Order Code RL33817
Climate Change: Federal Expenditures
January 22, 2007
Jane A. Leggett
Specialist in Energy and Environmental Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division

---

Climate Change: Federal Expenditures
Summary
Research has been the cornerstone of the U.S. strategy to address global climate
change. Funding has grown from a few million per year in the 1970s, to $2.4 billion
in FY1993, and to $5.1 billion in FY2004, as reported by the Office of Management
and Budget. After adjusting for inflation, the Government Accountability Office
(GAO) reports the increase from FY1993 to FY2004 as 55%, from $3.3 billion to
$5.1 billion. Federal expenditures for science and technology research, voluntary
deployment programs, international assistance, and tax incentives received budget
authority of $5.8 billion in FY2006 and a budget request of $6.5 billion in FY2007.
Climate-related expenditures are spread across more than a dozen agencies,
although the Department of Energy (DOE) spends more than 44% of the total. The
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), with budget authority of
about $1.15 billion in FY2006, is almost 20% of total expenditures, including tax
incentives. Tax incentives are another 19% of the total climate-related expenditures.
Implementation is directed by the Cabinet-level Committee on Climate Change
Science and Technology Integration. The strategy places management responsibility
and accountability for the various programs in individual agencies. Specific
programs are reported as many different initiatives in four major areas:
! The Climate Change Science Program (CCSP), including the Global
Change Research Program (USGCRP) and the Climate Change
Research Initiative (CCRI).
! The Climate Change Technology Program (CCTP), including the
National Climate Change Technology Initiative (NCCTI) and
included in the Advanced Energy Initiative (AEI).
! International Assistance, including the Asia-Pacific Partnership
(APP).
! Tax Provisions that May Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
Key policy issues associated with federal climate change expenditures include
the following:
! choosing priorities across science and technology research and
development, programs to encourage mitigation of greenhouse
gases, and adaptation to potential future climate change;
! articulating sufficiently measurable goals and milestones against
which to track progress;
! improving clarity of reported funding, including changes in reporting
rules over time, and evaluating effectiveness;
! maintaining stability of funding or preferential tax treatments and the
relationship to programs’ effectiveness; and
! balancing priorities within agencies of expenditures for climate
change versus other spending priorities in a tight fiscal environment.

---

Contents
Interagency Objectives and Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
The Climate Change Science Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
The Climate Change Technology Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
International Climate Change Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Tax Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Policy Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Related CRS Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Appendix 1. Climate Change Technology Development and Deployment for
the 21st Century in the CCTP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
List of Figures
Figure 1. Budget Authority for U.S. Global Change Research FY1989 to
FY2007 Request (millions of dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Figure 2. Evaluation of R&D Opportunities for the CCTP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
List of Tables
Table 1. Funding for Major U.S. Climate Change Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Table 2. Funding for U.S. Climate Change Programs, by Agency
(FY2003 to FY2007 Proposed, millions of dollars) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Table 3. History of U.S. Expenditures for Climate Change Science . . . . . . . . . . . 8

---

Climate Change: Federal Expenditures
Concerted investment in science and technological research has been the
cornerstone of the federal climate change strategy since the 1960s, in the interest of
reducing scientific uncertainties and lowering costs of technology solutions. In 1971,
a panel of the National Academy of Sciences1 recommended that the United States
increase its research into understanding the dynamics of climate and climate change
by $25 million2 for the 10-year period of 1970-1979. Since then, the U.S. investment
in climate change has increased to nearly $6 billion dollars in FY2006 alone.3 The
scope of federal activities has expanded beyond science to include technological
research, international assistance, and financial incentives to mitigate greenhouse
gases.
The U.S. climate-related programs also support the commitments of the United
States as a Party to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UN FCCC), ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1992. The objective of the UN FCCC is
“the stabilization of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent
dangerous anthropogenic4 interference with the climate system ... within a time-frame
sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally to climate change, to ensure that
food production is not threatened and to enable economic development to proceed
in a sustainable manner.”5 A voluntary aim to reduce greenhouse gases to 1990
levels by 2000 was agreed, along with other reporting and cooperative provisions, but
with no meaningful consequences for failing to meet the commitments.6
The U.S. climate-related programs, and their associated expenditures, are
typically reported as many different initiatives in four major areas:
! The Climate Change Science Program (CCSP), including the Global
Change Research Program (USGCRP) and the Climate Change
Research Initiative (CCRI).
1 National Research Council, The Atmospheric Sciences and Man’s Needs: Priorities for the
Future (Washington: National Academies Press, 1971).
2 In 1970 dollars.
3 The White House, Fiscal Year 2007 Report to Congress on Federal Climate Change
Expenditures (Washington, 2006), at [http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/legislative/fy07_
climate_change.pdf]
4 Human-related.
5 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (Rio de Janeiro, 1992),
[http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/background/items/2853.php]
6 For further information, see CRS Report RL33817 Climate Change: the Kyoto Protocol
and International Action, by Susan R. Fletcher and Larry Parker.

---

CRS-2
! The Climate Change Technology Program (CCTP), including the
National Climate Change Technology Initiative (NCCTI), and
included within the Advanced Energy Initiative (AEI).
! International Assistance, including the Asia-Pacific Partnership
(APP).
! Tax Provisions that May Reduce Greenhouse Gas Emissions.
Table 1 shows expenditures for each of these four areas from FY2003 budget
to FY2007. The figure for tax provisions is the estimated loss of revenues for that
year. Below the reporting level of these four major programs, expenditures occur in
a variety of different initiatives that have been renamed or reconfigured over the past
two decades, making them difficult to compare.7 In addition, there are federal
programs and fiscal incentives that are not established primarily for the purpose of
addressing climate change but that support the Administration’s climate change
goals; although some of these are reported in the climate change expenditures, such
as energy efficiency and nuclear energy programs, others are not, such as programs
to control tropospheric ozone or to conserve carbon in soils. In reports on these
climate programs, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) investigated the
Administration’s reporting practices and recommended greater clarity and
consistency of reporting federal expenditures on climate change. The subsequent
report in 2006 from the Administration complied with most of those GAO
recommendations, though consistent accounting remains unavailable for years before
2006.
The President’s budget request for climate change in FY2007 is $6.5 billion,
after almost doubling from about $3.3 billion in FY1993 (in constant 2005 dollars),
as reported by the Office of Management and Budget and the GAO. The proposal
for FY2007 is a 12% increase over the FY2006 enacted budget authority. The
proposal would increase tax expenditures, as well as research on advanced energy
technologies in the Department of Energy. Table 2 provides climate expenditures
for recent years by agency.
7 Government Accountability Office, Climate Change: Greater Clarity and Consistency are
Needed in Reporting Federal Climate Change Funding (Washington, 2006),
[http://www.gao.gov/new.d061122t.pdf].

---

CRS-3
Table 1. Funding for Major U.S. Climate Change Programs
(millions of dollars)
Expenditures
Major Climate
Number of
Change Programs
Agencies
FY2006
FY2007a
FY2003
FY2004
FY2005 (appropriated) (requested)
Climate Change
11
1,766
1,996
1,864
1,709
1,715
Science Program
Climate Change
Technology
9
2,555
2,878
2,808
2,773
2,980
Program
International
Climate Change
3
270
260
234
241
220
Assistance
Energy Tax
Provisions That
May Reduce
n.a.
580
500
369
1,084
1,607
Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
Totalb
13
5,171
5,634
5,269
5,794
6,508
Sources: The White House, Federal Climate Change Expenditures Report to Congress FY2007
(April 2006); The White House, Federal Climate Change Expenditures Report to Congress FY2005.
a. For FY2007, the federal government is operating under a continuing resolution (P.L. 109-383)
through February 15, 2007.
b. This total excludes a double-count of activities included in both the Climate Change Science
Program and International Assistance.

---

CRS-4
Table 2. Funding for U.S. Climate Change Programs, by Agency
(FY2003 to FY2007 Proposed, millions of dollars)
FY2003
FY2004
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
Agency
Actuals
Actuals
Actuals
Actuals
Proposed
TOTAL - Discretionary
Funding Plus Tax
Provisions
5,164
5,590
5,269
5,794
6,508
Department of
Agriculture
104
116
110
109
95
Department of
Commerce
156
144
146
168
182
Department of Defense
83
51
59
71
15
Department of Energy
2,214
2,519
2,469
2,537
2,838
Department of Health &
Human Services
61
62
57
57
57
Department of the
Interior
28
29
29
27
26
Department of the
Treasury
56
52
44
38
32
Environmental
Protection Agency
124
127
130
128
123
National Aeronautics &
Space Administration
1,298
1,548
1,449
1,150
1,114
National Science
Foundation
213
226
209
215
224
Smithsonian Institution
6
6
6
6
6
U.S. Agency for
International
Development
214
195
183
192
147
TOTAL - All Agencies,
Discretionary Funding
4,584
5,090
4,900
4,710
4,901
Energy Tax Provisions
That May Reduce
Greenhouse Gases
580
500
369
1,084
1,607
Source: The White House, Fiscal Year 2007 Report to Congress on Federal Climate Change
Expenditures (Washington, 2006).

---

CRS-5
Interagency Objectives and Coordination
In 2002, President George W. Bush announced a policy based on cutting the
U.S. greenhouse gas intensity — the quantity of greenhouse gases emitted per unit
of economic activity — by 18% through 2012. He included in the U.S. policy
framework other goals more generally for global climate change aimed at
! reducing scientific uncertainties;
! advancing development and introduction of energy efficient,
renewable, and other low- or non-emitting technologies; and
! improving standards for measuring and registering emissions
reductions.
Although more specific targets are set for some climate-related programs, such as
greenhouse gas reductions for several of the smaller voluntary partnerships,
quantitative greenhouse gas, science, or technology targets have not been articulated
for most of the climate-related expenditures.
The President’s strategy established a new Cabinet-level Committee on Climate
Change Science and Technology Integration to oversee the implementation of all
programs across agencies. This committee meets approximately quarterly, but the
principal program design and management occurs within each agency. The strategy,
thus, puts accountability and leadership for the science and technology programs in
each of the relevant agencies. Communication and coordination are facilitated
through a series of inter-agency working groups that meet with varying frequencies.
Under the new Climate Change Science Program, the President established a
Climate Change Research Initiative (CCRI) to focus on near-term science questions.
It supplements the previously established U.S. Global Change Research Program (US
GCRP), which emphasizes long-term science issues.
Similarly, the strategy established a Climate Change Technology Program
(CCTP) to include a National Climate Change Technology Initiative (NCCTI)
focused on near-term technological advance, in addition to existing clean energy
research. In January 2006, President Bush announced the Advanced Energy Initiative
(AEI), proposing a 22% increase in funding for clean energy research in DOE.
Except for the State Department’s participation in the Asia-Pacific Partnership, all
the CCTP activities are included in the AEI. As stated earlier, the different initiatives
have been redefined over time, and programs are often counted in more than one
initiative. This makes tracking the content and evolution of specific programs or of
expenditures difficult.
The remainder of this report briefly describes each of the four major program
areas: science, technology, international assistance, and tax provisions. It then briefly
identifies several policy issues related to federal expenditures on climate change.

---

CRS-6
The Climate Change Science Program
Significant advances have been made over the past two decades to collect
observations of relevant Earth processes; to develop a variety of models to analyze
and forecast economic, energy, atmospheric, ocean and land systems; and to
understand the potential impacts of climate change on humans and ecosystems.
Congress established the Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) in the
Global Change Research Act of 1990 (P.L.101-606), aimed at understanding and
responding to global change. The Global Change Research Act requires a scientific
assessment report to Congress at least every four years, as well as annual reports on
activities and budget. As discussed below, the first and only national assessment
complying with the Global Change Research Act was published in December 2000.
Under the current program framework, the Climate Change Science Program
(CCSP) contains the Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), emphasizing
long-term science research, and the Climate Change Research Initiative (CCRI),
emphasizing science and support to decision-making over a five-year period (2003-
2008). The overall strategy, the Climate Change Science Program Strategic Plan,
was published in 2003 and is supported by ongoing reviews by the National Academy
of Science. The CCSP Strategic Plan groups research into seven elements:
! atmospheric composition,
! climate variability and change,
! global water cycle,
! land use/land cover change,
! global carbon cycle,
! ecosystems, and
! human contributions and responses.
The CCSP Strategic Plan further lays out five goals, which do not correspond
closely with the seven research elements. It plans to produce 21 “synthesis and
assessment” (SAR) products, originally intended to be completed in 2007.8 The
Administration intends these SAR products together to meet the four-year reporting
requirement of the Global Change Research Act of 1990.
A National Academy of Science panel, convened at the request of the former
director of the CCSP to consider how to measure progress for the program, noted that
the CCSP Strategic Plan “does not contain measures of success, and program
objectives are written too broadly for them to be inferred.”9 The panel concluded that
metrics could be developed and used for the CCSP, but highlighted the considerable
challenge and cost in identifying, producing, and using a set of metrics to measure
progress for all elements of the CCSP. It also noted that “while some metrics can
8 Additional information on the SARs, including their content and status, can be found at
[http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/].
9 National Research Council, Thinking Strategically: The Appropriate Use of Metrics for
the Climate Change Science Program, 2005.

---

CRS-7
measure short-term impacts (e.g., CCSP payoffs scheduled to occur within two to
four years), it may take decades to fully assess the substantial contributions to the
global debate on climate change being made by the CCSP and its predecessor
USGCRP.”10
For the research of the Climate Change Ccience Program11 in FY2007, the
President requested $1.715 billion for 13 federal agencies through nine different
appropriations bills. The FY2007 request is $4 million (+0.4%) above the FY2006
funding estimate of $1.706 billion. In constant dollars, the requested FY2007
funding for climate science research is 0.2% below the FY2006 funding estimate,
19% below FY2004 funding, and more than one-quarter less than the peak year of
funding, FY1995. The history of U.S. funding for global change research is
presented in Figure 1 and Table 3. About half of the FY2005 science expenditures
were for space-based observations in NASA’s budget.
Figure 1. Budget Authority for U.S. Global Change
Research FY1989 to FY2007 Request
(millions of dollars)
Source: Climate Change Science Program, at [http://www.climatescience.gov/infosheets/highlight2/
default.htm#funding]; accessed Jan. 18, 2007.
10 Ibid. Executive Summary, p. 9.
11 The new Climate Change Research Initiative (CRI) and existing USGCRP were combined
for the first time into the Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) in the FY2004 budget.

---

CRS-8
The tightening fiscal environment of federal discretionary budgets is resulting
in shifting of funds within several agencies from climate change to other priorities.
For example, NASA’s budget has declined by about 30% since FY2000.12 The
expenditures for FY2003 to the FY2007 budget request are shown in Table 2.
NASA funds were higher in the period of FY2003-FY2005, associated with the
Climate Change Science Strategic Plan, and were aimed at research on the natural
carbon cycle, climate modeling, and the link between atmospheric chemistry and
climate to help reduce uncertainties in the science highlighted by a National
Academy of Sciences report13 requested by the President in 2001. More specifically,
CCSP funding from FY2003 to FY2005 included several NASA elements in the
Climate Change Research Initiative, including Interdisciplinary Science Teams,
High-End Computing, Applications, and initial development of a new Aerosol
Polarimetry Sensor (APS).
However, due to cost overruns in major missions of NASA, funds have shifted
since FY2005 from programs that support climate change to other priorities, such as
the Mission to Mars, resulting in a decline that is proposed to continue into FY2007
and beyond. In the President’s request for FY2007, the 50% share of CCSP funding
intended for NASA’s satellite-based climate science fell to 47%, a proposed absolute
decrease from $914 million in FY2005 to $881 million proposed for FY2007. The
NAS panel expressed concern about potential gaps in time series of data and loss of
synergies that may result by delays in climate data-gathering missions. NASA’s
FY2007 budget proposal would also reduce funds for Earth science research and
analysis by more than 15% (including a retroactive cut to FY2006), imposing “the
most severe impacts on the long-term strategy and capacity-building efforts in Earth
science.”14 The NAS panel further noted that cutting research and analysis of
observations from missions already launched reduces the “return on investment”
from the high front-end expenditures to acquire those satellite-based data.
Table 3. History of U.S. Expenditures for
Climate Change Science
Fiscal Year
Actual $
Constant (2005) $
1989
134
209
1990
659
975
1991
954
1,355
1992
1,110
1,531
1993
1,326
1,775
12 National Research Council, An Assessment of Balance in NASA’s Science Programs
(Washington: National Academies Press, 2006).
13 National Research Council, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions
(Washington: National Academies Press, 2001).
14 National Research Council, An Assessment of Balance in NASA’s Science Programs
(Washington: National Academies Press, 2006), p. 23.

---

CRS-9
Fiscal Year
Actual $
Constant (2005) $
1994
1,444
1,885
1995
1,760
2,234
1996
1,654
2,039
1997
1,656
1,995
1998
1,677
1,989
1999
1,657
1,925
2000
1,687
1,896
2001
1,728
1,886
2002
1,667
1,792
2003
1,766
1,857
2004
1,977
2,023
2005
1,865
1,865
2006 Estimate
1,709
1,674
2007 Request
1,715
1,643
Source: CCSP Annual Report to Congress, [http://www.climatescience.gov/infosheets/highlight2/
default.htm#funding], accessed Jan. 18, 2007.
The first and only national assessment of climate change science and impacts,
required by the Global Change Research Act of 1990, was published in December
2000. The Act mandates a subsequent report no later than 2004. The Government
Accountability Office found in February 2005 that the Administration had failed to
comply with the congressional requirement. The CCSP is due to produce 21
Synthesis and Assessment Reports on specific topics; the first was published in April
2006,15 whereas the remaining reports are due to be released through 2008. The Bush
Administration argues that these will, in aggregate, comply with the requirement of
the Global Change Research Act of 1990. Others disagree that this series of reports
will suffice to meet the statutory requirement.
The Climate Change Technology Program
The U.S. Climate Change Technology Program (CCTP) is the technology
component of the climate change strategy announced by President Bush in 2002,
though many programs existed prior to establishment of the CCTP. Currently, the
CCTP is composed of programs in 12 agencies. It addresses climate change and the
potential for technological solutions over the next century. Its objective is to
15 Karl,Thomas R., Susan J. Hassol, Christopher D. Miller, and William L. Murray, eds.,
Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere: Steps for Understanding and Reconciling
Differences, a Report by the Climate Change Science Program and the Subcommittee on
Global Change Research (Washington, 2006).

---

CRS-10
accelerate the advances needed to facilitate the reduction and avoidance, as well as
capture and storage, of man-made emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG). While the
Strategic Plan sets many milestones for demonstrations of specific technologies, there
are no specific targets or measures for greenhouse gas emissions or capture
performance in the CCTP Strategic Plan,16 which was released in September 2006.
The six strategic goals outlined for the CCTP are to advance development of
technologies that
! reduce emissions from energy end-use and infrastructure,
! reduce emissions from energy supply,
! capture and sequester carbon dioxide,
! reduce emissions of non-CO greenhouse gases,
2
! improve capabilities to measure and monitor GHG emissions, and
! bolster basic scientific contributions to technology development.
Funding for the CCTP increased from $845 million to $2.87 billion (by 239%) from
FY1993 to FY2004, according to GAO, or from $1.18 billion (in 2005 dollars) to
$2.87 billion (by 183%) when the dollars are adjusted for inflation. In FY2006, DOE
represented 87% ($2.4 billion) of the enacted budget authority for the CCTP, with
EPA and NASA each receiving about 4% of the total.
More than 60 programs in DOE, EPA, and USDA expend funds to support
voluntary deployment of existing technologies; the programs include Energy Star,
Climate Leaders, the Methane Partnership Initiatives, Value Added Producer Grants,
and many others. From FY2003 to FY2004, the total funding for the CCTP rose,
largely due to inclusion of a greater share of funding for DOE’s Clean Coal Power
Initiative than in prior years. While the clean coal program previously had focused
on reduction of criteria and other pollutants, its focus was reported by the Office of
Management and Budget to have shifted to improving efficiency, which would
reduce greenhouse gas emissions per unit of electricity produced. On the other hand,
the reported increase in the CCTP funding from FY2005 to the FY2007 request
reflects less of the previously reported infrastructure funding in DOE’s nuclear
energy program. Appendix 1 provides a table showing the technologies envisioned
under the CCTP over the near-, medium-, and long-term.
CCTP’s Vision and Framework for Strategy and Planning17 calls for the need
to “periodically assess the adequacy of the multi-agency portfolio with respect to its
ability to achieve, or make technical progress toward, CCTP strategic goal
attainment; identify gaps, opportunities, and make recommendations.” The CCTP
contracted for a review of the R&D portfolio within the program, with a report issued
in July 2006. The review panel concluded that, while the CCTP portfolio is strong
16 U.S. Climate Change Techology Program, U.S. Climate Change Technology Program
Strategic Plan (Washington, 2006), [http://www.climatetechnology.gov/stratplan/final/
index.htm]
17 U.S. Climate Change Techology Program, U.S. Climate Change Technology Program:
Vision and Framework for Strategy and Planning (Washington, 2005),
[http://www.climatetechnology.gov/vision2005/index.htm].

---

CRS-11
in near-term technology options, there is also a need to accelerate R&D on more mid-
and long-term technology solutions to climate change over the next century. The
review noted a number of gaps in the portfolio, particularly for the CCTP goals
concerning non-CO greenhouse gases and for measuring and monitoring greenhouse
2
gases; the gaps are associated with a low level of funding for these areas. Other gaps
were identified for exploratory research addressing novel and advanced concepts
aimed at breakthrough technologies and research in the basic sciences and potentially
enabling disciplines of materials, biology, physical sciences, computational sciences,
and nanotechnology.
The review designed a conceptual framework to assist setting priorities for
future CCTP R&D portfolios, as illustrated in Figure 2. It defines “Impact” as
progress toward a particular CCTP strategic goal; “Probability of Success” is defined
as the level of certainty that the technology would be successfully developed and
achieve the specified impact. The concept appears, in this particular formulation, not
to include the relative costs of the R&D to achieve the impact. The figure is
illustrative and not intended by the review panel as a statement of prioritization
among actual opportunities; it provides a conceptual example of how priorities
among the large array of R&D opportunities might be evaluated for future
expenditures.
Figure 2. Evaluation of R&D Opportunities for the CCTP
Ba
B si
a c R
si
e
c R s
e e
s a
e r
a ch
r i
ch n
i
n O
c
O e
c a
e n
HI
H G
I H
a
GH
Chem
C
i
hems
i t
s r
t y
r a
y nd
a
B
nd i
Bo-
i C
o- y
C c
y l
c es
Ad
A va
d nc
va ed S
nc
e
ed S n
e s
n or
s s
or
s
and C
and ont
C
r
ont o
r l
o s
l
s
for
fo S
r m
S a
m r
a t
r B
t u
B i
uld
l i
d n
i g
n s
g
s
So
S r
o t
r i
t ng Te
ng T c
e hnol
c
ogi
hnol
e
ogi s
e
s t
o
t
o C
onver
C
t
onver
t
Plu
Pl g
u -
g i
- n H
i
y
n H b
y r
b i
r d
i E
d l
Eec
l t
ec r
t i
r c
i
c
Wa
W st
a e
st t
e o
t U
o s
U ef
s u
ef l
u P
l r
P oduc
r
t
oduc s
t
Ve
V hi
e c
hi l
ces
es
Pr
P ec
r i
ec s
i i
son
o A
n g
A r
g i
r c
i u
c l
utur
t e
ur
ct
Op
O t
p itm
i i
mz
i ed Bi
z
o
ed Bi m
o as
m s
as P
s r
P odu
r
c
odu t
c i
t on
o
ct
n
and B
and i
Bos
i ens
os
o
ens r
o s
r
and F
and u
F el
u
el C
o
C n
o v
n e
v r
e s
r i
s on
pa
Im
Spac
Sp e-
ac B
e- a
B s
a ed Techn
s
o
ed Techn l
o ogi
l
es
ogi
Im
es
to M
to o
M n
o i
n t
i o
t r
o
r
Land
Lan -
d U
- s
U e M
s
a
e M nagem
a
en
nagem t
en
In
I t
n egr
t
at
egr e
at d
e M
d &
M M
&
t
M
GH
G G
H s
G and A
a
e
nd A r
e o
r s
o o
s l
os
(e
( g,
e Sus
g,
t
Sus a
t i
a nabl
na e
bl
Syst
S
em
yst
A
em r
A ch
r i
ch t
i ec
t t
ec u
t r
u e
e
r
Fo
F re
o s
re t
s r
t y
r v
y s
v .
s D
. e
D f
e o
f re
o s
re t
s a
t t
a ito
i n
o )
n
Large-
Lar
Sc
ge-
al
Sc e E
al
n
e E er
n gy
er
gy S
t
S o
t r
o a
r g
a e
g
MO
M D
O E
D R
E A
R T
A E
T
HI
H G
I H
G
Pr
P o
r babi
o
l
babi ilt
i y
t o
y f
o
f S
u
S ccess
u
Source: Brown, Marilyn, Matt Antes, Charlotte Franchuk, Burton H. Koske, Gordon Michaels, Joan
Pellegrino, et al., Results of a Technical Review of the U.S. Climate Change Technology Program’s
R&D Portfolio, 2006, [http://www.ornl.gov/sci/eere/PDFs/CCTP_Wkshp_Rpt_6-28Final.pdf].

---

CRS-12
International Climate Change Assistance
The United States works with other nations and private enterprises to address
climate change. In the FY2007 proposed budget, $5 million for the Department of
State (DOS) supports the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change
(UN FCCC) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
The United States Agency for International Development (US AID) was
proposed to receive $147 million for international climate change assistance, down
almost one-quarter from the FY2006 budget authority of $192 million. Almost $24
million of that cut is requested by a reduction of expenditures for Afghanistan.
Beginning with the FY2007 budget request, the international assistance
category includes $52 million to support the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean
Development and Climate (APP). Funds for the APP are included at $30 million for
the Department of State, $15 million for the Department of Energy, $5 million for the
Department of Commerce, and $2 million for the Environmental Protection Agency.
Additional funds may be made available to the APP via the U.S. contribution to the
Asian Development Bank, counted in Treasury’s proposed budget. The initial set of
projects under the APP’s workplan emphasize sectoral assessments, capacity
building, identifying best practices, and technology research and demonstration.18
The International Climate Change Assistance category proposal for FY2007
included $56 million to support demonstration of innovative climate-related projects
under the Global Environment Facility (GEF)19 or the Asian Development Bank,
pending negotiation of reforms.
The United States also encourages countries to conserve tropical rain forests,
thereby avoiding greenhouse gas emissions and protecting the removal by trees of
carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. It does this by a swap of a country’s debt for
payment into conservation funds, authorized by the Tropical Forest Conservation Act
(TFIP), anticipating a need for $8 million in FY2007.20
Tax Provisions
Tax provisions, often not for the explicit purpose of addressing climate
change, may reduce greenhouse gas emissions by establishing incentives for
incremental investments in technologies (e.g., wind energy) that emit less than the
technologies they are thought to replace (e.g., fossil fuel combustion). In the federal
18 For more information, see CRS Report RL33817, Climate Change: the Kyoto Protocol
and International Action, by Susan R. Fletcher and Larry Parker, for a brief summary of the
APP.
19 For background on the GEF, see CRS Report RS21858, Global Environment Facility
(GEF): Overview, by Susan R. Fletcher.
20 For more information, see CRS Report RL31286, Debt-for-Nature Initiatives and the
Tropical Forest Conservation Act: Status and Implementation, by Pervaze A. Sheikh.

---

CRS-13
expenditures report, the White House reports tax expenditures, which are the
estimated loss of federal revenues that result from taxpayers taking advantage of
these preferential tax treatments.
Tax expenditures are reported for 11 types of tax credits, deductions, and
exclusions for a wide variety of energy efficiency and renewable energy investments.
The estimated value of tax expenditures jumped from $369 million in FY2005 to
$1,084 million in FY2006, as a result of the provisions of the Energy Policy Act of
2005 (P.L. 109-58), including its Title XIII, the Energy Tax Incentives Act of 2005.
For FY2006, the largest of the tax expenditures — at about 40% of the total — is the
set of new technology credits for solar, geothermal, wind, biomass, poultry waste,
municipal solid waste energy, or certain hydropower installations. Another 20% of
the estimated tax expenditures in FY2006 are for energy efficiency improvements to
existing homes. Both of these provisions are projected to grow substantially for
FY2007.
One policy issue related to the tax provisions is their continuity over periods
of time that are consistent with planning and construction of large capital projects,
such as commercial wind and other renewable energy installations. Because these
take a number of years to execute, tax provisions may not be available for a
sufficiently long period for investors to take advantage of them for entirely new
facilities (as opposed to facilities that may already have been planned). On the other
hand, the incentives are intended to stimulate deployment of new technologies rather
than to support a market that may not become commercially viable.
Policy Issues
Members of Congress and others have expressed interest in the priorities and
evaluation of federal climate change expenditures. Key issues include the following:
! Choosing priorities across different climate change opportunities,
including science and technology research and development,
programs to encourage mitigation of greenhouse gases, and
adaptation to potential future climate change.
! Articulating measurable goals and milestones for climate change
programs, and monitoring of achievements towards those goals.
! Improving clarity of reported funding, particularly regarding the
comparability across years in definitions of various programs.
! Assuring coordination and accountability within the federal
government of the dozens of identified climate change programs,
and many others that are related to — or potentially conflicting with
— goals that address climate change.
! Maintaining stability of funding or preferential tax treatments over
a period that is consistent with planning and executing the targeted

---

CRS-14
projects. This is a concern with a number of federal research
programs, such as recent shifts within NASA, as well as for
investment tax incentives.
! Priority within several agencies of expenditures for climate change
versus other priorities in a fiscally tightening environment, including
the shifting of funds within NASA from observation satellites and
research and analysis to larger space missions within the agency.
Related CRS Reports
CRS Report RL33588, Renewable Energy: Tax Credit, Budget and Electricity
Production Issues, by Fred Sissine.
CRS Report RL33599, Energy Efficiency: Budget, Oil Conservation, and Electricity
Conservation Issues, by Fred Sissine.

---

CRS-15
Appendix 1. Climate Change Technology
Development and Deployment for the
21st Century in the CCTP
Short Term
Midterm
Long Term
10-20 years
20-40 years
40-60 years
Goal 1:
Hybrid and plug-in
Fuel cell vehicles and
Widespread use of
Energy End-Use and hybrid electric vehicles hydrogen fuels
engineered urban
Infrastructure
designs and regional
planning
Engineered urban
Low emission aircraft Energy managed
designs
communities
High-performance
Solid-state lighting
Integration of
integrated homes
industrial heat, power,
process and techniques
High efficiency
Ultra-efficient
Superconducting
appliances
HVACR
transmission and
equipment
High efficiency boilers
“Smart” buildings
and combustion systems
Transformational
technologies for
energy-intensive
industries
Energy storage for
load leveling
Goal 2:
IGCC
FutureGen scale-up
Zero-emission fossil
Energy Supply
Commercialization
energy
Stationary hydrogen
Hydrogen co-
Hydrogen and electric
fuel cells
production from
economy
coal/biomass
Cost-competitive solar
Low wind speed
Widespread renewable
photovoltaics
turbines
energy
Demonstrations of
Advanced
Bio-inspired energy
cellulosic ethanol
biorefineries
and fuels
Distributed electric
Community-scale
Widespread nuclear
generation
solar
power
Advanced fission
Gen IV nuclear plants Fusion power plants
reactor and fuel cycle
technology
Fusion pilot plant
demonstration

---

CRS-16
Short Term
Midterm
Long Term
10-20 years
20-40 years
40-60 years
Goal 3: Capture,
CSLF and CRSP
Geologic storage
Track record of
Storage, and
proven safe
successful CO2 storage
Sequestration
experience
Pos combustion capture CO2 transport
Large-scale
infrastructure
sequestration
Oxy-fuel combustion
Soils uptake and land
Carbon and CO2 based
use
products and materials
Enhanced hydrocarbon
Ocean CO2 biological Safe long-term ocean
recovery
impacts addressed
storage
Goal 4: Other Gases Methane to Markets
Advanced landfill gas Integrated waste
utilization
management system
with automated sorting,
processing and
recycling
Precision agriculture
Soil microbial
Zero-emission
processes
agriculture
Advanced refrigeration
Substitutes for SF
Solid-state
6
technologies
refrigeration/AC
systems
Goal 5: Measure
Low-cost sensors and
Large-scale, secure
Fully operational
and Monitor
communications
data storage system
integrated MM systems
architecture (sensors,
indicators, data
visualization and
storage, models).
Direct measurement
to replace proxies and
estimators
Source: U.S. Climate Change Techology Program, U.S. Climate Change Technology Program:
Vision and Framework fo r Stra tegy and Planning (Washington, 2005),
[http://www.climatetechnology.gov/vision2005/index.htm].

---