Carbon dioxide, the major "greenhouse gas" of concern in possible climate change, is producedin large part as a result of energy production and use. The federal government has had programsdealing with energy efficiency and with climate research and services for more than 20 years. TheCongress has held hearings about them since the mid-1970s, when a major goal of such programswas to reduce U.S. dependence on oil imports during the energy crisis, and to expand scientificunderstanding of the dynamics of the climate system and its societal consequences as a basis forpolicy decisions that depend on improved predictions of future climate conditions and on betterclimate impact assessments. U.S. government policies explicitly addressing possible climate change linked to "greenhouse gas" emissions date back to the mid-1980s. (4) Thesepolicies have focused heavily on scientificresearch. The Energy Policy Act of 1992, in conjunction with the U.S. ratification of the 1992United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), influenced the direction ofU.S. efforts, which continued in the first Bush and Clinton Administrations toward energy efficiency,renewable energy, and R&D, (5) to try to movetoward reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The Climate Change Action Plan, designed with the goal of reducing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions and announced in 1993 by the Clinton Administration, included more than 40 on-goingfederal programs to influence, assist, or work with business, state and local governments, scientificand other entities. R&D and other programs since then were largely maintained or modified withsome new activities and names. With evolution from prior efforts, coupled with some augmentation,packages of programs in the Clinton Administration such as the 1997 Climate Change TechnologyInitiative (CCTI) were built upon the earlier efforts, including efforts originally aimed at reducingdependence on oil imports. During the preparations for the final negotiations of the December 1997 Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC, (6) President Clinton announced thethree-stage CCTI on October 22, 1997. (7) It wasdescribed as "the cornerstone of the [Clinton] Administration's efforts to stimulate the developmentand use of renewable energy technologies and energy efficiency products that will help reducegreenhouse gas emissions," (8) through a combinationof R&D, and information and tax incentiveprograms. Stage 1 included funding for R&D, tax incentives for early action, a set of federalgovernment energy initiatives including various tax credits to encourage purchase and use of moreefficient technologies, and industry consultations to explore ways to reduce greenhouse gasemissions. Stage 2, which was planned to begin around 2004, would have reviewed and evaluatedstage 1. Stage 3, as envisioned prior to the Kyoto Protocol, included actions aimed at reducingemissions to 1990 levels by 2008-2012, meeting the binding targets anticipated in the Kyoto Protocolthrough measures that would include domestic and international emissions trading. The KyotoProtocol (which the United States signed on November 11, 1998 but which has not been submittedto the U.S. Senate for advice and consent on ratification), outlines an obligation for the United Statesto reduce its total greenhouse gas emissions by an average of 7% below 1990 levels, on average,between 2008 and 2012. (9) The ClintonAdministration supported United States participation in thisprotocol. The Bush Administration, on the other hand, has rejected the protocol. The Congress has in the past passed budget resolutions and appropriations bills with provisions prohibiting the use of funds to implement the Kyoto Protocol, which has not been ratified by theUnited States or entered into force internationally. Some controversy was engendered by thepossible linkage of funding proposals associated with the CCTI to the Kyoto Protocol goals. Aftersome early consideration of these concerns, for the most part the R & D elements were funded bythe Congress. Moreover, many of the programs related to the CCTI and other climate research preceded the Kyoto Protocol, and were mainly influenced by the voluntary commitments the UnitedStates made in the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change to try to meet a voluntary goalof returning greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2000, and to current efforts toreduce intensity of emissions. (See CRS Report RL30024 , Global Climate Change Policy: Cost,Competitiveness, and Comprehensiveness ). The government's activities relating to climate change have been accomplished through severalprograms, initiatives, and agencies. Coordinating these activities continues to be a challenge. Various organizational structures have been attempted over the past two decades in the effort toimprove coordination and efficiency. An early effort, dating back to the late 1970s, was embodied in the National Climate Program Act of 1978 (H.R. 6669, Public Law 95-367), involving twelve federal agencies vestedwith responsibilities in climate research and services. (10) Designed to centralize planning and toimprove interagency and intergovernmental coordination, the National Climate Program emphasizeddevelopment and delivery of useful climatic information and services to a wide range of users, basedon current knowledge of climate and better use of existing climatic data. Simultaneously, theProgram sought an expanded federal effort in scientific research to foster better understanding of theclimate system and the societal consequences of climate change as a basis for national decisionmaking that depended on improved predictions of future climate conditions and better climate impactassessments. Some ten years after its enactment, however, the National Climate Program was faced with criticisms that involved charges of paucity of funding and concerns expressed among agencyprincipals that any program combining individual agency capabilities and resources into acoordinated effort could compromise or impede existing agency responsibilities. By the early 1990s, the National Climate Program faded from the scene (11) as the newly createdU.S. Global Change Research Program gained adherents, achieved prominence as a PresidentialInitiative with discretely identifiable budget items, (12) and eventually acquired legislativeunderpinning in the form of the Global Change Research Act of 1990 (S. 169, Public Law101-606). (13) It continues as part of current federalclimate activities, as described below and as shownin Table 1. The GCRP was created with the recognition that global change issues are complex and far reaching, extending beyond the mission, resources, and expertise of any single agency, requiringinstead the integrated efforts of several governmental entities. The program involves scientificresearch on global change generally, including but not limited to climate change. GCRP agenciessupport scientific research through coordination and joint activities. Members of the GCRP are theDepartments of Agriculture, Commerce (notably, its National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration), Defense, Energy, Health and Human Services (notably, the National Institutes ofHealth), Interior (United States Geological Survey), and State, plus the Environmental ProtectionAgency, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Science Foundation, andSmithsonian Institution. The GCRP coordinates and funds research on, among other things, naturalfluctuations of earth processes, possible impacts of human activities on the environment, and waysto increase the predictive power of climate change models. The GCRP (14) is mandated by statute to undertake scientific assessments of the potentialconsequences for the United States of global change. (15) The Global Change Research Act of 1990( P.L. 101-606 , Section 106) stated that the federal government "shall prepare and submit to thePresident and the Congress a National Assessment which: integrates, evaluates, and interprets the findings of the Program and discusses the scientific uncertainties associated with such findings; analyzes the effects of global change on the natural environment, agriculture,energy production and use, land and water resources, transportation, human health and welfare,human social systems, and biological diversity; and analyzes current trends in global change, both human-induced and natural, andprojects major trends for the subsequent 25 to 100 years." Research conducted by the GCRP was the scientific foundation on which the Assessment was built. The National Assessment Synthesis Team (NAST), a committee of experts drawn fromgovernment, academe, industry, and nongovernmental organizations, provided the leadership inwriting the Assessment. Approvals for the work were given by the NSTC, the cabinet-level bodyof agencies responsible for scientific research. The Assessment is composed of the Overview reportand the Foundation report; the Foundation report is more detailed than the Overview. (16) The tworeports are national-level, peer-reviewed documents which synthesized results from studiesconducted by regional and sector teams, and from the broader scientific literature. (17) On June 11, 2001, the Bush Administration issued the White House Initial Review on Climate Change, a Cabinet-level review of U.S. climate change policy. Members of the Cabinet, the VicePresident, and senior White House staff examined the science, technologies, U.S. activities, andoptions for addressing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases. The White House InitialReview included the concurrent announcement of the U.S. Climate Change Research Initiative(CCRI) and the National Climate Change Technology Initiative (NCCTI). The CCRI's generalmission was to "improve the integration of scientific knowledge into effective decision supportsystems with performance metrics and deliverable products useful to policymakers in a 2-5 year timeframe." (18) Specific priorities begun in FY2003include new efforts to better understand the NorthAmerican carbon cycle, to develop reliable representations of the global and regional climateinteractions of atmospheric aerosols, to invest in more refined computer modeling, and to ensurelong term climate data records that are of higher quality. Additional organizational elements to deal with climate change were announced in 2002. An organization chart was released by the Bush Administration at a meeting on April 1, 2002 of theSubcommittee on Global Change Research (GCR), a part of the now-extinct CENR. (19) The chartprovided some details about new governmental structures and activities that are part of theAdministration's efforts to advance climate change science and technology. The organizationalbackground information for the chart released at the CENR's GCR Subcommittee meeting on April1, 2002 is summarized in Table 1. As described further in this report and shown in Table 2, theCCRI was combined in January 2003 with the GCRP to form the Climate Change Science Program. The NCCTI was announced by President George W. Bush on June 11, 2001. The Secretaries of the Departments of Commerce and Energy, working with other agencies, were directed to evaluatethe state of climate change technology R&D in the United States and make recommendations forimprovement; provide guidance on strengthening basic research in academe and in the nationallaboratories; develop opportunities to enhance public-private partnerships in applied R&D; makerecommendations for funding demonstration projects of cutting-edge technologies; and evaluateimproved technologies for measuring and monitoring gross and net terrestrial greenhouse gasemissions. The FY2004 budget requests $1.2 billion for climate change technology, within the President's NCCTI. The FY2004 budget request for climate change science is described later in this report. The Climate Change Policy Panel (CCPP; see Table 1) combines the concerns of the National Security Council, the Domestic Policy Council, and the National Economic Council. The chair ofthe CCPP is the National Security Advisor or other presidential appointee. The chair is responsiblefor program and policy review and reports to the president. The Committee on Climate Change Science and Technology Integration (CCSTI), which had been announced by the President on February 14, 2002, also continues. The CCSTI membership isshown in Table 1. The Executive Director of the CCSTI is the Director of the White House Officeof Science and Technology Policy. The CCSTI's functions include recommending to the Presidentclimate change science and technology activities and movement of funds and programs acrossagency boundaries, and coordinating with the OMB. The chair of the CCSTI is responsible for thefinal review of recommendations to the Climate Change Policy Panel. Reporting to the CCPP and the CCSTI, as seen in the organizational chart in Table 1, is the Interagency Working Group on Climate Change Science and Technology. The group's secretary wasexpected to be the Assistant Director for Climate Science and Technology from the Office of Scienceand Technology Policy (OSTP), a position the Administration said it intended to create; (20) while theposition had not been created as of the date of this report, the function is performed by OSTP'sAssociate Director for Science. (21) The functionsof the Interagency Working Group on ClimateScience and Technology include reviewing all programs relating to climate change science, providing recommendations to the CCSTI regarding climate science funding and programallocations, and accepting and acting on recommendations by the Joint Climate Change ScienceProgram Office and the Climate Change Technology Program Office. On January 30, 2003, the Administration announced that the CCRI and the GCRP would be combined into the Climate Change Science Program (CCSP), which is separate from climate changetechnology work which is part of the President's National Climate Change Technology Initiative. The FY2004 budget seeks $1.75 billion to directly sponsor scientific research managed by the CCSP. Included in the $1.75 billion CCSP funds are $182 million for the CCRI. Although the total CCSPrequest for spending in FY2004 was up only 0.1% over the FY2003 request, that portion of thefunding request allocated to the embedded CCRI was up 355% from $40 million in FY2003 to $182million in FY2004. An issue for Congress is the extent to which that large CCRI increase representsnew money versus how much is attributable to the reclassification of ongoing research programs. The CCSP reports to the Interagency Working Group on Climate Science and Technology and will have joint membership of all agencies with climate research funding, according to materialspresented on April 1, 2002 in a meeting of the Subcommittee on Global Change Research. TheCCSP is to be staffed by interagency detailees. The Director is a detailee from the Department ofCommerce (James Mahoney, Assistant Secretary of Commerce and Deputy Administrator of theNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). The function of the CCSP will be to reviewall climate change science programs, not just the GCRP. The Director of the CCSP reports to thechair of the Interagency Working Group. (22) The Climate Change Technology Program (CCTP), announced April 1, 2002, located in DOE, is a new entity and reports to the Interagency Working Group on Climate Change Science andTechnology through the Secretary of Energy. The CCTP's Director is a DOE senior politicalappointee, according to materials presented on April 1, 2002 in a meeting of the Subcommittee onGlobal Change Research. (23) The functions of thisoffice are to develop, review, and implementclimate technology programs within the federal government consistent with the National ClimateChange Technology Initiative (NCCTI). The CCTP works with the current participants of theNCCTI. The CCTP began in FY2003 (and continues in FY2004) to create an inventory of climatechange technology efforts, with the goal of recommending priority programs to help meet theAdministration's goal of an 18-percent reduction in energy intensity (ratio of energy use to economicproductivity) by 2012. This ongoing creation of a variety of climate change technology effortsmakes comparisons of technology programs and funding before and after FY2003 very difficult; assuch, the comparative details as presented in Table 5 are unavailable for FY2004. (24) In a hearing of the House Science Committee held on November 6, 2003, the Administration stated its intention to release during the first quarter of 2004, for public comment, a draft plan forthe CCTP's activities. DOE also said that the CCTP will release two reports on near- and long-termgoals and the state of research and current technology activities. In a statement, some of thepriorities to be highlighted in the FY2005 budget include the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative (to acceleratethe transition to a hydrogen economy), "FutureGen" (for zero-emissions electricity generation usingcoal), and fusion energy (the same form of energy that powers the sun). (25) Comments made in thehearing noted that the Administration appeared to be focused mostly on long-term technologies, thatenergy efficiency and other proven technologies exist for short-term gains, and that there remainquestions about the specifics for the timeframe and the level at which atmospheric carbonconcentrations will be stabilized. (26) The GCRP member agencies had been directed by the President in June 2001 to develop the previously-mentioned Climate Change Research Initiative to accelerate climate change research overthe next five years, in order to assist in the development of climate change policy. A Strategic Planwould guide the climate change research. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) was asked by the Administration in September 2002 to review the draft Strategic Plan. The draft Strategic Plan was made available in November 2002for scientific and public comments. A Planning Workshop for Scientists and Stakeholders was heldin December 2002 to formally gather comments about the draft Strategic Plan. The NAS review,and assembled outside comments, were reported by NAS in February 2003. Recommendationsfrom the NAS report addressed the federal structure for managing climate change research andtechnology, among other things. They included these comments: "The revised strategic plan should articulate a clear, specific and ambitious vision statement in the context of national needs ... (with) tangible goals, ... an explicit process toestablish priorities, and ... an effective management plan. The plan should present clear goals for the CCRI and ensure activities are consistent with these goals; maintain CCRI's ... emphasis on ... near-term decisions ... and includean explicit mechanism to link GCRP and CCRI activities. The plan should describe the management processes to be used to foster agency cooperation towards common CCSP goals. Clear mechanisms for coordinating and linking CCSP activities with the technology development activities of the CCTP should be described. [The plan should] more fully describe how models and knowledge supporting regional decision making and place-based science will be developed. [The plan should] strengthen treatment of human, economic, and ecological dimensions of climate and associated global changes. [The plan should] better describe a strategic program for an integrated observing system for climate variability and change on scales from regional toglobal. [The plan should] improve the description of how decision support capabilities will be developed. [The plan should] identify what sources and magnitudes of uncertainty reductions are especially needed. [The plan should] address the major requirements in building capacity in human and computing resources. [The plan should] use the clear goals and program priorities and advice from an independent advisory body to guide future funding decisions." (27) Subsequent to the NAS recommendations reported in February 2003, the Administration released its new CCSP Strategic Plan on Climate Change, on July 24, 2003. The plan describes fivemajor research goals: Improve knowledge of past and present climate, including natural variability, and improve understanding of causes of variability and change; Improve understanding of forces causing climate change; Reduce uncertainty in projections of future climate change; Understand the sensitivity and adaptability of natural and managed ecosystems to climate change; Explore the uses and limits of knowledge to manage risks and opportunities related to climate variability and change. Specific research targets accompany each goal. There also are schedules for research papers and synthesis reports, including a report within two years on how to resolve temperature datadifferences between satellite and ground-based readings, and a report within four years on abruptclimate change. The plan provides no budget details. Some critics say the plan overemphasizes theuncertainties in climate science, covers little new ground, and allows delay in taking actions to curbgreenhouse gas emissions; some proponents say the plan will more sharply focus research, withclearer goals and schedules. (28) The 360-page plancan be viewed at http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/stratplan2003/final/default.htm . The Administration's FY2004 budget seeks $1.7 billion to directly sponsor scientific research managed by the CCSP. Included in the $1.7 billion CCSP funds are $182 million for the ClimateChange Research Initiative (CCRI). The FY2004 budget requests $1.2 billion for climate changetechnology, as part of the NCCTI. The total amounts for research and for technologies are similar from the Clinton through the Bush Administrations (through the years, each year about $1.7 billion for research, about $1.2 billionfor technologies). This comparison is shown in Table 3. Table 3. Funding for Climate Change Research, Technologies: A Four Year Comparison ($ billion) Climate change research is specified in the budgets for thirteen federal entities: the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy, Health & Human Services, Interior, State, andTransportation, along with the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Aeronautics andSpace Administration, the National Science Foundation, the Agency for International Development,and the Smithsonian Institution. Testimony on January 8, 2003 given by Assistant Secretary ofCommerce James Mahoney to the Senate Commerce Committee mentions an additional $1.3 billion"of related research conducted by the thirteen CCSP collaborating agencies," but no further detailswere provided in the testimony or in the budget request. Funding by agency for climate change science programs is summarized in Table 4. Funding by agency for climate change technology programs is summarized in Table 5. Agencies in bothtables are listed in order of decreasing levels of funds. Table 4. Funding for Climate Change Science Program ($ millions) Table 5. Clinton Administration CCTI, and Bush Administration National Climate Change Technology Initiative (and Related) Funding byAgency ($ millions) (29) National Aeronautics and Space Administration. NASA's Global Change Research Program observes the global carbon cycle, water cycle,ecosystems, climate variability, atmospheric chemistry, and land cover-land use, to try to determinehow the global earth system is changing, what the primary causes of change are, how the earthsystem responds to natural and human-induced changes, what the consequence for humancivilization might be, and how better to predict future changes in the earth system. The FY2003amount to fund these activities was slightly over $1.1 billion. The FY2004 request is slightly under$1.1 billion, and is included in the CCSP total. National Science Foundation. The National Science Foundation, an independent government agency, inter alia initiates and supports scientificand engineering research through grants, contracts, and fellowships with academic, nonprofit, andother institutions and organizations. Climate change research funded through NSF includes studiesof carbon cycling, Antarctic ecosystems, climate modeling-analysis-prediction, sea-level changes,ecological diversity, water cycling, polar ozone depletion-ultraviolet radiation effects, greenhousegas dynamics, solar influences, climate variability-predictability, human dimensions of globalchange, and other related topics . The FY2003 funding level was $203 million. The FY2004 requestis $213 million. Department of Commerce/National Oceanic and AtmosphericAdministration (NOAA). Two main programs within the Department of Commerceaddressed issues relating to climate change. The wide range of research in Commerce's NationalOceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), one of 11 federal entities participating in theGCRP, included long-standing climate-related work, much of it not specifically identified as CCTIor CCRI but rather part of NOAA's generic mission. Among other things, research at NOAA soughtto determine "the impacts of climate variability and change on ecosystems; ... understand howradiative, chemical, and dynamical processes interact in the upper troposphere/lower stratosphereto affect climate; ... (and) study the effects of climate variability and change on health..." (30) Therealso were programs at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) which looked atclimate change issues. (31) The $2 million requestedand provided in the FY2000 budget specificallyfor the CCTI specifically was new to the Department of Commerce and did not go to NOAA (32) orNIST as a single CCTI line-item but to various climate-related R&D projects. NOAA's funding forclimate change research activities (including climate change observations and research to reducescientific uncertainty) in FY2003 amounted to $118 million, and the FY2004 request is $136 million. Department of Energy. Carbon dioxide, which as noted above is the major greenhouse gas, arises mostly from combustion of fossil fuels. TheDepartment of Energy, which has long had R&D programs relating to fossil fuel energy use, was byfar the largest recipient of both CCTI and similar later funding (DOE has received and continues toreceive about 90% of interagency climate change funding). While the Administration has stated thatthe total interagency FY2004 request for climate change technology is $1,210 million,agency-specific amounts are being reviewed through an interagency process (in comparison, asshown in Table 3, the FY2004 request for the climate change science program is $1,749 million). Funding for the DOE's efforts has been for the research, development, and deployment of more energy efficient and renewable technologies such as: "Buildings:" low-power sulfur lamps, advanced heat pumps, chillers and commercial refrigeration, fuel cells, insulation, energy conserving building materials, and advancedwindows; "Electricity:" generation using alternatives to fossil fuels such as solar energy, biomass power, wind energy, geothermal power, hydropower, and optimized nuclearpower; "Industries:" greater efficiency in industries such as aluminum, steel, mining,agriculture, chemicals, forest products, and petroleum; "Transportation:" researching, developing, and deploying more efficient technologies, such as advanced engines, hybrid systems, fuel cells and emission controls; theseconstituted the federal component of the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles (PNGV)which was a 10-year government/domestic auto industry partnership begun in the ClintonAdministration in 1993 that aimed to produce by 2004 a prototype midsized family car with 80 mileper gallon gasoline efficiency and a two-thirds reduction in carbon emissions. Seven federalagencies were involved in the PNGV (Commerce, Defense, Energy, Transportation, EPA, NationalAeronautics and Space Administration, and the National Science Foundation) (for details on PNGV,see CRS Report RS20852(pdf) ); the Bush Administration cancelled the PNGV program and began theFreedom CAR program which will focus on fuel cell vehicles; "Remove and Sequester Carbon:" trying to find better ways to remove and sequester carbon from fossil and other fuels, via agricultural and other approaches (in conjunctionwith EPA, and originally planned in conjunction with USDA); and "Management, Planning, Analysis and Outreach:" governmental efforts (federal, state, and others) to conserve energy through more highly coordinated management,planning, analysis and outreach. (33) As with the PNGV/FreedomCAR program, many of DOE's research and technology dollars have been spent in partnership with other federal entities such as EPA, with other governmentalunits, and with private sector entities. Table 6 shows funding levels for these DOE climate change research and technology programs. Table 6. DOE Climate Change Research and Technology ($ millions) (34) Department of Agriculture. Funding for climate change research at Agriculture amounted to $66 million in FY2003, and the FY2004 request is $73million. This research includes efforts to improve measurements of carbon inventories at thenational level, and to develop methods to manage crops, soils, and grazing systems to optimizeagricultural productivity, resource conservation, and greenhouse gas emissions and carbonsequestration. The FY2001 amount of $3 million in technology was principally to developagriculture-centered technologies to better manage the carbon cycle, from sources to sequestration. No funds were specified for Agriculture Department climate change technology activities insubsequent budget requests National Institutes of Health. Within the Department of Health and Human Services, the National Institutes of Health conducted researchidentified as related to climate change, including study of the health effects of ultraviolet radiationand of chemical replacements for chlorinated fluorocarbons. This work amounted to $59 millionin FY2003. The FY2004 request is for $61 million. Department of the Interior. The United States Geological Survey (USGS), within the Department of the Interior, has conducted global changeresearch including historical research on climate variability and change, and global carbon cyclingthrough lakes, streams, wetlands, soils, sediments, and vegetation. The USGS also manages anddisseminates satellite land-surface and ecosystem data which may be used in climate changeactivities. In FY2003 the Department received $26 million for its climate change research. TheFY2004 request is also $26 million. Environmental Protection Agency. The Environmental Protection Agency uses two main budget categories: Science and Technology (S&T,which includes R&D and technology development and diffusion efforts), and EnvironmentalPrograms and Management (EPM, which are the costs to run programs). Therefore, it is difficultto consistently separate R&D from technology assistance and diffusion efforts. For example, inEPA's climate change Buildings Sector, the owner of a building can have EPA's benchmarking toolvoluntarily applied to that building as a target for energy reduction. Various activities can be tried,e.g., plugging leaks and replacing less efficient lights with more efficient lights, to see if thebenchmark will be met. If not, other activities can be tried in an iterative fashion, trying andrecording and incorporating the findings in the benchmark. This program includes activities that canbe described as both research-related and technology diffusion and assistance. EPA's figures forclimate change S&T are used here. While there has been some discussion about the proper roles for government, industry, and academe in climate change and other R&D, (35) the climate change R&D activities have not beenhighly controversial. In general, EPA funds targeted for R&D, especially areas of more basic R&Dthat predate the CCTI and the Kyoto Protocol, were less controversial, and funds for new programsintended to assist technology deployment and diffusion and to help consumers learn about andchoose more efficient commodities and processes have sometimes been more controversial. The elements and levels of EPA's climate change research and technology funds are summarized in Table 7. Activities related to these program areas are briefly described below. Someof these funding areas focused heavily on R&D, while others involved information disseminationand other activities. Table 7. EPA Climate Change Research and TechnologyPrograms ($ millions) Source : EPA FY2004 Budget http://www.epa.gov/ocfo/budget/budget The "Buildings" component of EPA's climate change research and technology activities include housing and commercial structures. EPA and others (including DOE) argue thatefforts by individual and organizational consumers to secure the most energy efficient process orcommodity are hampered by a lack of objective information on which to make comparisons (fordetails, see CRS Issue Brief IB10020 Energy Efficiency: Budget, Oil Conservation, and ElectricityConservation Issues ). Through the Agency's ENERGY STAR Program and ENERGY STARBuildings and Green Lights Partnership, EPA evaluates and certifies energy-saving building-relatedproducts (including such items as televisions, appliances, residential lighting, and whole houses),and makes that information available so that consumers and businesses can choose energy-savingand pollution-reducing products more easily. "Transportation" activities of EPA include the following: expanded support for a program which provides new incentives for commuters toconsider transit, ridesharing, or other alternatives to driving; continued support of state and local efforts toward livable communities and smartgrowth; continued efforts in the Transportation Partners network which links about 340 localgovernments, community organizations, and companies in order to produceknowledge that is designed to reduce vehicle miles traveled; work which contributed to the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles and nowcontributes to the Freedom CAR (both being government/domestic-auto-industrypartnerships described previously under DOE). "Industry" efforts include working with industries (especially energy-intensiveindustries such as cement, chemicals, steel, petroleum, airlines, and food processing), commonlythrough technical assistance, to audit and identify greenhouse gas emission sources and to help informulating appropriate reduction goals and strategies, including removal of regulatory and otherbarriers. This includes working with ongoing privately-funded energy efficiency programs at privatecompanies. "Carbon Removal" efforts at EPA were planned in coordination with the Departments of Agriculture and Energy. The EPA/USDA/DOE funds for this activity are forstudying ways to increase environmental storage of carbon, as well as the kinds and sizes ofincentives that could be given to land owners and crop growers to increase the quantity of carbonstored on agricultural and forest lands, and at the same time improve soil quality, reduce soil erosion,and enhance other environmental and conservation goals. EPA works with "State and Local Governments" to help find ways to reduce energy use and pollution, sometimes by supporting existing state and local programs. The Cities forClimate Protection program, for example, involves more than 54 local governments in implementingbuilding, transportation, waste, and renewable energy projects to eliminate about 3 million metrictons of carbon dioxide. A state-level example is New Jersey's state carbon bank program,established to help achieve New Jersey's greenhouse gas emissions reduction goal of 3.5% below1990 levels by 2005. "International Capacity Building, Partnerships, and Cooperation" involves EPA and other agencies working to study ways to provide technical and other assistance to developingcountries to aid in reducing their emissions. Developing countries currently emit more than half theglobal total of greenhouse gases, and such emissions are growing rapidly. Smithsonian Institution. Global change research at the Smithsonian Institution attempts to understand more fully atmospheric processes, ecosystemdynamics, natural and human-induced environmental change on daily to decadal time scales, andlonger-term climate metrics. The Smithsonian also serves as a repository of climate change findings. These activities amounted to $6 million in FY2003, the same amount requested in FY2004. United States Agency for International Development. The US Agency for International Development has worked withforeign governments with the goal of reducing net greenhouse gas emissions and loweringvulnerability to the threats posed by climate change impacts, by studying ways to increase use ofenvironmentally sound energy, forestry, and biodiversity conservation methods. Foreigngovernments have included Brazil, the Phillippines, and Russia. These efforts amounted to $6million in FY2003, the same amount requested for FY2004. Department of Transportation. The Departmentof Transportation will conduct research and analysis relating to greenhouse gas models for thesurface transportation sector, greenhouse gas control strategies, and transportation and global climatechange. While there were no funds for this activity at DOT in FY2003, the FY2004 request is for$4 million. Department of State. Joined by various European Union environmental policy makers, the Department of State issued a joint statement on February7, 2003 identifying six areas for possible cooperative research: carbon cycle research; aerosol-climateinteractions; feedbacks, water vapor and thermohaline circulation; integrated observation systemsand data; carbon capture and storage; and hydrogen technology and infrastructure. Agovernment-industry partnership involving the Departments of State and Energy, and representativesfrom several countries, was announced on February 27, 2003 to design, build, and operate what waslabeled "the world's first pollution-free, coal-fired power plant. The facility will cost an estimated$1,000 million over the next 10 years." (36) Whileno climate change research funds for State wereidentified in FY2003, the FY2004 request is for $1 million. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Climate change research and technology programs, new to the Department of Housing and UrbanDevelopment (HUD) in FY1999, were for the government/ housing developers/ builders Partnershipfor Advancing Technology in Housing (PATH). Identified as part of the CCTI through FY2001,PATH research had a number of goals in addition to climate change. PATH efforts sought "todevelop and disseminate technologies that will result in housing that is substantially more affordable,durable, disaster resistant, safer and energy/resource efficient..." (37) No known money for HUD hasbeen requested since FY2001, but HUD continues to administer the overall operations of the PATH. Possible climate change linked to "greenhouse gas" emissions has been addressed by variousU.S. government policies since the mid-1980s, with an emphasis on energy R&D and on climateresearch and services. U.S. efforts in the former Bush and Clinton Administrations toward R&Din energy efficiency and renewable energy, and research into climate and global change were givendirection by the Energy Policy Act of 1992, which implemented United States responsibilities underthe UNFCCC, and by the Global Change Research Act of 1990. The 1993 Climate Change ActionPlan linked or made partnerships among various federal agencies, business, state and localgovernments, and other entities with the goal of reducing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. TheClinton Administration's CCTI built upon these earlier efforts. The current Bush Administrationhas introduced its U.S. Climate Change Research Initiative, the National Climate ChangeTechnology Initiative, and the Climate Change Science Program Strategic Plan. The Plan, asreleased on July 24, 2003, describes five major research goals (improve knowledge of past andpresent climates, improve understanding of climate change forces, reduce uncertainty in climatechange projections, understand sensitivity and adaptability of ecosystems to climate change, andexplore uses and limits of knowledge to manage risks and opportunities). As funding and otherdetails become available, similarities to and differences from earlier climate-change programs maybecome apparent. The evolving organizational structure, however, makes it difficult to determineprecisely some of the interrelationships among science and technology programs. Some critics of current climate change policy call for sharper goals, better defined priorities, and more detailed, clearly stated objectives for climate change R&D, and its associated fundingprofile. Some observers point out, for example, that the total CCSP request for spending in FY2004was up only 0.1% over the FY2003 request, from $1.747 billion to $1.749 billion, while that portionof the funding request allocated to the embedded CCRI was up 355% from $40 million in FY2003to $182 million in FY2004. An issue for Congress in this regard is the extent to which such ademonstrably large CCRI increase actually represents new money, and how much is attributable tothe reclassification of ongoing research programs, especially given the fact that the overall requestis up only 0.1%. On the other hand, some proponents note that further R&D is needed to justifycertain climate change management strategies, to focus those strategies on key policy questions, andto reduce scientific uncertainties surrounding prospective climate change so that policymakers canmake better, more informed decisions.

Summary: For over 20 years there have been federal programs directly or indirectly related to climate change. Direct programs have focused largely on scientific research to improve the capability tounderstand climate systems and/or predict climatic change and variability. Energy use has been amajor focus of efforts related to possible climate change because carbon dioxide, the major"greenhouse gas," is added to the atmosphere when fossil fuels are burned. Those efforts, whichsought to reduce oil imports, manage electricity needs, and address environmental concernsincluding climate change, involve many parts of the government. Similarly, climate science effortsin various agencies have sought to expand scientific understanding of the dynamics of climate andits societal consequences as a basis for policy decisions that rely on improved predictions of futureclimate conditions and climate impact assessments. Coordinating these efforts has been challenging. This report identifies and discusses only the direct climate scientific and research programs of thefederal government, and does not focus on the wide array of programs on energy that, thoughrelevant indirectly to climate change, do not include climate as a specific goal. The U.S. Global Change Research Program in the first Bush Administration, and subsequently in the Clinton Administration, funded studies to improve scientific understanding of the processesthat influence Earth's climate, including trends on global and regional scales. The Climate ChangeTechnology Initiative (CCTI) was the Clinton Administration's package of research anddevelopment (R&D) to develop renewable energy sources and more efficient technologies, targetedtax credits (to encourage purchase and deployment of more efficient technologies), and voluntaryinformation programs (so businesses and schools might be better informed when making purchasingand operating decisions involving energy use and emissions). The CCTI was followed by the current Bush Administration's Climate Change Research Initiative (CCRI) and National Climate Change Technology Initiative (NCCTI), both parts of acabinet-level Committee on Climate Change Science and Technology Integration. The CCRI andthe extant U.S. Global Change Research Program were combined into the Climate Change ScienceProgram (CCSP) in the FY2004 budget. Various major activities of the CCTI appear to continueat different funding levels through the Bush Administration, while using a different name. The FinalReport of the Strategic Plan for the Climate Change Science Program was released in July 2003. The FY2004 budget requests $1.7 billion to sponsor scientific research directly managed by the CCSP, and $1.2 billion for technology R&D in the NCCTI. An interagency review process isunderway to identify specific research areas. With various details about the Bush Administration's climate change efforts still in development, some critics highlight the need for clearer goals for climate change R&D, while someproponents note that further R&D is needed if certain climate change management strategies are tobe put in place. This report will be updated as events warrant.