to use the research element categorization 

method to present science funding, but stopped using the budget function 

method without explaining how the two methods compared to each other. 

As a consequence, the detailed science funding trends presented by budget 
Page 19 GAO-05-461 Climate Change Funding

function from 1993 through 1998 cannot be compared to funding presented 

by research element from 1998 through 2004. 

From 1999 through 2004, in addition to funding by agency, CCSP used two 

categorization methods, but these methods changed, making comparisons 

over time difficult. The two other categorization methods employed by 

CCSP included research element, described above, and program by agency, 

which listed funding by specific programs within each agency. Both of 

these methods changed from 1999 through 2004. For example, the research 

elements used to categorize funding in 2000 included “Understanding the 

Climate System,” “Understanding the Composition and Chemistry of the 

Atmosphere,” “Global Water Cycle,” “Global Carbon Cycle,” 

“Understanding Changes in Ecosystems,” “Understanding the Human 

Dimensions of Global Change,” and “Paleoclimate: The History of the Earth 

System.” In contrast, the research elements that were used to categorize 

2004 funding eliminated the “Paleoclimate” element and added a “Land 

Use” element. 

Further, the program by agency categorization method became less 

detailed over time. For funding from 1993 through 2001, this method 

included comparable program descriptions and presented program-specific 

funding by agency. Reported funding for 2002, 2003, and 2004 generally 

continued this presentation style, but some agencies replaced the programspecific funding with less detailed funding categorizations. For example, 

from 1993 through 2000, CCSP presented detailed funding for certain NASA 

programs, including funding for the Earth Observing System, a series of 

satellites and advanced data systems designed to study clouds, 

atmospheric chemistry, and other processes. However, CCSP presented 

less detail for NASA’s funding from 2001 through 2004, and did not present 

funding by specific program over this time period. As a consequence, 

NASA’s funding for the Earth Observing System and other specific 

programs can no longer be identified in the CCSP reports. Similarly, CCSP 

presented less detail for NSF funding from 2002 through 2004.

The director of CCSP told us that changes to reports, such as the creation 

and deletion of different categorization methods, were made because CCSP 

is changing towards a goals-oriented budget, and that categorization 

methods changed as the program evolved. The director also said that future 

reports will explicitly present budget data as they were reported in prior 

reports to retain continuity, even if new methods are introduced. Another 

CCSP official told us that CCSP now works with OMB to ensure that 

consistent funding information is presented in Our Changing Planet
Page 20 GAO-05-461 Climate Change Funding

reports and OMB reports, and that, beginning with the fiscal year 2006 

report (to be published in late-2005), CCSP will attempt to explain when 

and why changes are made to reporting methods. 

International Assistance From 1993 through 2004, international assistance funding decreased from 9 

percent to 5 percent of total federal funding on climate change, as reported 

by OMB. Over the same time period, international assistance funding 

increased from $201 million to $252 million (an increase of 25 percent), but 

after adjusting for inflation, decreased from $280 million to $252 million (a 

decrease of 10 percent). For example, reported funding for the Department 

of the Treasury to help developing countries invest in energy efficiency, 

renewable energy, and the development of clean energy technologies, such 

as fuel cells, increased from zero in 1993 to $32 million in 2004. Table 4 

presents funding as reported by OMB for the three largest accounts in the 

international assistance category. Year-by-year data on international 

assistance funding are available in appendixes II and IV.

Table 4: Reported International Assistance Funding, Selected Accounts and Years

Source: GAO analysis of OMB data.

Note: Blank cells indicate that OMB did not report a value in the international assistance category for 

this account for this year.

a

OMB did not include the Department of the Treasury’s funding for the Global Environment Facility 

(GEF) in the international assistance category from 1994 through 2001. OMB presented GEF funding 

in the international assistance category from 2002 through 2004. To maintain consistency, we included 

GEF funding in the international assistance category from 1994 through 2004 for the purposes of this 

report. 

International assistance funding reported by OMB was generally 

comparable over time, although some new accounts were added without 

explanation. For example, OMB reported climate change funding of $2 

million in 2003 and $3 million in 2004 by USAID on the Andean 

Discretionary budget authority in millions of dollars

Agency Account 1993 1997 2001 2004

U.S. Agency for International 

Development (USAID)

Development Assistance $200 $147 $112 $125

Assistance for the Independent States 

of the Former Soviet Union

31 47

Department of the Treasury Global Environment Facilitya 14 41 32

Other 1 3 34 48

Total $201 $164 $218 $252
Page 21 GAO-05-461 Climate Change Funding

Counterdrug Initiative, but OMB did not report funding for this account in 

previous years. According to OMB, the Andean Counterdrug Initiative 

promoted carbon capture and sequestration by reducing illicit coca 

production in Peru. In its reports, OMB did not provide an explanation of 

whether such new accounts reflected the creation of new programs or a 

decision to count existing programs as climate change-related for the first 

time. OMB officials told us that the presentation of new accounts in the 

international assistance category was due to the establishment of new 

programs and the inclusion of existing programs. They told us that the 

account-by-account display in the reports has been changed over time as 

climate change programs have become better defined.

Tax Expenditures Although not required to provide information on tax expenditures related 

to climate change, OMB reported certain information related to climaterelated tax expenditures for each year. Specifically, it listed proposed

climate-related tax expenditures appearing in the President’s budget, but it 

did not report revenue loss estimates for existing climate-related tax 

expenditures from 1993 through 2004. Based on the Department of the 

Treasury’s tax expenditure list published in the 2006 budget,10 we identified 

four existing tax expenditures that have purposes similar to programs 

reported by OMB in its climate change reports. In 2004, estimated revenue 

losses amounted to hundreds of millions of dollars for the following tax 

expenditures:11

• $330 million in revenue losses was estimated for new technology tax 

credits to reduce the cost of generating electricity from renewable 

resources. A credit of 10 percent was available for investment in solar 

and geothermal energy facilities. In addition, a credit of 1.5 cents was 

available per kilowatt hour of electricity produced from renewable 

resources such as biomass, poultry waste, and wind facilities. 

10The Department of the Treasury reported 2004 tax expenditures in the Budget of the U.S. 

Government, Fiscal Year 2006 edition, Analytical Perspectives volume, chapter 19. 

11The Department of the Treasury calculated each tax expenditure estimate assuming other 

parts of the tax code remained unchanged. Because tax provisions can be interdependent, 

we do not report the mathematical sum of the revenue losses estimated for the four climaterelated tax expenditures, and instead present this general gauge of the magnitude of 

revenue forgone for climate-related tax expenditures. 
Page 22 GAO-05-461 Climate Change Funding

• $100 million in revenue losses was estimated for excluded interest on 

energy facility bonds to reduce the cost of investing in certain 

hydroelectric and solid waste disposal facilities. The interest earned on 

state and local bonds used to finance the construction of certain 

hydroelectric generating facilities was tax exempt. Some solid waste 

disposal facilities that produced electricity also qualified for this 

exemption. 

• $100 million in revenue losses was estimated for excluded income from 

conservation subsidies provided by public utilities to reduce the cost of 

purchasing energy-efficient technologies. Residential utility customers 

could exclude from their taxable income energy conservation subsidies 

provided by public utilities. Customers could exclude subsidies used for 

installing or modifying certain equipment that reduced energy 

consumption or improved the management of energy demand. 

• $70 million in revenue losses was estimated for tax incentives for the 

purchase of clean fueled vehicles to reduce automobile emissions. A tax 

credit of 10 percent, not to exceed $4,000, was available to purchasers of 

electric vehicles. Purchasers of vehicles powered by compressed 

natural gas, hydrogen, alcohol, and other clean fuels could deduct up to 

$50,000 of the vehicle purchase costs from their taxable income, 

depending upon the weight and cost of the vehicle. Similarly, owners of 

refueling properties could deduct up to $100,000 for the purchase of refueling equipment for clean fueled vehicles. 

OMB officials said that they consistently reported proposed tax 

expenditures where a key purpose was specifically to reduce greenhouse 

gas emissions. They also stated that they did not include existing tax 

expenditures that may have greenhouse gas benefits but were enacted for 

other purposes, and that the Congress has provided no guidance to suggest 

additional tax expenditure data should be included in the annual reports. 

OMB’s decision criteria for determining which tax expenditures to include 

differed in two key respects from its criteria for determining which 

accounts to include. First, OMB presented funding for existing as well as 

proposed accounts, but presented information only on proposed, but not 

existing, tax expenditures. Second, OMB presented funding for programs 

where a key purpose was specifically to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, 

as well as for programs that may have greenhouse gas benefits but were 

enacted for other purposes. However, OMB presented information only on 
Page 23 GAO-05-461 Climate Change Funding

proposed tax expenditures where a key purpose was specifically to reduce 

greenhouse gas emissions.

Reported Funding for 

Most Agencies 

Increased, but 

Unexplained Changes 

in Report Content 

Limit the 

Comparability of Data 

Over Time

OMB reported that 12 of the 14 agencies that received funding for climate 

change programs in 2004 received more funding in that year than they had 

in 1993. However, it is unclear whether funding changed as much as 

reported by OMB because unexplained modifications in the reports’ 

contents limit the comparability of agencies’ funding data. From 1993 

through 2004, climate change funding for DOE increased more than any 

other agency, from $963 million to $2.52 billion, for an increase of $1.56 

billion (162 percent). Adjusted for inflation, such funding increased from 

$1.34 billion to $2.52 billion, for an increase of $1.18 billion (88 percent). 

The second largest increase in agency funding was for NASA, which 

received a $660 million (74 percent) increase in funding over the same time 

period. NASA’s funding increased $310 million (25 percent) over this period 

after adjusting for inflation. The funding increases for these two agencies 

accounted for 81 percent of the reported total increase in federal climate 

change funding from 1993 through 2004. Conversely, USAID experienced 

the largest decrease in funding—from $200 million in 1993 to $195 million 

in 2004 (3 percent), or, in inflation-adjusted terms, from $279 million to 

$195 million (30 percent). 

From 1993 through 2004, eight agencies’ funding increased as a share of the 

total federal funding for climate change, while the other six agencies’ 

funding decreased as a share of the total. DOE’s funding increased at a 

faster rate than other agencies from 1993 through 2004, meaning its share 

increased more than the funding shares of other agencies. For example, 

DOE’s share of total climate change funding increased from 41 percent in 

1993, to 49 percent in 2004, for a share increase of almost 9 percent. The 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) experienced the next largest 

share increase from 1 percent of the total in 1993, to 2 percent of the total 

in 2004, for a share increase of 1 percent. By contrast, although NASA’s 

climate change funding increased by $660 million, its share decreased from 

38 percent in 1993, to 30 percent in 2004, because its funding did not 

increase as fast as some other agencies, most notably DOE. Table 5 

presents funding as reported by OMB for selected agencies. Year-by-year 

data on funding by agency are available in appendix III.
Page 24 GAO-05-461 Climate Change Funding

Table 5: Reported Climate Change Funding by Agency, Selected Years

Source: GAO analysis of OMB data.

Unexplained changes in the content of OMB reports limit the comparability 

of agencies’ funding data, and therefore it is unclear whether funding 

changed as much as was reported by OMB. Because agency funding totals 

are composed of individual accounts, the changes in the reports’ contents 

discussed earlier, such as the unexplained addition of accounts to the 

technology category, limit the comparability of agencies’ funding data over 

time. For example, OMB reported Army, Navy, Air Force, and Defense-wide 

funding totaling $83 million in 2003, and $51 million in 2004, in accounts 

titled Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation, but did not report 

these accounts for prior years. OMB did not explain whether these 

accounts reflected the creation of new programs or a decision to count 

existing programs for the first time. Accordingly, there is some uncertainty 

about DOD’s climate change funding over time. Similarly, OMB reported 

funding for other agencies in some years but not in others, without 

explanation. For example, OMB did not report any funding for the 

Department of Transportation from 2000 through 2002, but reported 

funding of $27 million in 2003, and $9 million in 2004, for the development 

of hydrogen fuel cells.12 OMB also presented $10 million of funding for the 

Department of Housing and Urban Development in 1999 and 2000, but in no 

other years. 

Discretionary budget authority in millions of dollars

Agency 1993 1997 2001 2004

DOE $963 $968 $1,665 $2,519

NASA 888 1,218 1,176 1,548

NSF 124 222 181 226

USAID 200 147 157 195

Department of Commerce 66 102 93 144

EPA 26 99 146 127

Department of Agriculture 55 57 54 115

Other 30 63 131 216

Total $2,352 $2,876 $3,603 $5,090

12OMB reported climate change funding for the Department of Transportation for research 

related to automobile safety ranging from $3 million to $13 million from 1995 through 1999. 
Page 25 GAO-05-461 Climate Change Funding

OMB officials told us that agencies can be included in reports for the first 

time when new initiatives or programs are started, such as the CCTP. In 

some cases, those initiatives or programs are made up of entirely new 

funding but in other cases they may be additions on top of a small amount 

of base funding. These officials told us that agencies sometimes include 

data that were not previously reported when they requested funding for 

those initiatives, but they assured us that the data are reported consistently 

for the 3 years presented in each report. 

OMB Reports 

Presented Information 

on Budget Authority 

Rather Than—as 

Required by the 

Congress—on 

Expenditures and 

Obligations

The federal budget process is complex, and there are numerous steps that 

culminate in the outlay of federal funds. Among the key steps in this 

process are the following, as defined by OMB:

• Budget authority means the authority provided in law to incur 

financial obligations that will result in outlays.

• Obligations are binding agreements that will result in outlays, 

immediately or in the future.

• Outlays are payments to liquidate an obligation. The Congress, in the 

Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, as 

amended, has defined outlays as being the expenditures and net lending 

of funds under budget authority.

In simplified terms, budget authority precedes obligations, which precede 

outlays in the process of spending federal funds.

As noted above, since 1999, the Congress has required the President to 

submit a report each year to the Senate and House Committees on 

Appropriations describing in detail all federal agency obligations and 

expenditures, domestic and international, for climate change programs and 

activities. In response, OMB has annually published the Federal Climate 

Change Expenditures Report to Congress that presents budget authority 

information in summary data tables instead of obligations and 

expenditures, as the title of the report and the table titles suggest. For 

example, although the March 2005 report’s summary table is entitled in 

bold as a “Summary of Federal Climate Change Expenditures,” the table’s 

data are presented in terms of budget authority. The only indication that 

the table presents budget authority information, rather than expenditures, 

is a parenthetical statement to that effect in a significantly smaller font.
Page 26 GAO-05-461 Climate Change Funding

OMB officials told us that the term “expenditures” is used in the report title 

and text because that is the term used most often in the legislative 

language. They also said that the reports present data in terms of budget 

authority because OMB has always interpreted the bill and report language 

to request the budget authority levels for each activity in a particular year. 

They stated further that, from a technical budget standpoint, expenditures 

are usually synonymous with outlays, and that one way to think of budget 

authority is that it is the level of expenditures (over a period of one or more 

years) that is made available in a particular appropriations bill. OMB views 

this as an appropriate interpretation of the congressional requirements 

since the Committees on Appropriations work with budget authority and 

not outlays. Moreover, OMB told us that the Appropriations Committees 

have never objected to its interpretation of “obligations and expenditures” 

as budget authority and that OMB has always identified the data provided 

in the table as budget authority.

We have several concerns with OMB’s approach. First, OMB’s approach of 

reporting budget authority does not comply with the language of the annual 

legal requirements to report on climate change “obligations and 

expenditures.” Second, in reviewing the legislative history of these 

reporting requirements, we found no support for OMB’s interpretation that 

when the Congress called for “obligations and expenditures” information, it 

actually meant “budget authority” information. Third, OMB’s interpretation 

is not consistent with its own Circular A-11, which defines budget authority 

as stated above, not as actual obligations and expenditures. Nonetheless, 

we recognize that it is not possible for OMB to meet the most recent 

reporting requirements because it must provide a report on climate change 

obligations and expenditures for the current fiscal year within 45 days of 

submitting the President’s budget for the following fiscal year (which must 

be submitted the first Monday of February). For example, the President 

submitted the fiscal year 2006 budget on February 7, 2005, so OMB’s report 

on fiscal year 2005 climate change expenditures and obligations had to be 

submitted in March 2005—approximately halfway through the 2005 fiscal 

year. However, complete expenditures data are available only after the end 

of each fiscal year. Thus, OMB could not meet both the timing requirement 

and report all actual expenditures and obligations in fiscal year 2005. 

CCSP has also reported budget authority data in its Our Changing Planet

reports. As noted above, CCSP, or its predecessor organization, initially 

was required to report annually on certain climate change “amounts spent,” 

“amounts expected to be spent,” and “amounts requested,” but this 

reporting requirement was terminated in 2000. Currently, CCSP is 
Page 27 GAO-05-461 Climate Change Funding

responsible for reporting information relating to the federal budget and 

federal funding for climate change science, not climate change expenditure 

information. Since 2000, CCSP has fulfilled these reporting requirements by 

providing budget authority information in its Our Changing Planet reports.

Conclusions The Congress has required the administration to provide reports on federal 

climate change spending, funding, and requested funding. From year to 

year there were numerous changes in the format and content of OMB and 

CCSP reports, but the reasons for such changes have generally not been 

well explained. Consequently, these reports—taken collectively—do not 

provide a fully comparable picture of funding or spending trends, and the 

Congress and the public cannot consistently track federal climate change 

funding or spending over time. Accordingly, it is unclear whether funding 

or spending has changed as much as was reported. Even though the 

agencies have not been required to follow a consistent reporting format 

from one year to the next, we believe the Congress would have better 

information for policy decisions if OMB and CCSP clearly explained 

changes in report content and format when they occurred and 

communicated how such changes affected trends over time. 

Further, even though OMB is not required to include information on tax 

expenditures in its reports, it included certain information on proposed tax 

expenditures each year. In order to present a complete picture of federal 

resources supporting climate-related activities, we believe that OMB 

should also include information on existing tax expenditures. For the same 

reason, we believe that OMB should use the same criteria for determining 

what types of tax expenditures to include in its reports as it uses in 

determining which funding accounts to include. 

We found that OMB reports presented information on budget authority, 

not—as required by the Congress--on expenditures and obligations. OMB is 

aware of this discrepancy because it uses the term “expenditures” in the 

reports’ titles and tables, but presents budget authority data. Although 

OMB asserts that this approach is sufficient because the Committees on 

Appropriations have not objected, and while we recognize that it is not 

possible for OMB to meet both the substantive and timing requirements for 

the reports, we believe that OMB should take the initiative regarding future 

reporting requirements and request that the Congress specify that the 

reports should include budget authority information or provide OMB with 

additional time so that it can report actual expenditures and obligations.
Page 28 GAO-05-461 Climate Change Funding

Recommendations for 

Executive Action

To better ensure that the Congress and the public can consistently track 

federal climate change funding or spending over time, we are making the 

following seven recommendations.

We recommend that OMB and CCSP, 

• from year-to-year, each use the same format for presenting data, to the 

extent that they may do so and remain in compliance with reporting 

requirements;

• explain changes in report content or format when they are introduced; 

and

• provide and maintain a crosswalk comparing new and old report 

structures when changes in report format are introduced. 

We also recommend that OMB

• include information on existing climate-related tax expenditures in its 

reports,

• use the same criteria for determining which tax expenditures to include 

as it uses for determining which accounts to include;

• request that the Congress clarify whether future reports should be 

presented in terms of expenditures and obligations or in terms of budget 

authority, and if the Congress prefers the former, OMB should request 

the necessary time to prepare reports on that basis; and

• if it continues to report budget authority rather than expenditures and 

obligations, clearly identify the information reported as budget authority 

throughout the report.

Agency Comments and 

Our Evaluation

We provided a draft of this report to the Director, OMB, and the Director, 

CCSP, for their review and comment. The Deputy Associate Director of 

OMB’s Natural Resources Division provided oral comments on August 1, 

2005. He said that OMB agreed with most of our recommendations. 

Specifically, he said OMB agreed with our recommendations regarding the 

format and content of its reports, and was studying the recommendations 

on its presentation of tax expenditure data and use of budget terminology. 
Page 29 GAO-05-461 Climate Change Funding

The Director, CCSP, provided comments in a letter dated July 28, 2005, (see 

app. V). CCSP stated that the report presents a fair assessment of how 

CCSP documents and presents budget information, and agreed with all of 

our recommendations.

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

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

issuance. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the Director, 

CCSP; Director, OMB; and other interested officials. We will make copies 

available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be available at 

no charge on GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me 

at (202) 512-3841. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations 

and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff 

who made major contributions to this report are listed in appendix VI,

John B. Stephenson

Director, Natural Resources

and Environment
Page 30 GAO-05-461 Climate Change Funding

Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology ApApenednxidexiIs

This report examines federal climate change funding from 1993 through 

2004, as reported by OMB and CCSP to determine (1) how total funding and 

funding by category changed and the extent to which data on such funding 

are comparable over time and (2) how funding by agency changed and the 

extent to which data on such funding are comparable over time. To answer 

these objectives we analyzed annual reports and congressional testimony 

on climate change funding. If changes in the reports were not explained, we 

asked responsible officials to explain the changes. To examine whether 

OMB and CCSP reports presented the data required by the Congress, we 

reviewed the reporting requirements, the legislative history of the 

requirements, and the data provided by OMB and CCSP in their reports.

OMB presented federal climate change funding from 1993 through 1998 in 

testimony before the Congress, and from 1999 through 2004 in annual 

reports. The administration also reported annually from 1993 through 2004 

on funding for climate change science, one of the four categories used in 

OMB reports. The term “funding” in this report reflects discretionary 

budget authority, or the authority provided in law to incur financial 

obligations that will result in outlays, as reported by OMB and CCSP in 

their reports. For each annual report, OMB and CCSP generally presented 

estimated funding for the year of the report, actual funding for the previous 

year, and proposed funding for the next year. For example, OMB’s July 2002 

report includes actual funding for fiscal year 2001, estimated funding for 

fiscal year 2002, and proposed funding for fiscal year 2003. We analyzed the 

most recently reported actual funding (not estimates) reported by OMB 

and CCSP. The exceptions were 1993, 1994, and 2004, where we present 

estimated science funding for CCSP.1

1

CCSP’s reports presented estimated funding for 1993 and 1994, and did not include actual 

funding amounts for these years. CCSP’s fiscal year 2006 report is expected to be published 

in late-2005.
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 31 GAO-05-461 Climate Change Funding

We consolidated actual funding data presented in OMB and CCSP reports 

and testimony. OMB reports presented climate change funding in four 

categories (technology, science, international assistance, and tax 

expenditures), and reports prior to 2002 also distinguished between direct 

and indirect climate change funding.2

 We assembled a consolidated OMB 

account table (shown in app. IV) using the four category direct/indirect 

framework. We used OMB’s 1999 testimony (which presented funding data 

from 1993 through 1998) as the baseline for the consolidated table, and 

analyzed OMB’s annual reports to identify whether accounts listed in the 

reports matched those presented in the testimony. If the account matched 

an account from the testimony, we included the value for the existing 

account in the consolidated table. If the account was not presented in the 

testimony, we added the account to the consolidated table. We continued 

this process until the consolidated table presented in appendix IV included 

all the accounts reported by OMB from 1993 through 2004, and used a 

similar methodology to consolidate CCSP reports.3

 We did not include 

accounts in the appendixes where OMB presented data on proposed, but 

not actual, funding. We calculated totals for some accounts using data 

presented by OMB in its reports. These accounts are labeled in appendix IV.

After consolidating the OMB and CCSP report accounts, we developed 

totals for funding by category and agency for each year. We presented 

category totals as developed by OMB, when available, and calculated 

category totals when no OMB total was available. To develop agency 

funding totals, we identified accounts in appendix IV associated with each 

agency and summed them. However, OMB stated, and our analysis 

confirmed, that the sum of the accounts for a category or agency may not 

match the category or agency totals presented by OMB in its reports. 

According to OMB, the differences in account sums and category and 

agency totals were due to removal of programs that were counted in more 

than one account or category. OMB officials said they were unable to 

2

OMB no longer maintains the distinction between direct and indirect funding in its reports. 

Indirect funding accounts, which had been labeled “other climate-related programs” in its 

reports prior to 2002, were consolidated into the technology category in 2003, with the 

exception of funding for GEF, which was included in the international assistance category. 

Based on how OMB re-categorized this funding, we present indirect funding from 1993 to 

2001 as “indirect technology,” with the exception of GEF, which we included in the 

international category for all years.

3

We do not include a consolidated table for CCSP climate change science funding because 

OMB science funding information presented in appendix IV is generally comparable to the 

CCSP totals.
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 32 GAO-05-461 Climate Change Funding

determine the effect of these double counts over time because they did not 

keep a single database with the report information for each year. 

Accordingly, we presented OMB category totals when they were available. 

If OMB did not present a funding category total, we calculated it by 

summing the accounts for each category. OMB presented agency funding 

totals for 2003 and 2004, but not for the other years. To ensure consistency 

over the entire time period, we calculated agency funding totals for all 

years by adding the accounts in appendix IV associated with each agency. 

In 2003 and 2004, the account sums we calculated and the agency totals 

presented by OMB were within $1 million of each other in all cases but one, 

2004 funding for USAID. According to OMB, $6 million of USAID funding 

was presented in two different places in the report. Our methodology 

would have counted this $6 million twice, so we adjusted the USAID total 

to reflect OMB’s agency total. We did not adjust the agency totals we 

calculated in any other cases. CCSP reports already presented climate 

change science funding by agency. We then used the funding by agency, 

funding by category, and consolidated account tables to analyze funding 

trends over time and compare OMB and CCSP science totals. Funding by 

category is presented in appendix II, and funding by agency is presented in 

appendix III. 

To identify existing tax expenditures aimed at promoting energy 

conservation and encouraging supply of renewable and alternative energy, 

we reviewed the list of tax expenditures developed by the Department of 

the Treasury for the fiscal year 2006 budget. We present the estimated 2004 

revenue losses due to these tax expenditures as reported in the Budget of 

the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 2006 edition, Analytical Perspectives, 

chapter 19.4

 

We determined that the data available in the OMB and CCSP reports were 

sufficiently reliable for our purposes because the reports were 

supplements to the budget (in the case of CCSP) or assembled from the 

budget (in the case of OMB). Unless otherwise specified, we report funding 

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

years. When we adjusted for inflation, to put the data in fiscal year 2004 

dollars, we used a fiscal year price index that we calculated based on the 

4

The Department of the Treasury also produces outlay equivalent estimates—the amount of 

budget outlays that would be required to provide the taxpayer with the same after-tax 

income as would be received through the tax expenditure. The outlay equivalent measure 

can be used to compare tax expenditures with spending programs on a more equal footing. 
Appendix I

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

Page 33 GAO-05-461 Climate Change Funding

calendar year price index in the National Income and Product Accounts 

Table 3.10.4: Price Indexes for Government Consumption Expenditures 

and General Government Gross Output, Line 34: Nondefense 

consumption expenditures, published by the Department of Commerce’s 

Bureau of Economic Analysis.

In this report, the term “agency” includes executive departments and 

agencies, and we use the term “account” to describe the budget accounts, 

line items, programs, and activities presented in the OMB and CCSP 

reports. For consistency, we characterize all Our Changing Planet reports 

from 1993 through 2004 as CCSP reports, even though CCSP has been in 

existence only since 2002, and prior reports were published by the 

USGCRP. Totals and percentages may not add due to rounding. For 

presentation purposes, we show federal climate change funding for 1993, 

1997, 2001, and 2004 in report tables. Funding data for 1993 through 2004 

are available in appendixes II, III, and IV. 

We performed our work between July 2004 and August 2005 in accordance 

with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
Page 34 GAO-05-461 Climate Change Funding

Appendix II

Climate Change Funding by Category as 

Reported by OMB ApendxiI

Table 6: Federal Climate Change Funding by Category as Reported by OMB, 1993-2004 

Source: GAO Analysis of OMB Reports.

a

OMB did not report revenue loss estimates for existing climate-related tax expenditures from 1993 

through 2004.

Discretionary budget authority in millions of dollars

Funding category 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Technology $845 $1,038 $1,283 $1,106 $1,056 $1,251 $1,694 $1,793 $1,675 $1,637 $2,555 $2,868

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

International 

assistance 201 186 228 192 164 186 325 177 218 224 270 252

Tax expendituresa

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
Page 35 GAO-05-461 Climate Change Funding

Appendix III

Climate Change Funding by Agency as 

Reported by OMB ApendxiI

Table 7: Climate Change Funding by Agency as Reported by OMB, 1993-2004

Source: GAO Analysis of OMB Reports.

Note: Blank cells indicate that OMB did not report a value for this agency for this year.

Discretionary budget authority in millions of dollars

Agency 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

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

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

National Science Foundation 124 142 222 216 222 214 222 229 181 189 212 226

U.S. Agency for International 

Development 200 173 192 175 147 163 236 156 157 179 214 195

Department of Commerce 66 63 120 113 102 89 93 91 93 100 156 144

Environmental Protection 

Agency 26 73 124 114 99 103 126 124 146 136 124 127

Department of Agriculture 55 56 60 52 57 53 138 132 54 59 104 115

Department of Health and 

Human Services 35 40 47 54 56 61 62

Department of the Treasury 0 12 35 14 14 18 60 14 54 43 56 52

Department of Defense 83 51

Department of Interior 22 29 27 26 26 26 27 27 27 26 29 29

Department of Transportation 5 6 13 5 3 27 9

Department of State 1 1 1 3 3 5 7 7 7 7 6 6

Smithsonian Institution 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 6 6

Department of Housing and 

Urban Development 10 10

Trade and Development Agency 16

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
Page 36 GAO-05-461 Climate Change Funding

Appendix IV

Analysis of OMB Funding Report Accounts ApendxiIV

Table 8: Analysis of OMB Funding Report Accounts, 1993-2004

Discretionary budget authority in millions of dollars

Account 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

TECHNOLOGY

Direct Technology:

Department of Agriculture 0 0 3 3 42 45

Agricultural Research Service 0 0 2 2

Rural Business Service

Renewable Energy Program 0 22 23

Forest Service 

Forest and Rangeland 

Research 00 3 10

Research and Development - 

Inventories of Carbon 

Biomass 1 0

Natural Resources 

Conservation Service 0

Carbon Cycle 1 1

Biomass Research and 

Development 3 14 14

Cooperative State Research, 

Education and Extension 

Service

Biofuels/Biomass research; 

Formula Funds, National 

Research Initiative 3 5

Department of Commerce

National Institutes of Standards 

and Technology 40 28

Industrial Technical 

Services - Advanced 

Technology Program 30 18

Scientific and Technical 

Research Services 0 2 10 10

Department of Defense 83 51

Research, Development, Test 

and Evaluation, Army 45 15

Research, Development, Test 

and Evaluation, Navy 16 17

Research, Development, Test 

and Evaluation, Air Force 3 1
Appendix IV

Analysis of OMB Funding Report Accounts

Page 37 GAO-05-461 Climate Change Funding

Research, Development, Test 

and Evaluation, Defense-wide 19 19

Department of Energy 595 753 829 683 658 729 890 980 1,050 1,519 2,099 2,390

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 249 318 361 268 244 272 332 315 375 400 667 734

Nuclear Energy Research 

Initiative 32

Energy Supply/Electricity 88 73

Energy Supply/Renewables 249 318 361 268 244 272 332 310 370 368 322 352

Energy Supply/Nuclear 0 5 5 257 309

Fossil Energy Research and 

Development 24 52 18 184 253 455

Sequestration Research and 

Development 32

Greenhouse Gas Emission 

Reduction 152

Science 13 33 35 35 298 333

Sequestration 35

Energy Information 

Administration 33 33

Environmental Protection 

Agency 43 102 96 86 90 109 103 123 115 102 110

Environmental Programs and 

Management 35 91 81 70 73 72 76 96 89 82 89

Science and Technology 8 11 15 16 17 37 27 27 26 20 22

Department of Housing and 

Urban Development

Research and Technology 10 10

Department of Interior 1 1

U.S. Geological SurveySurveys, Investigations, and 

Research

Geology Discipline, Energy 

Program 1 1

(Continued From Previous Page)

Discretionary budget authority in millions of dollars

Account 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Appendix IV

Analysis of OMB Funding Report Accounts

Page 38 GAO-05-461 Climate Change Funding

National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration

Exploration, Science and 

Aeronautics 152 227

National Science Foundation

Research and Related 

Activities 9 11

Department of Transportation 27 5

Federal Transit Administration

Capital Investment Grants 26

Office of the Secretary of 

Technology

Transportation, Policy, 

Research and Development 1 4

Research and Innovative 

Technology Administration

Research and Development 0 1

Direct Technology Total $595 $796 $931 $779 $744 $819 $1,009 $1,095 $1,176 $1,637 $2,555 $2,868

Indirect Technology

Department of Energy 250 242 231 212 201 351 417 434 499

Fossil Energy Research and 

Development 250 242 231 212 201 196 233 243 274

Coal - Efficient Combustion 

and Utilization 186 166 144 120 101 105

Natural Gas - Efficient 

Combustion and Utilization 64 76 87 92 100 91

Energy Supply

Nuclear Energy Research and 

Development 0 18 22 34

Energy Conservation Research 

and Development

Weatherization and State 

Energy Grants 155 166 169 191

Biobased Products and 

Bioenergy 195 200

Department of Agriculture 86 76

Agriculture Research Service 44 46

Cooperative State Research, 

Education, and Extension 

Service

(Continued From Previous Page)

Discretionary budget authority in millions of dollars

Account 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Appendix IV

Analysis of OMB Funding Report Accounts

Page 39 GAO-05-461 Climate Change Funding

Research and Education 

Assistance 11 11

Initiative for Future Agriculture 

and Food Systems 9

Forest Service

Forest and Rangeland 

Management 9 9

Executive Operations 1 1

Departmental Administration a a

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

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

(Continued From Previous Page)

Discretionary budget authority in millions of dollars

Account 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Appendix IV

Analysis of OMB Funding Report Accounts

Page 40 GAO-05-461 Climate Change Funding

National Science Foundation

Research and Related 

Activities 53 53 56 47 40 42

Department of Transportation

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration

Operations and Research 5 6 13 5 3

Indirect Technology Total $250 $242 $352 $327 $312 $432 $685 $698 $499 bbb

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

SCIENCE

U.S. Global Change Research Program

Department of Agriculture 55 56 60 52 57 53 52 56 51 56 60 64

Agricultural Research Service 17 18 24 24 26 27 26 28 29 30 35 36

Cooperative State Research, 

Education, and Extension 

Services

Research and Education 11 12 10 10 12 7 7 9 4 9 8 16

Economic Research Service 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 a 0 0

Natural Resources 

Conservation Service

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 12

Department of Commerce

National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration

Operations, Research, and 

Facilities 66 63 57 57 60 60 63 67 93 100 98 82

Department of Energy

Science (Biological and 

Environmental Research) 118 118 113 113 109 106 114 114 116 117 112 102

Environmental Protection 

Agency

Science and Technology 26 30 22 18 13 13 17 21 23 21 22 17

Department of Health and 

Human Services 35

National Institutes of Health 35 40 47 54 56 61 62

(Continued From Previous Page)

Discretionary budget authority in millions of dollars

Account 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Appendix IV

Analysis of OMB Funding Report Accounts

Page 41 GAO-05-461 Climate Change Funding

National Institute of 

Environmental Health 

Sciences 4

National Eye Institutes 9

National Cancer Institute 21

National Institute of Arthritis 

and Musculoskeletal and Skin 

Diseases a

Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey

Surveys, Investigations, and 

Research 22 29 27 26 26 26 27 27 27 26 28 28

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 1,256

National Science Foundation

Research and Related 

Activities 124 142 169 163 166 167 182 187 181 189 188 185

Smithsonian Institution

Salaries and Expenses 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 6 6

U.S. Agency for International 

Development

Development Assistance 660

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

Climate Change Research Initiative

Department of Agriculture 2 6

Agricultural Research Service 0 1

Forest Service

Forest and Rangeland 

Research 1 5

Department of Commerce

National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration

Operations, Research, and 

Facilities 18 34

Department of Energy

Science (Biological and 

Environmental Research) 3 27

(Continued From Previous Page)

Discretionary budget authority in millions of dollars

Account 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Appendix IV

Analysis of OMB Funding Report Accounts

Page 42 GAO-05-461 Climate Change Funding

National Science Foundation

Research and Related 

Activities 15 30

National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration

Science, Aeronautics, and 

Technology 3 65

Department of State

International Organizations and 

Programs 1

Department of Transportation 4

Federal Highway Administration

Federal Aid - Highways 4

U.S. Agency for International 

Development

Development Assistance 6

Climate Change Research 

Initiative Total $41 $173

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

INTERNATIONAL ASSISTANCE

Department of Energy 6

Energy Supply

Solar and Renewable Energy 

Research and Development 6

Department of State

International Organizations and 

Programs 1 1 1 3 3 5 7 7 7 7 6 5

Trade and Development 

Agency 16

Department of the Treasury 43 56 52

International Development 

Assistance

Global Environment Facilityc 12 35 14 14 18 60 14 41 38 56 32

Debt Restructuring

Tropical Forest Conservation 13 5 20

U.S. Agency for International 

Development 236 156 157 174 208 195

Development Assistance 200 173 192 175 147 163 169 109 112 116 140 125

Development Credit Authority 1 1 1

(Continued From Previous Page)

Discretionary budget authority in millions of dollars

Account 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Appendix IV

Analysis of OMB Funding Report Accounts

Page 43 GAO-05-461 Climate Change Funding

Source: GAO Analysis of OMB Reports.

Notes:

GAO calculated the total for shaded cells based on OMB data presented in its reports.

Blank cells indicate that OMB did not report a value for the account for that year.

a

OMB presented funding of less than $500,000 for this account

b

OMB did not distinguish between indirect and direct technology funding for this year.

c

GEF funding as presented by OMB for each year represents the portion of total GEF funding that is 

related to climate change.

d

OMB did not report revenue loss estimates for existing climate-related tax expenditures from 1993 

through 2004.

Economic Support Fund 19 8 12 6 9

Assistance for the Independent 

States of the Former Soviet 

Union 35 34 31 30 48 47

Assistance for Eastern Europe 

and the Baltic States 12 4 13 11 8 7

International Disaster 

Assistance 442

Andean Counterdrug Initiative 2 3

International Assistance Total $201 $186 $228 $192 $164 $186 $325 $177 $218 $224 $270 $252

Tax Expendituresd

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

(Continued From Previous Page)

Discretionary budget authority in millions of dollars

Account 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Page 44 GAO-05-461 Climate Change Funding

Appendix V

Comments from the Climate Change Science 

Program ApendxiV
Appendix V

Comments from the Climate Change Science 

Program

Page 45 GAO-05-461 Climate Change Funding
Appendix V

Comments from the Climate Change Science 

Program

Page 46 GAO-05-461 Climate Change Funding
Page 47 GAO-05-461 Climate Change Funding

Appendix VI

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments ApendxiVI

GAO Contact John B. Stephenson, (202) 512-3841

Staff 

Acknowledgments

In addition to the individual named above, David Marwick, Assistant 

Director, Anne K. Johnson, and Joseph D. Thompson made key 

contributions to this report. Also, John Delicath, Anne Stevens, and Amy 

Webbink made important contributions.

(360527)
GAO’s Mission 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.

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost 

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to 

www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.”

Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to:

U.S. Government Accountability Office

441 G Street NW, Room LM

Washington, D.C. 20548

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Congressional 

Relations

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548

Public Affairs Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548