Climate Changes: Federal Research and Technology and Related Programs

CRS Report for Congress
Climate Change: F ederal Research and
Technology and Related Programs
Upda ted Novembe r 13, 2003
Michael M. Simpson
Specialist in L ife Sc iences
Resources, Sc ience, and Industry Division

Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

Climate Change: Federal Research and Technology
and Related P rograms
Fo r over 2 0 years t here have been federal p rogram s directly or indirectly related
to climate change. Direct programs hav e focused l argely on scientific research to
improve the capability to understand climate systems and/or predict climatic change
and variability. Energy use has been a m aj or focus of efforts rel at ed t o p o s sible
climate change because carbon diox ide, the m ajor “greenhouse gas,” is added t o t he
atmosphere when fossil fuels are burned. Those efforts, which s ought to reduce o il
i m port s , m anage el ect ri ci t y needs, and address e n v i r onm ent al concerns i n cl udi ng
climate chan ge, i nvolve many parts of t he government. S imilarl y, climate science
efforts i n v arious agencies have sought to e x p a n d scientific understanding of the
dynamics of climate and its soci et al consequences as a bas is for policy deci sions that
r ely on improved p redictions of future climate conditions and climat e i m p act
assessments. C oordinating t hese efforts h as been challenging. This report i dentifies
and discusses only t he direct climate scientific and res earch programs of the federal
government, and does not focus o n t he wide array o f p rograms o n energy t hat, though
relevant indirectly to climate change, do not incl ude climate as a s peci fic goal.
The U.S. Global C hange R esearch Program i n t he first Bush Admin i s t r a tion,
and s ubsequently in the C linton Administration, funded s tudies to improve scientific
understanding of the p rocesses t hat i nfluen ce Earth’s climate, i ncl u d i n g t rends on
gl obal and regi onal s cales. The Climate Change Technology Initiative (CCTI) was
the C linton Administration’s package of research and development (R&D) to develop
renewable energy s ources and m ore efficien t t echnologies, targeted tax cred i t s (to
encourage purchase and deployment of more efficient t echnologies), and voluntary
information p rograms (so b u s i n e s s es and schools might be better i nformed when
making purchasing and operating d ecisions involving energy use and emissions).
The CCTI was followed by t he current Bush Administration’s C limate Change
Research Initiative (CCRI) and National C limate Change Technology Initiative
(NCCTI), both parts of a cabinet -level Committee on C limate Change Science and
Technol ogy Integration. The CCRI and the ex tant U.S. Global Change Research
Program were combined i nto t he Cli m a t e C h ange Science P rogram (CCSP) in the
FY2004 budget. Various major activities o f t he CCTI appear to continue at different
funding levels through t he Bush Administration, while using a different name. The
Fi n a l R eport of t he Strategi c P lan for the C limate Change Science P rogram w a s
released in J u ly 2003.
The FY2004 budget requests $1.7 billion t o s ponsor scientific research directly
managed b y t he CCSP, and $1.2 billion for technology R &D in the NCCTI. An
interagency review p rocess i s underway to identify s pecific research areas.
With various details about the Bush Administration’s climate change efforts s till
in development, some critics highlight the need for clearer goal s for climate change
R&D, whi l e some proponents note t hat further R&D i s n eeded if certain climate
change management strategi es are t o b e put in place. This report will be updated as
event s warrant .

Historical Background ..............................................4
Federal S tructure and Funding for M anaging Global C limate Change Research and
Technology ...................................................6
UnitedStatesGlobalChangeResearch Program ......................7
Climate Change Research Initiative ................................8
National C limate Change Technology Initiative ......................9
Climate Change Policy P anel .....................................9
Working Group on Climate Chan ge Science and Technology ..........10
Climate Change Science P rogram ................................10
Climate Change Technology P rogram .............................11
NationalAcademyofSciences ReviewandRecommendations .........12
Climate Change Science P rogram Strategi c P lan ....................13
Funding ....................................................13
Science and Technology P rograms and Funding Levels by Agency ......14
NationalAeronauticsandSpaceAdministration .................16
National S cience Foundation ................................16
Depart m ent of C o m m erce/ Nat i onal O ceani c and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) ....................17
Department ofEnergy .....................................17
Department ofAgriculture ..................................19
National Institutes of Health ................................20
Department oftheInterior ..................................20
EnvironmentalProtectionAgency ............................20
Smithsonian Institution ....................................22
UnitedStatesAgencyforInternationalDevelopment .............23
Department ofTransportation ...............................23
Department ofState .......................................23
Department ofHousingandUrbanDevelopment ................23
Conclusion ......................................................23
Table 1 . C urrent Climate Change Science and Technology R esearch
Management Structure .....................................2
Table 2 . M ajor Steps i n Federal Research and T echnology and Related
Programs on Climate Change ................................3
Table 3 . Funding for C limate Change Research, Technologies:
AFourYearComparison ...................................14
Table 4 . Funding for C limate Change Science P rogram ...................15
Table 5. C linton Administration CCTI, and Bush Administration National
Climate Change Technology Initiative (and R elated) Funding
byAgency ..............................................16
Table 6 . DOE Climate Change Research and Technology .................19
Table 7 . EPA Climate Change Research and Technology P rograms .........21

Climate C hange: Federal Research and
Technology and Related Programs
To address global climate change concerns, t he Administration’s FY2004
budget seeks $1.7 billion t o d irectly sponsor scientific research,1 and $1.2 billion for
technologies.2 This report d escribes federal climate change research and t echnology
activities, and rel at ed programs.
Many research and t echnology p rogram s related to climate change are o f l ong
standing. C oordinating t hese myriad interagen cy activities has al ways been a
challenge. The federal structure i nterre lat i n g t hese activities, recently reorganiz ed
by th e B u s h A dministration, has gro wn more complex over time. In J une 2001,
President George Bush announced the N at i o n a l C limate Change Technology
Initiative (NCCTI) and t he Climate Change Research Initiative (CCRI), two m aj or
federal i nitiatives on climate change. The Administration d escribed in April 2002
its Climate Change Science and Technology R esearch Managemen t S t ructure,
responsible for m anaging t he federal government’s research and t echnology efforts
r e l ated t o global climate change. In J anuary 2003 the Administration i s s u ed
stat em ents that further des cribed its climate change activities and struct ure, incl uding
the CCRI, t he U.S. Global C hange R esearch Program, and t he NCCTI.
In general, while organiz ational and nomencl at ure d et ai l s di ffer from p revi ous
years, research and t echnology efforts l argely appear to continue many of those o f
past initiatives, at s omewhat different funding levels. The current structure, outlined
most recently in the J u l y 2 003 Strategic P lan for the C limate Change Science
Program, has t wo main components, wh i c h encompass most previous programs,
overseen by a complex set o f i nt eragency bodies (see Table 1 ).

1 Directly sponsored climate change r esearch is specified in the r equest for t hirteen federal
entities: the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy, Health & H u man
Services, Interior, State, and T ransportation, along w i t h t h e Environmental Protection
Agency, t h e National Aeronautics a nd Space Admi nistration, the National Science
Foundation, the Agency for International Development, and the Smithsonian Institution.
Descriptions of t h e a c tivities of t hese entities are provided in this report. Testimony on
J anuary 8, 2003 gi ven by Assistant Secretary of Commerce J ames Mahoney t o t he Senate
Commerce Committee mentions an additional $1.3 billion “of related r esearch conducted
by the t hirteen C CSP collaborating agencies”, but no further details were provided in the
testimony or in the budget request.
2 T his report i s not about the underlyi ng question of t he reality and i mpact s o f c l imate
change , a nd is intended t o c over only t he resear ch programs and r elated funding addressing
the i ssue. For a dditional backgr ound, see CRS IB89005 Global Climate Change .

Table 1. C urrent Climate C hange Science and Technology
Research M anagement Structure3
Climate C hange Policy Panel (CCPP, within the Office of t he President)
Review by the National S ecurity Council, Domestic Policy C ouncil, and National
Committee o n C limate C hange Science and Technology Integration (CCSTI)
*C hai r: S ecret ary o f C om m erce
*Vi ce C hai r: S ecret ary o f E nergy
Ex ecutive Director: Director of Office of Science and Technology P olicy
S ecret ari es o f C om m erce, Energy, S t at e, A gri cul t u re, Int eri o r, Heal t h and H um an
S er v i ces, Defense, and Transport at i on; Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency, Director of the Offi ce of Management and Budget, Director of
the National Economic Council, Administrator of the National Aeronautics and
Space Administration, Director of the National S cience Foundation, and C hair of
the C ouncil for Environmental Quality
Interagency Working Group on Climate C hange Science and Technology
*Chair: Deputy o r Under S ecretary o f E nergy
*Vice C hair: Deputy o r Under S ecretary o f C ommerce
S ecret ary: OS TP Associ at e D i rect or for S ci ence
Deputy or Under S ecret aries of C ommerce, Energy, S tate, Agriculture, Interior,
Heal t h and Hum an S ervi ces, Defense, and Transport at i on, Deput y Adm i n i s t rat or
of the Environmental P rotection Agency, Dep u t y Director of the Office of
Management and Budget, National Economic Council, Deputy Administrator of
the National Aeronautics and Space Ad ministration, Deputy D i r ector of the
National S cience Foundation, and C ouncil for Environmental Quality
Climate C hange Science Program Climate C hange Technology Program
(CCSP; incl udes CCRI and GCRP) (CCTP; incl udes NCCTI)
Di rect or: A ssi st ant S ecret ary Director: DOE political appointee
*Chairs and Vice Chairs rotate annually.
Major s teps in t h e p rogression of federal research and t echnology and related
programs are summarized i n Table 2, and descri b ed in more detail further i n t his

3 Compiled from various Admi nistration s ources, including
[ pg] .

Table 2. M ajor Steps in F ederal Research and T echnology and
Related Programs o n C limate C hange
National C limate Program Act C oordi nat ed t wel v e federal agenci es wi t h
of 1978 (PL 95-367) (See p. 6 responsibilities i n climate research and
of this report) servi ces.
U.S. Global C hange R esearch Offi ci al l y creat ed by t h e G l obal C hange
Program (p. 7) Research Act o f 1990 (PL 101-606),
i n t egrat ed federal research i n gl obal change,
which i ncludes climate change, i n t he
Climate Change Action P lan Announced by the C linton Administration i n
(p. 5 ) 1993, coordinated m ore t han forty on-go ing
federal p rogram s w i t h st at e and l o cal
governments and business, with the goal o f
reducing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.
Climate Change Technology Announced by the C linton Administration i n
Initiative (p. 5) 1997, attempted t o s timulate the
devel opm ent and use o f renewabl e energy
technologies and energy efficiency products,
to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
National C limate Change Announced by President George W . Bush o n
Technology Initiative (p. 9) J une 11, 2001, Departments o f C ommerce
and Energy, with other agencies, are t o
eval uate the state of climate change
technology R &D and recommend
Climate Change Research Also announced on J une 11, 2001 by
Initiative (p. 8) President Bush, the CCRI was t o improve
the i ntegration o f s cientific knowledge with
policym aking i n a 2-5 year time frame. The
CCRI was combined with the GCRP on
J anuary 20, 2003 to form the C limate
C h ange S cience P rogram (following).

Committee on C limate Change Announced by President Bush o n February
Science and Technology 14, 2002, the CCSTI coordinates federal
Integration (p. 9) climate change research with the OMB and
recommends to the P resident programs and
funding across agencies.
Climate Change Technology Announced on April 1 , 2002, the CCTP,
Program (p. 11) t h rough t he S ecret ary o f E nergy, wi l l
develop, review, and implement federal
climate technology programs consistent with
Climate Change Science Announced on J anuary 30, 2003, the CCSP
Program (p. 10) combines el em ents of the CCRI with
el em ent s of t h e G C R P .
CCSP S trategic Plan (p. 13) Announced on J uly 24, 2003, the CCSP
S t rat egi c P l an’s m aj or research go al s are t o
improve climate change knowledge and
understanding, reduce uncertainty, and
ex pl ore w ays t o m anage ri s ks and
Historical Background
Carbon diox ide, the m ajor “greenhouse gas” o f concern i n possible cli m a t e
change, i s p roduced in lar g e p a r t a s a result of energy production and use. The
federal governm ent has h ad program s deal i n g w i t h energy effi ci ency and w i t h
climate research and s ervices for m ore t han 20 years. Th e C o n gress has hel d
hearings about them since t he mid-1970s, w hen a major goal o f s uch p rograms was
t o r e d u ce U.S. d ependence o n o il imports during t he energy crisis, and to ex p a n d
scientific understan d i n g of the d yn amics o f t he climate system and its societal
consequences as a b asi s for pol i cy d eci si ons that depend on improved p redictions of
future climate conditions and o n b etter climate impact assessments.
U.S. government policies ex plicitly addressing possible climate change linked
to “greenhouse gas” emissions d a t e b a ck to the mid-1980s. 4 These policies have
focused h eavily on s c i e n t ific research. The Energy Policy Act of 1992, in
conjunction with the U.S. ratification of the 1992 United Nations Framework
Convention on C limate Change (UNFCCC), i nfluenced the direction of U.S. efforts,
which continued i n t he first Bush and Clinton A dministrations toward energy

4 For details, please s ee CRS Issue Brief IB89005, Global Climate Change.

effi ci ency, renewabl e energy, and R &D, 5 to try t o m ove toward reducing greenhouse
The C limate Change Action Plan, designed with the goal of reducing U.S.
greenhouse gas emissions and announced i n 1993 by the C linton Administration,
included m ore t han 4 0 on-go ing federal programs to influence, assist, or work with
business, stat e and local governments, scientific and other entities. R&D and other
programs since t hen were l argely maintained or modified with some new activities
a n d n ames. W ith evolution from p rior efforts, coupled with some augm enta t i o n ,
packages of programs in the C linton Administration s uch as t he 1997 Climate
Change Technology Initiative (CCTI) were built upon the earlier efforts, including
efforts origi nally aimed at reducing dependence on oil imports.
During the p reparations for t he final n egotiations of the December 1997 Kyoto
Protocol to the UNFCCC,6 P resi d ent C l i n t o n annou n c e d t h e t hree-st age C C T I o n
October 22, 1997.7 It was d escri b ed as “t he cornerst one of t h e [ C l i n t on]
Administration’s efforts t o s timulate the devel opment and use of renewable energy
technologies and energy efficiency products that will help reduce g r e e n h ouse gas
emissions,”8 through a combination of R &D, a n d i n formation and tax i ncentive
programs. S tage 1 i ncluded funding for R &D, t ax incentives for early action, a s et
of federal government energy initiatives incl uding various tax credits to encourage
purchas e and use of m ore effi ci ent t echnologies, and i ndustry consultations to
ex plore ways t o reduce greenhouse gas e m i s s i o n s . S tage 2, which was planned t o
begi n around 2004, would h ave r e v i ewed and evaluated s tage 1. Stage 3 , as
envisioned prior to the Kyoto Protocol, i ncluded actions aimed at reducing emissions
to 1990 levels by 2008-2012, meeting t he binding targets anticipated in the Kyo to
Protocol through m easures that would i nclude domestic and i nternational emissions
trading. The Kyo to Protocol (which the United S tates s igned o n November 11, 1998
but which has not been submitted t o t he U.S . S e n a t e for advice and consent on
ratification), outlines an obligat i o n f o r the United S tates t o reduce its total
greenhouse ga s emissions by an average o f 7 % b elow 1990 levels, o n average,
between 2008 and 2012.9 The C linton Administratio n s upported United S tates
participation i n t his protocol. The Bush Administration, on the other hand, has
rej ect ed t h e p rot o col .

5 For f urther details, s ee CRS Report RL30024, Global Climate Change Policy: C o s t ,
Competitiveness, and Comprehensiveness .
6 Please s ee CRS Report 98-2 Global Climate Change Treaty: The Kyoto Protocol for
7 Details about the p l a n , a s s e t f o r t h i n 1997, can be found at
[ h t t p : / / i n t on2.nar a .gov/ W H/ Wor k/ ml ] .
8 T e stimony on May 20, 1999 by Deidre A. Lee, Acting Deputy Director for M anagement,
Office of Management and Budget (OMB), to the House Committee on Government Reform
and Oversight, Subcommittee on National Economic Gr owth.
9 Please s ee CRS Report 98-2 Global Climate Change: The Kyoto Protocol for f urth er

The C ongress has i n t he past passed budget resolutions and appropriations bills
with provisions prohibiting t he use of funds to implement the Kyoto Protocol, which
has not been ratified by t he United S tates or entered into force i nternationally. S ome
controversy was engendered b y t he possibl e linkage of funding proposals associated
with the CCTI t o t he Kyoto P rotocol goals. After some early consideration of t hese
concerns, for the m ost p art t he R & D elements were funded b y t he Congress.
Moreover, many of the program s r el at ed to the CCTI and other climate research
p r eceded t h e Kyo t o P rot ocol , and were m ai n l y i n fl uenced by t h e vol un t a r y
commitments t he United S tates m ade i n t he U.N. Framework C onvention o n C limate
Change to try t o m eet a voluntary goal o f returning greenhouse gas emissions to 1990
levels by the year 2000, and t o current effort s t o reduce i ntensity of emissions. (See
CRS Report R L30024, Global Climate C hange Policy: Cost, C ompetitiveness, and
C o mprehensi veness ).
Federal S tructure and Funding for M anaging Global
Climate C hange Research and Technology
The government’s activities relating t o climate change have been accomplished
through s everal programs, i nitiatives , and agenci es . C oordinating t hese act i v i ties
continues t o b e a challenge. Various organi zational structures have been attempted
over t he past t wo d ecades i n t h e effort t o i m p rove coordi nat i o n and effi ci ency.
A n e a r ly effort, d ating b ack to the l ate 1970s, was embodied in the Nation a l
Climate Program Act of 1978 (H.R. 6669, Public Law 95-367), i nvolving twel ve
federal agencies v ested with r e sponsibilities i n climate research and s ervices. 10
Designed to centralize planning and t o improve interagency and intergovernmental
coordination, the National C limate Program emphasized devel opment and delivery
of useful climatic information and services to a wide range of users, based on current
knowledge o f climate and b etter u se of ex isting climatic data. S imultaneously, t he
P rogram s ought an ex pande d federal effort i n sci ent i fi c research t o fost er bet t er
understanding of the climate system and t he societal consequences of climate change
as a b asis for n ational d ecision making that depended o n improved p redi ctions of
future climate conditions and b etter climate impact assessments.
Some ten years after its enactment, however, t he National C limate Program was
faced with criticisms tha t i nvol ved charges of paucity of funding and concerns
ex pressed am ong agency pri n ci pal s t h at any p rogram combining i ndividual agency
capabilities and resources into a coordinated effort could compromise or impede
ex isting agency responsibilities.

10U.S., Librar y o f Congress, Congressional Research Service, “T he National Climate
Program Act of 1978: Backgr ound and Legislat i ve History,” by J ohn J ustus. Appears i n
Implementation of t he Climate Act , Hearing before t he Subcommittee on Natural Resources
and Environment of t he Commi t t e e on Science and T echnology, U.S. House ofth
Representatives, 96 Congress. Washington, U.S. Govt . Print. Off., 1979, p. 190-228.

United States Global Change Research Program
By the early 1990s, t he National C limate Program faded from t he scene11 as t h e
newl y creat ed U.S . Gl obal C hange R esear ch Progr a m gained adherents, achieved
prominence as a P residential Initiative w ith discretely identi fiable budget items,12 and
eventually acquired l egislative underpinning in the form o f t he Gl o b a l C h a nge
Research Act o f 1990 (S. 169, Public Law 101-606). 13 It continues as p art o f current
federal climate activities, as described bel ow and as s hown i n Table 1.
The GCRP was creat ed with the recognition t hat global change i s s u es are
com p l ex and far reachi n g, ex t endi ng beyond t h e m i ssi on, resources, and ex pert i s e o f
any s ingl e agency, requiring in s t e a d the i ntegrat ed effort s o f s everal governm ent al
entities. The p rogram involves s cienti f i c r esearch on gl obal change generally,
including but not limited to climate change. GCRP agencies support s cientific
research through coordination and joint activities. Members of t he G C R P are t he
Depart m ent s o f Agri cul t u r e, C om m erce (not abl y, i t s Nat i onal Oceani c and
A tmospheric Administration), Defense, Energy, Health and Human Serv i ces
(notab l y, t he National Institutes of Health), Interior (United S tates Geologi cal
Survey), and S tate, p lus t he Environmental P rotection Agency, National Aeronautics
an d S p ace A d m i n i s tration, National S cience Foundation, and S mithsonian In s titution.
The GCRP coordinates a n d f u n d s research on, among other t hings, natural
fluctuations of ear t h processes, possible impact s of human activities on t he
environment, and ways t o i ncreas e t he predictive power of climate change models.
The GCRP 14 is mandated b y s tatute to undertake s cientific assessments of the
potential consequences for t he Un ited S tates of global change.15 The Global C hange

11P.L. 95-367 wa s never formally repealed, however.
12Annual budget presentations appeared in a s eparate document Our Changing Planet ,first
produced by the National Science and T echnology Council (NST C) in 1995. F u r t her
information about the NST C comes later i n t his r eport.
13T he Act defined “gl obal change” as including al terations in climate, land productivity,
oceans or other water r esources, atmospheric chemi stry, and ecologi cal systems, that may
alter t he earth’s capacity to sustain life.
14 T he GCRP, which focuses on i mprovi ng the understanding of gl obal c hange, reported t o
the Committee on Environment and Natural Resources (CENR) . T his was established i n
1993 as an element of t he NST C until the CENR’s s unset date of December 31, 2002. T he
NST C, c reated by Executive Order on Nove mber 23, 1993, continues a nd is chaired by t he
President. T he NST C i s t he primary means f or the President to coordinate science, space,
and t echnology across t he F e d e r a l government. Members of t he NST C include the V ice
President, the Assistant t o t he President f or Science a nd T echnology, Cabinet Secretaries,
and Heads of Agencies with significant s cience and t echnology r esponsibilities, and other
White House officials. T he CENR advised and assisted the NST C t o i ncrease t he
effectiveness and productivity of federal R&D involving the environment and natural
resources. Climate change r esearch was coordinated t hrough t he NST C, i n accordance with
the Global Change Research Act of 1990. As shown i n T able 1 a nd described l ater in this
report, the GCRP is now a part of t he Climate Change Science Program.
15Gl obal change encompasses t he multidirectional i nteractions of the physical, chemi cal, and

Research Act o f 1990 (P.L. 101-606, Section 106) stated that the federal government
“shall prepare and submit to the P resident and t he Congress a National Assessment
! integrat es , evaluat es , and interprets the findings o f t he Program and discusses
the s ci entific uncertainties associ at ed with such findings;
! anal yz es t h e effect s o f gl obal change o n t he natural environment, agriculture,
energy production and use, land and water resources, t r a n s portation, human
heal t h and wel fare, hum an soci al syst em s, and b i o l o gi cal di versi t y; and
! analyz es current trends in gl obal change, both human-induced and natural , and
projects m ajor trends for t he subsequent 25 to 100 years.”
Research conducted b y t he GCRP was t he scientific found a t i o n o n which the
Assessment was built. The National A s s e s s m ent S ynthes is Team (NAST), a
committee o f ex p erts drawn from g o v e r n ment, academe, industry, and
nongovernmental organizations, p rovided t he leadership in writing t he Assessment.
Approvals for t he work were gi ven b y t he NSTC, t he cabinet-l evel body of agencies
responsible for s c i entific research. The Assessment i s composed of the Overview
repor t a n d the Foundation report; the Foundation report i s m ore d etailed t han t he
Overvi ew. 16 The t w o reports are n ational-level, peer-reviewed documents which
synthesiz ed results from s tudies conducted b y regional and sector te a m s , and from
the broader scientific literature. 17
Climate Change Research Initiative
On J une 11, 2001, the Bush Administration i ssued the W hite House In itial
Review on Climate Change, a Cabinet-level review of U.S. climate ch ange policy.
Members of t he Cabinet, the Vice P resident, and senior W h ite House s taff ex amined
the s cience, technologies, U.S. activit ies, and options for addressing atmospheric
concentrations of greenhouse gases. The White House Initial R eview i ncluded t he
concurrent announcement o f t he U . S . C limate Change Research Initiative (CCRI) and
the National C limate Change Technology Initiative (NCCTI). The CCRI’s general
mission was t o “imp r o v e the i ntegration o f s cientific knowledge i nto effective
decision support s ys tems with performance metrics and deliver able products useful

biological processes t hat affect the whole ear th system. Changes in climate are a subset.
16T h e f ull titles of t he two r eports are similar: “Climate Change Impacts on t he United
States, T he Potential Consequences of Climate V ariability and Change, Foundation”, and
“Climate Change Impacts on t he United States, T he Potential Consequenc es of Climate
Variability and Change, Overvi ew.”
17From []. T he National Assessment was formally challenged
under t he Data Quali t y Ac t ( DQA; Section 515a of PL 106-554) by the Competitive
Enterprise Institute (CEI). The DQA empowers affected parties t o challenge t he obj ectivity,
utility, and reproducibility of data used and/or dissemi nated by t he federal government.
The CEI later f iled a l a ws u i t seeking t o prevent further dissemi nation of t he report. An
official response t o t he suit is pending.

to policym akers i n a 2-5 year time frame.”18 Specific priorities begun in FY2003
include new efforts t o b etter understand the North American carbon cycle, to develop
reliabl e representations of the global and regi onal climate interactions of atmospheric
aerosols, to invest in more refined computer modeling, a n d t o ensure l ong term
climate data records t hat are of higher quality.
Additional o rganizational elements to deal with climate change were announced
in 2002. An organiz ation chart was released by the Bush Administration at a meeting
on April 1, 2002 of the S ubcommittee on Gl obal C hange R esearch (GCR), a part of
the now-ex tinct CENR. 19 The chart provided s ome d et ails about new governmental
struct ures and act ivities t hat are part of the Administration’s efforts t o advance
climate change science and technology. The o rganizational b ackground information
for t he chart released at the C ENR’s GCR Subcommittee m eeting o n April 1, 2002
is summariz ed i n Table 1. As described further in this report and shown i n Table 2,
the CCRI was combined i n J anuary 2003 with the GCRP to form the C limate Change
Nati onal Cl i m ate Change Technol ogy I ni t i a ti ve
The NCCTI was a n nounced by President George W . Bush o n J une 11, 2001.
The S ecret a r i e s o f t he Departments o f C o mmerce and Energy, working with other
agencies, were d irected to evaluate the state of climate change technology R &D in
the United S tates and make recommendations for improvement; provide guidance on
st rengt h eni n g b asi c research i n academ e and i n t h e n at i onal l aborat ori e s ; devel o p
opportunities t o enhance pub lic-private partnerships in applied R &D; m ake
recommendations for funding demonstration projects o f cutting-edge technologies;
and evaluate improved t echnologies for measuring and monitoring gross and net
terrestrial greenhouse gas emissions.
The FY2004 budget requests $1.2 billion for climate change technology, within
the P resid e n t ’ s NCCTI. The FY2004 budget request for climate change science i s
described l at er in this report.
Climate Change Policy Panel
The C limate Change Policy P anel (CCPP; see Table 1) combines the concerns
of the National S ecurity Council, the Domestic Policy C ouncil, and t he Na t i o n a l
Economic Council. The chair of the CCPP i s the National S ecurity Advisor o r o ther
presidential appointee. The chair is responsible for p rogram and policy review and
reports to the p resident.
The C ommittee on C limate Ch ange Science and Technology Integration
(CCSTI), which h ad been announced by the P resident on February 14, 2002, also
continues. The CCSTI membership is shown i n Table 1. The Ex ecutive Direct or of

18Statement of J ames Connaughton, Chair of t he White House Counci l o n Envi ronmental
Qu ality, i n t he Hearing on Global Climate Change and the U.S. Climate Action Report
before the Senate Committee on Commerce, J uly 11, 2002, tab 5, p. 24.
19T he CENR had a s unset date of December 31, 2002.

the CCSTI is the Director of the W hite House Office of Science and Technology
Policy. The CCSTI’s function s incl ude recommending to the P resident climate
change science and technology activities and movement of funds and p rograms
across agency boundaries, and coordinating with the OMB. The chair of t he CCSTI
is responsible for t he final review o f recommendations to the C limate Change Policy
Wor k i ng G r oup on Cl i m ate Change Sci e nce a nd Technol ogy
R e p o r ting t o t he CCPP and the CCSTI, as seen in the organizational chart i n
Table 1, i s t he Interagency W ork i n g G r o u p on Climate Change Science and
Technology. The group’s s ecretary was ex pected to b e t h e Assistant Director for
Climate Science and Technology from t he Office of Science and Technology P olicy
(OSTP), a position t he Administration s ai d i t i ntended t o creat e; 20 while the position
had not been created as of the d ate o f t his report, the function i s p e r formed by
OS TP ’s Associ at e D i rect or for S ci ence. 21 The functions of the Interagency W o rking
Group on Climate Science and Technology i nclude reviewing all programs relating
to climate change science, p r o v i ding recommendations to the CCSTI regarding
climate science funding and p rogram allocations, and accepting and acting o n
recommendations by the J oint Climate Change Science P rogram Office and t he
Climate Change Technology P rogram Office.
Cl i m ate Change Sci e nce P r ogr am
On J anuary 30, 2003, the Administration announced that the CCRI an d t he
GCRP would be combined i nto t he Climate Change Science P rogram (CCSP), which
i s s eparate from climate change technology work which is part of the P resident ’ s
National C limate Change Technology Initiative. T h e FY2004 budget seeks $1.75
billion t o directly sponsor scientific research managed by t he CCSP. Included i n t he
$1.75 billion CCSP funds are $182 million for the CCRI. Although t he total CCSP
request for s pending in FY2004 was u p only 0.1% over t he FY2003 request, t hat
portion of t he funding request allocat ed to the embedded CCRI was up 355% from
$40 million i n FY2003 to $182 million i n FY2004. An issue for Congress is the
ex tent to which t hat l arge CCRI increase represents new money versus how much is
attributable to the recl assification of ongoing research programs.
The CCSP reports to the Interagency Working Group on Climate Science and
Technology and will have jo i n t m embership o f all agencies with climate research
funding, according t o m aterials presented o n April 1, 20 0 2 i n a m eeting o f t he
Subcommittee on Global C hange R es earch. The CCSP i s t o be s taffed by
interagency det ailees . The Direct or is a det ailee from t he Department of Commerce
(J ames Mahoney, Assistant S ecretary o f C o mmerce and Deputy Administrator of the
Nat i onal Oceani c and At m o spheri c Adm i n i s t rat i on). T he funct i o n o f t he C C S P wi l l

20Di sclosed on April 1, 2002 in a meeting of t he Subcommittee on Global Change Research,
avai l a bl e a t [ i mat esci Li br ar y/ st r a t pl a n2003/ vi si on/ act i m] .
21Personal c ommunication with OST P on Nove mber 5, 2003.

be to review al l climate change science program s, not just the GCRP. The Direct or
of the CCSP reports to the chair of the Interagency W o rking Group. 22
Cl i m ate Change Technol ogy Pr ogr am
The C limate Change Technology P rogram (CCTP), announced April 1 , 2002,
locat ed in DOE, i s a new entity and reports to the Interagency Working Grou p on
Climate Change Science and Technology t hrough t he Secretary o f E nergy. T h e
CCTP’s Director is a DOE senior political appointee, according t o m aterials
presented o n April 1, 2002 in a m eeti n g of t he Subcommittee on Global C hange
R esearch. 23 The functions of this office are t o dev el o p , rev i ew, and implement
climate technology p rograms within the fed eral government consistent with the
National C limate Change Technology Initiative (NCCTI). The CCTP works with the
current participants of the NCCTI. The CCTP b egan in FY2003 (and continues i n
FY2004) to create an i nventory o f climate change technology efforts, with the goal
of recommending priority programs to help meet the Administration’s goal of an 18-
percent reduction i n energy i ntensity (ratio of energy use t o economic productivity)
by 2012. This ongoing creation o f a variet y o f climate change technology efforts
makes comparisons of technology p rograms and funding before and after FY2003
very di ffi cul t ; as such, t he com p arat i v e d et ai l s as present ed i n T abl e 5 are unavai l abl e
for FY2004.24
In a hearing of the House S cience Committee held on November 6, 2003, t he
Admi n i s t r a t i o n s tated its intention t o release during t he first quarter of 2004, for
p ublic comment, a draft plan for the CCTP’s activities. DOE al so said t h at t h e
C C T P wi l l rel ease t wo report s on near- and l ong-t erm goal s and t he st at e o f research
and current technology activities. In a statement, s ome o f t h e priorities t o b e
high lighted in the FY2005 budget include the Hyd rogen Fuel Initiative (to accelerate
the t ransition t o a hydrogen economy), “Fu tu reGen” (for z ero-emissions electricity
generation u sing coal), and fusion energy (the s ame form o f energy t hat powers t he
sun). 25 Comments m ade i n t he hearing noted that the Administration appeared to be
focused m ostly on long-term t echnologies, that energy efficiency and o ther proven
technologies ex i st for s hort-term gains, and t hat t h e r e remain questions about the
speci fics for t he timeframe and t he level at which atmospheric carbon concentrations
will be stabilized.26

22From materials d i s t r i b uted in an April 2002 meeting of t he Subcommittee on Global
Change Research, available at
[ i mat esci Li br ar y/ st r a t pl a n2003/ vi si on/ act i m] .
23Confirme d i n a personal c ommunication with DOE on Nove mber 5, 2003.
24Disclosed and discussed i n various meetings , s ummarized and available at i mat esci Li br ar y/ st r a t pl a n2003/ nr c-pr esent a t i ons25Aug2003/ cct p.pdf
25Statement of David Conover, Director of the U.S. Climate Change T echnology Progr am,
before the House Science Committee on November 6, 2003.
26F r o m House Science Committee media announcement on November 6, 2003; furt h e r
details about the hearing can be f ound at
[ science/hear ings /energy03/index.htm] .

National Academy of S ciences Review and
The GCRP member agencies had b een directed by the P resident in J une 2001
to develop t he previously-mentio n e d C l imate Change Research Initiative t o
accelerate climate change research over t he nex t five years, in order t o assist in the
development of c l i m at e change policy. A S trat egic Plan would guide the climate
The N at i onal A cadem y o f S ci ences (NAS ) w as asked b y t he Adm i n i s t rat i o n i n
September 2002 to review the d raft Str a t e gi c P l a n. The d raft Strategi c P lan was
made available i n November 2002 for s ci entific and public comments. A P lanning
W o rkshop for S cie n t i s ts and S takeholders was h eld i n December 2002 to formally
gather comments about the d raft Strategi c P lan. Th e N A S review, and assembled
outside comments, were reported b y NAS in February 2003. Recommendations from
the NAS report addressed t he federal s tructure for m an aging climate ch an ge research
and t echnology, among other t hings. They included t hese comments:
! “The revised s trategic plan should a r t i c ulate a clear, s pecific and ambitious
vi si on st at em ent i n t he cont ex t o f n at i onal n eeds ... (with) t angi ble goals, ... an
ex plicit proces s t o establish priorities, and ... an effective m anagem ent plan.
! The plan s hould present cl ear go al s for the CCRI and ensure activities are
consistent with these goals; m ai ntai n CCRI’s . . . em phasis on ... near-t erm
deci sions ... and i nclude an ex plicit m ech anism t o link GCRP and CCRI
! The p lan s hould d escribe t he management p rocesses t o b e u sed t o foster
agency cooperation t owards common CCSP goals.
! Clear mechanisms for coordin a t i n g and linking CCSP activities with the
technology d evelopment activities o f t he CCTP s hould b e d escribed.
! [ The plan should] more fully describe how models and knowledge s upporting
regi onal d eci si on m aki ng and p l ace-based s ci ence wi l l be devel oped.
! [ The plan should] strengthen treatment of human, economic, and ecologi cal
dimensions of climate and associ at ed gl obal changes .
! [ The plan should] better d escribe a s trategic p r o gram for an integrated
observing system for cl imate variability and change on s cal es from regional
! [ The plan should] im p r o v e the d escription o f how decision support
capabilities will be developed.
! [ The plan should] identify what s ou r ces and m agnitudes o f uncertainty
reduct i ons are especi al l y needed.

! [ T h e plan should] address t he major r equirements i n building capacity in
human and computing resources.
! [ The plan should] use t he clear go als a nd program p riorities and advice from
an independent advisory body to gu ide future funding decisions.”27
Cl i m ate Change Sci e nce P r ogr am Str a tegi c P l a n
Subse q uent to the NAS recommendations reported i n February 2003, the
Administration rel eased its new CCSP S trat egic Plan on Climate Change, on J uly 24,

2003. The p lan d escribes five major research go als:

! Im prove knowledge o f p ast and present climate, i ncluding natural v ariability,
and improve understanding of cau ses o f v ariability and change;
! Im prove 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;
! Ex plore t he uses and limits of knowledge t o m anage risks and opportunities
related t o climate variability and change.
S p eci fi c research t arget s accom p any each go al . T here al so are s chedul es for
research papers and s yn t h esi s report s , i ncluding a report within two years o n how to
resolve t emperature data differences between satellite an d ground-based readings ,
and a report within four years o n abrupt climate change. The plan provides n o budget
details. S ome critics say the plan overemphasizes t he uncertainties i n cli m a te
s c i e n ce, covers little new ground, and allo ws delay i n t aking actions to curb
greenhouse gas emissions; s ome p roponent s s ay the p lan will mo r e s h a r p l y focus
research, w i t h cl earer go al s and schedul es. 28 The 3 60-page plan can be viewed at
[ brary/ stratplan2003/final/default.htm] .
The Administration’s FY2004 budget seeks $1.7 billion t o d irectly sponsor
scientific research managed b y t he CCSP. Included i n t he $1.7 billion CCSP funds
are $182 million for the C limate Change Research Initiative (CCRI). The FY2004
budget requests $1.2 billion for climate ch ange technology, as part of the NCCTI.

27Planning Climate and Global Change Resea r c h : A Review of the Draft U.S. Climate
Change Science Program Strategic Plan. National Research Counc i l o f the National
Academies. February 26, 2003.
28Malakoff, Davi d. “New Climate Science Plan Garners Split Opinions”. Science
Maga zi ne. 1 August 2003. Page s 575 - 576.

The t otal amounts for research and for t echnologies are similar from t he Clinton
through t he Bu sh Administrations (through t he years, each year about $1.7 billion for
research, about $1.2 billion for technologies). This comparison i s s hown i n Table 3.
Table 3. Funding for C limate C hange Research, T echnologies:
A Four Year Comparison
FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004
Bush Admin: --- --- 1.7 1.7
scientific research (0.04 for (CCSP;
(CCSP) CCRI, now includes
GCRP (research) 1.7 1.6 (now in
Bush Admin: --- --- 1.3 1.2
CCTI 1.2 1 (now in Bush (now in Bush
(technologies) Admin. Admin.
technologies) technologies)
Sci e nce a nd Technol ogy Pr ogr ams a nd Fundi ng Level s by
Climate change research is specified in the budgets for thirteen federal entities:
the Departments of Agriculture, C ommerce, Defense, E n ergy, Health & Human
Services, Interior, State, and Transportation, along with the Environmental P rotection
Agency, t he National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National S ci ence
Foundation, the Agency f o r In ternational Development, and t he Smithsonian
Institution. Testimony on J anuary 8, 2003 given by Assistant S ecret ary of C ommerce
J ames M ahoney t o t h e S e n a t e Commerce C ommittee m entions an additional $1.3
billion “of related research conducted b y t he thirteen CCSP collabor ating agencies,”
but no further d etails were provided i n t he testimony or in the budget request.
Funding by agency for climate change science p rograms i s s ummarized i n Table
4. Funding by agency for climate change technol ogy programs is summarized in
Table 5 . Agencies i n both t ables are listed i n o rder of decreasing l evels o f funds.

Table 4. Funding for C limate C hange Science Program
FY2003 FY2004 req.
National S cience Foundation 203 213
Department of Commerce / NOAA 118 136
Department of Energy 129 133
Department of Agriculture 66 73
National Institutes of Health 59 61
Environmental P rotection Agency 2 2 2 2
Smithsonian Institution 6 6
US Agency for Int ern’l Devel opm ent 6 6
Department of Transportation 0 4
Department of State 0 1
Total, CCSP 1,747 1,749
Subtotal, CCRI (included i n CCSP 40 182


Table 5. C linton Administration CCTI, and B ush Administration
National C limate C hange Technology Initiative (and Related)
Funding by Ag ency29
Dep t., FY9 8 FY9 9 FY0 0 FY0 1 FY0 2 FY0 3 FY0 4
DOE 729 902 980 1,103 1,065 991 1,080
EPA 90 109 103 123 115 130 130
Agriculture 00030nana
Commerce 00200nana
TOTAL 819 1,021 1,095 1,239 1,180 1,121 1,210
National Aeronautics a nd Space Administrati on. NAS A’s G lobal
C h ange R esearch P rogram o bserves the global carbon cycl e, wat er cycl e, ecosyst em s,
climate variability, atmosp h e ri c chemistry, and l and cover-land use, t o t ry to
determine how the global earth system is changi ng, what t he primary causes o f
change are, how the earth system responds to natural and human-induced changes,
what the consequence for human ci vilization might be, and how better t o p redict
future changes i n t he earth system. The FY2003 amount to fund these activities was
slightly over $1.1 billion. The FY2004 request is slightly under $1.1 billion, and i s
included i n t he CCSP t otal.
National S cience Foundation. The National S cience Foundation, an
independent government agency, inter alia initiates and supports scientific and
engi neeri n g research t h rough grant s, cont ract s, and fel l o wshi p s wi t h academ i c,
nonprofit, and o ther institutions and o rganiz ations. C limate change research funded
through NSF incl udes studies of carbon cycling, A n t a rctic ecosystem s, climate
m odel i n g-anal ys i s -predi ct i on, sea-l evel changes, ecol o gi cal di versi t y, w at er cycl i n g,
polar o z one depletion-ultraviolet radiation effects, greenhouse gas dynamics, solar
influences, climate vari ability-predictability, human dimensions of global change,

29 “Briefing on Research and Development Fundi ng in President’s FY2004 Budget” Office
of Science a nd T echnology Policy J anuary 30, 2003; “President Clint on’s FY2001 Climate
Change Budget,” page 13, “Federal Climate Change Expenditures Report t o Congress J une

2001", [ www.usgc p/Library/ gcinitiative2002/ gc storybook.htm] pp. 43, 46.

“na” = data not available; specific data are be ing i dentified t hrough an i nteragency revi ew

and o ther related t opics . T he FY2003 funding level was $203 million. The FY2004
request is $213 million.
De partment of Commerce/Na ti onal Oceanic and Atmospheric
Ad m i n i s t r a t i o n ( N O AA) . Two m ai n program s within the Department of
Commerce addressed i ssues relating t o climate change. The wide range of res earch
in C o mmerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), one of
11 federal entities participating i n t he GCRP, i ncluded l ong-standing climate-related
work, m uch of i t not speci fi cally identified as CCTI or CCRI but rather part of
NOAA’s generic mission. Among other t hings , r e s e arch at NOAA sought to
determine “the i m p act s of climate variability and change on ecosystem s; ...
understand how radiative, chemical, and dynamical processes interact in the upp er
troposphere/lower s tratosphere to affect c limate; ... (and) study the effects o f climate
variability and change o n h ealth...”30 There al s o w ere p rogram s at t he Nat i onal
Institute of St andards and Technology (NIST) which looked at climate change
issues.31 The $ 2 million requested and p rovided i n t he FY2000 budget specifically
for t he C C T I s peci fi cal l y was n ew t o t h e Department of Commerce and did not go
to NOAA32 or NIST as a s ingl e CCTI line-item but to various climate-related R &D
projects. NOAA’s funding for climate change research activities (including climate
chan ge o b servations and research to reduce s cientific uncertainty) i n FY2003
amounted to $118 million, and t he FY2004 request is $136 million.
Department of Energy. Carbon diox ide, which as noted above is the m ajor
greenhouse gas, arises m ostly from combustion o f fossil fuels. The Department of
Energy, which has l ong had R &D programs relating t o fossil fuel energy u se, was by
far t he largest recipient o f both CCTI and similar l ater funding ( D O E h a s r eceived
and continues t o receive about 90% of interagency climate change funding). W h ile
the Administration h as stated that the t otal interagency FY 2004 request for climate
change t echnology i s $1,210 million, agency-s pecific amounts are being reviewed
through an i nteragenc y process (in comparison, as shown i n Table 3, the FY2004
request for t he climate change science p rogram is $1,749 million).
Funding f o r t h e DOE’s efforts h as been for t he research, d evelopment, and
deployment of more energy efficien t and renewable t echnologies s uch as:
! “Buildings :” low-power sulfur lamps, advanced heat pumps, chillers and
commercial refrigeration, fuel cells, i ns ulation, energy conserving building
materials, and advanced windows;
! “Elect ricity:” generation using alternatives to fossil fuels such as solar energy,
biomass power, wind energy, geothermal power, h yd ropower, and optimized
nuclear power;

30Department of Commerce budget initiative, details of which can be found at
[ ]
31T elephone communication with the National Institute of Standards an d T echnology on
32Personal communication with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on

! “Industries:” greater efficiency in indus tries s uch as aluminum, s teel, mining,
agriculture, chemicals, forest products, and petroleum;
! “Tra n s p o rt at i on: ” researchi n g, developing, and deploying m ore efficient
technologies, such as advanced engi nes, hybrid systems, fuel ce lls and
emission controls; t hese constituted t he federal component of the P artnership
for a New Generation o f Vehicles (P NGV) w h i ch was a 10-year
go vernment/domestic auto industry partnership begu n i n t he Cli n t o n
Administration i n 1993 that aimed t o p roduce by 2004 a prototype midsiz ed
family car with 80 mile per gal l o n gas oline effici ency and a two-thirds
reduction i n carbon emissions. S even fe deral agencies were i nvolved i n t he
P NGV (C om m erce, Defense, Energy, Transportat i o n , EPA, National
Aeronautics and Space Administrati on, and t he National S cience Foundation)
(for d etails on PNGV, see C R S R eport R S20852); t he Bu sh Administration
c ancelled t he PNGV program and began t he Freedom CAR p rogr a m w h i c h
wi l l focus o n fuel cel l v ehi cl es;
! “Remove and S eque ster Carbon:” t rying t o find b etter ways t o remove and
s equester carbon from fossil and other fuels, v ia agricultural a n d o t h e r
approaches (in conjunction with EPA, an d o rigi nally planned i n conjunction
! “Managem ent , P l anni ng, Anal ysi s and Out reach: ” governm ent al effort s
(federal, stat e, an d others) to conserve energy through m ore h ighly
coordi nat ed m anagem ent , pl anni ng, anal ysi s and out reach.33
As with the P NGV/FreedomCAR p r o gr a m , m any o f DOE’s research and
technology dollars have been spent i n p artn ership with other federal entities s uch as
EPA, with other governmental units, and with privat e s ect or entities.
Table 6 shows funding levels for t hese DOE climate change r e search and
technology p rograms.

33Analys is of the Climate Change T echnology Initiative, Resea r c h a nd Development
S u pport. Energy Information Agenc y, U . S . D e p a r t me n t o f E n e r gy.
[ ht t p: www.ei oi a f / cl i mat e99/ r e sear ml ]

Table 6. D OE Climate C hange Research and T echnology
($ millions)34
Program FY98 FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04
Buildings 102 124 141 105 131 93 na
Transpo. 223 250 274 255 306 263 na
Industry 136 167 170 149 149 138 na
Electricity 239 311 307 421 400 408 na
Carbon -- 13 9 3 9 3 2 5 4 n a
Mgmt 29 38 43 43 44 na na
Bas i c -- -- 33 -- 3 3 5 n a
Total 729 903 977 1,012 1,065 991 1,080
Department of Agriculture. Funding for c l i m ate change research at
Agriculture amounted to $66 million i n FY2003, an d t he FY2004 request is $73
million. This research incl udes efforts t o improv e m eas urem ents of carbon
inventories at t he national l evel, and to develop m ethods to manage crops, s oils, and
grazing s ys tems t o optimize agricultural productivity, resource conservation, and
greenhouse gas emissions and c arbon sequestration. The FY2001 amount of $3
million i n t echnology was principally to develop agriculture-centered t echnologies
to better m an a g e t h e c a rbon cycle, from s ources to sequestration. No funds were
specified for Agriculture Department climate change technology activities i n
subsequent budget requests

34 U.S. Departme nt of Energy. “Department of E n e rgy Report t o Congress on FY2000
Expenditures f o r Energy Supply, Efficiency, a nd Security T echnologies Supporting t he
Climate Change T echnology Init i ative” May 18, 1999. P. 3. Federal Climate Change
Expenditures Report t o Congress J une 2001. Personal c ommunication with DOE legi slative
liaison May, August, September 2002, J a nuary 2003.
na = n o t a vailable at t his time because climate change t echnology progr ams are being
recategorized by the Administration ( mentioned earlier i n t his r eport).
Categorizations varied through t he years, e.g., “Basic s cience” was presented in FY00 and
FY02 as a s pecific category, but had been funde d i n a fragmented f ashion throughout other
categories i n other years.

Na tiona l I ns titute s o f H e a lth. Within the Department of Health and
Human S ervices, t he National Institutes of Health conducted research identified as
related t o climate change, i ncluding study of the health effect s of ultraviolet radiation
and o f chemical replacements for ch l o r i n ated fluorocarbons. This work amounted
to $59 million i n FY2003. The FY2004 request is for $61 million.
Department of the I nterior. The United S tates Geologi cal Survey (USGS),
within the Department of the Interior, has conducted global change research
incl uding historical research on climat e v ariability and change, and global carbon
cycl i n g t hrough l akes, s t ream s, wet l ands, s oi l s , s e d i m e nt s, and v eget at i on. The
USGS al so manages and disseminat es satellite land-surface an d ecosystem data
which m ay be used in climate change activities. In FY2003 the Department received
$26 million for its climate change research. The FY2004 request is also $26 million.
Envi ron m e n tal P rotection Agency. The Environmental P rotection
Agency uses two m ain bud ge t c a t egorie s: Science and Technology (S&T, which
includes R &D and t echnology d evelopm e n t and diffusion efforts), and
E n v i r o n m ental P rograms and Management (EPM, which are t he costs t o run
programs). Therefore, it is difficult to consistently separate R&D from t echnology
assistance an d d i ffu sion efforts. For ex ample, i n EPA’s climate change Buildings
Sector, t he owner o f a building can have EPA’s b enchmarking t ool voluntarily
applied t o t hat building as a target for energy reductio n . V arious activities can be
tried, e.g., pluggi ng leaks and replaci ng less effici ent lights with more effici ent lights,
to see i f t he benchmark will be met. If not, other activities can be tried i n an iterative
fashion, tryi ng and recording and incorporating t he findings i n t he benchmark. This
program i ncludes activities t hat can be d e s c ribed as both res earch-related and
technology d iffusion and assistance. EPA’s figures for climate change S&T are used
W h ile there h as been some discussion a bout the p roper ro l e s f o r government,
industry, and academe i n climate change and o ther R&D,35 the climate change R&D
activities have not been highly controversial. In general, EPA funds targeted for
R &D, especi al l y are a s of m o re basi c R &D t h at predat e t he C C T I and t h e K yo t o
Protocol, were l ess controversi a l , a n d f unds for n ew programs intended t o assist
technology d eploym ent and diffusion an d t o h elp consumers l earn about and choose
more effici ent commodities and processes have s ometimes been more controversial.
The elements and levels of EPA’s climate change research and technology funds
are summarized i n Table 7. Activities rel at ed to these program areas are briefly
described b elow. S ome o f t hese funding areas focused h eavily on R&D, while others
involved i nformation dissemination and other activities.

35P l ease s ee CRS Report 98-365 Some Perspectives on the Changing Role of the U. S .
Government i n Science and Technology for details.

Table 7. EPA Climate Change Research and Technology Programs
P rogram FY99 FY00 FY01 FY02 FY03 FY04
Buildings 38.8 42.6 52.5 48.6 49.8 48.3
Transportation 31.8 29.6 29.4 30.8 21.6 22.9
Industry 22.1 22.0 31.9 25.4 25.4 26.4
Carbon 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 1.6 1.7
State & 5.0 2.5 2.5 2.2 2.3 2.6
International 6.0 6.0 6.3 7.0 7.1 6.6
Research 26 20.6 22.6 21.4 21.7 21.5
Total 129.7 124.3 146.2 136.9 129.5 130.0
Source: EPA FY2004 Budget [ www.epa.go v/ ocf o / budget / budget ]
! The “Bu ildings ” component of EPA’s climate change research and t echnology
activities i nclude housing and commercial s tructures. E P A and others
(including DOE) ar g u e t h a t e f f o r t s b y i n d i v i d u a l a n d o r ga n i z a t i onal consumers
to secure the m ost energy efficient p rocess o r com m odi t y are h am pered b y a
lack of objective i nformation on which to make comparisons (for det ails, s ee
IB10020 Energy Efficiency: Budget , O i l C onservation, and Electricity
C onservat i o n Issues ). Through t he Agency’s ENERGY STAR Program and
ENER GY S T AR Bui l d i n gs and G reen Li gh t s P art nershi p, EP A eval u at es and
certifies energy-saving building-related prod u cts (including such items as
televisions, appliances, residential lighting, and whole houses), and m akes that
information available s o t hat consumer s and businesses c a n c h o o se energy-
saving and pollution-reducing p roducts more easily.
! “Transportation” activities of EPA incl ude the following:
< ex panded s upport for a p rogram which p rovides n ew in centives for
commuters to consider transit, ridesharing, or other alternatives to
< continued s upport o f s tate and l ocal efforts t oward livable
communities and smart growth;

< continued efforts i n t he Transportation P artners net work which links
abo u t 340 local governments, community organiz ations, and
companies i n o rder to produce knowledge t hat i s d esigned t o reduce
vehicl e miles t raveled;
< w o rk whi ch cont ri but ed t o t h e P art n ershi p for a New G enerat i o n o f
Vehicles and now contributes to the Freedom CAR (both b eing
government/domestic-auto-industry p artnerships d escribed previously
! “Indus t r y” effort s i ncl ude working with industries (especially energy-i nt ens i ve
industries s uch as cement, chemicals, steel, p etroleum, airl i n es, and food
processing), commonly t hrough t echni cal assi st ance, t o audi t and i d ent i fy
greenhouse gas emission s o u r c e s and t o h elp i n formulating appropriate
red u ction goals and strat egies, incl udi ng removal o f regulatory and other
barriers. This incl udes working with ongoing privately-funded energy
effi ci ency program s at pri v at e com pani es.
! “Carbon Removal” ef f o r t s at EPA were planned i n coordination with the
Departments o f Agriculture and Energy. The EPA/USDA/DOE funds for t his
activity are for studying ways t o i ncrease environmental s torage of carbon, as
well as the kinds and s izes of incentives t h at could be given to land owners
an d crop growers to increas e t he quantity of carbon stored on agricu ltural and
forest lands, and at the s am e time improve soil quality, r ed uce s oil erosion,
and enhance o ther environmen tal and conservation goals.
! EPA works with “State and Local Governments” to help find ways to reduce
energy use a n d p o l lution, sometimes b y s upporting ex i sting s tate and l ocal
programs. The Cities for Climate Protection p rogram, for ex ample, involves
more than 54 local governments i n implementing building, transportation,
waste, and renewable energy projects t o eliminate about 3 million m etric t ons
of carbon di ox i d e. A s t at e-l evel ex am pl e i s New J ersey’s st at e carbon bank
program, established t o h elp achieve New J ersey’s greenhouse gas emissions
reduction goal o f 3.5% below 1990 levels by 2005.
! “International C apacity Bu ilding, Part nerships, a nd Cooperation” involves
EPA and other agencies working to study ways to provide technical and o ther
assistance to developing countries to aid i n reducing t heir emiss i ons.
Developing countries currently emit more than half the global t otal of
greenhouse gases, and such emissions are growing rapidly.
Smithsonian Institution. Glob al ch ange research at the S mithsonian
Institution attempts to understand more fu lly atmospheric p rocesses, ecosystem
dynamics, natural and human-induced environmental change o n d aily to decadal time
scal es , and longer-term climate metrics. The S mithsonian al so serves as a repository
of climate change findings. These activities amounted to $6 million i n FY2003, the
same amount requested in FY2004.

United States Agency for International Development. The US Agency
for Int ernat i onal Devel opm ent h as worked with foreign governments with the goal
of reducing net greenhouse gas emissions and l owering vul nerability to the t hreat s
posed by climate ch an ge impact s, by studying ways t o i ncrease use of
environmentally s o u n d energy, forestry, and biodiversity conservation m ethods.
Foreign governments have included Brazil, the Phillippines, and Russia. These
efforts amounted to $6 million i n FY2003, the s ame amount requested for FY2004.
Depar t m e n t of Transportation. The Department of Transportation will
c o nduct research and analysis relating t o greenhouse gas models for t he surface
transportation s ector, greenhouse gas control strategies, and t ransportation and gl obal
climate change. W hile there were n o funds for t his activity at DOT in FY2003, the
FY2004 request is for $4 million.
Department of State. J o ined by various European Union en v i r o n m e n tal
policy m akers, the Department of State i ssued a j oint statement o n February 7 , 2003
i d e n t i fyi ng six areas for possible cooperative research: carbon cycle research;
aerosol-climate interactions; feedbacks, water vapor and t hermohaline c i r culation;
i n t egrat ed observat i o n s ys t em s and d at a; carbon capt u re and s t o rage; and hydrogen
technology and infrast r u c t u re. A government-industry partnership involving the
Departments o f S tate and E nergy, and rep resentatives from s everal countries, was
announced on February 27, 2003 to design , build, and operate what was l abeled “the
world’s first pollution-free, coal -fired power plant. The facility will co s t an36
estimated $1,000 million over t he nex t 10 years.” While no climate change
research funds for S tate were identified i n FY2003, the FY2 0 0 4 request is for $ 1
D e partment of Housing a nd Urban Development. Climate chan ge
research and t echnology p rograms, n e w t o t he Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) in FY1999, were for t h e government/ housing d evelopers/
builders P artnership for Advancing Technology i n Housing (PATH). Id entified as
part of the CCTI t hrough FY2001, PATH res earch had a number o f goals in addition
to climate change. P ATH efforts s ought “to d evelop and d isseminate t echnologies
that will result in housi n g t hat i s s ubstantially more affordable, durable, d isaster
resistant, safer and energy/resource efficient...”37 No known m on e y for HUD has
been requested since FY2001, but HUD c ontinues t o administ e r t h e overall
operations of the P ATH.
Possible climate change linked t o “ greenhouse gas” emissions has b een
a d d r essed b y v arious U.S. government policies s ince the mid-1980s, wi t h a n
em phasis on energy R &D and on climate research and s ervices . U.S. efforts i n t he

36 opical/global/climate/03022802.htm
37Departme nt of Housing a nd Urban Development Policy Development and Research, from
[ mmary/pdandr/randt.cfm]

former Bush an d C l i nton Administrations toward R&D i n energy effici ency and
renewable energy, and res earch into climate and global change were given direction
by the Energy P olicy Act of 1992, which imp lemented United S tates responsibilities
under t he UNFCCC, and by t he Global C hange R es earch A c t o f 1990. The 1993
Climate Change Action P lan linked or m ade partnerships among various federal
agenci es, business, stat e and local governments, and other en t ities with the goal of
reducing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. The Clinton Administration’s CCTI built
upon these earlier efforts. The current Bu sh Administration h as introduced its U.S.
Climate Change Research In itiative, th e Natio n al C limate Change Technology
Initiative, and t he Climate Change Science P ro gram Strategi c P lan. The P lan, as
released on J u ly 24, 2003, describes five m ajor research go als (improve knowledge
of past and p resent climates, improve understanding of climate change forces, reduce
uncertainty in climate change projections, understand sensitivity and adaptability of
ecosystems t o climate change, and ex plore u ses and limits of knowledge t o m anage
risks and opportunities). As funding and o ther details become available, similarities
to an d d ifferences from earlier climate-change p rogram s m ay beco me apparent. The
evolving organiz ational s tructure, however , m akes it difficult to determine preci sely
some of the i nterrelationships among science and technology p rograms.
So m e cri t i cs of current climate change policy cal l for sharper goals, better
defined priorities, and m ore d et ai l ed, cl early stat ed objectives for climate change
R&D, and its associated funding profile. S ome observers point out, for ex ample, that
the t otal CCSP request for s pending in FY2004 was u p only 0.1% over t he FY2003
request, from $1.747 billion t o $1.749 billion, wh i l e t h at portion of t he funding
request allocat ed to the embedded CCRI was up 355% from $40 million i n FY2003
to $182 million i n FY2004. An i s s u e f o r Congress in this regard is the ex t ent t o
which such a demonstrably large CCRI increase act ually represents new m oney, and
how much is attributable t o t h e r eclassification o f ongoing research programs,
especially gi ven t he fact that the overall request is up only 0.1%. On t he other h and,
some proponents note t hat further R&D i s needed to justify certain climate change
management strategi es, t o focus those s trat egies on key policy questions, and to
reduce s ci entific uncertainties s urrounding prospective climate change so that
policym akers can make better, more informed deci sions.