General Accounting Office (GAO) Documents

Increasing emissions of carbon dioxide, methane, and other heat-trapping
greenhouse gases generated by human activity are believed to contribute
to global warming. In an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the
United States issued its Climate Change Action Plan (CCAP) in
October 1993. The plan was designed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions
primarily through voluntary efforts by companies, state and local
governments, and other organizations. The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is responsible for 20 CCAP programs. The Department of
Energy and other federal agencies are responsible for other CCAP
programs.

Because of your concerns about the effectiveness of the climate change programs, you asked us to determine (1) what EPA has done to ensure that the greenhouse gas reductions it reports reflect only the results of its efforts, as opposed to other factors, and (2) whether EPA's projected reductions are consistent with experience to date. As agreed with your offices, we focused our review on four CCAP programs, which are designed to reduce emissions of various greenhouse gases through work with different kinds of organizations. These four programs account for about one-third of EPA's funding for CCAP.

Specifically, the Green Lights Program primarily encourages businesses
and other organizations to install energy-efficient lighting in their buildings
in order to reduce the use of electricity and the emission of carbon dioxide
produced by generating electricity. The Coalbed Methane Outreach
Program encourages coal mining companies to capture and use, as an
energy source, methane that would otherwise be vented to the
atmosphere. To reduce greenhouse gas emissions from manufacturing,

B-276994

Results in Brief

transporting, and disposing of materials, the Source Reduction and Recycling Program encourages businesses to reduce the amount of solid waste they generate and to increase the amount of waste they recycle. The State and Local Outreach Program helps state and local governments understand the sources of and possible solutions to global warming and also supports selected demonstration projects.

For two of the four CCAP programs we reviewed, EPA adjusted the
reductions in greenhouse gas emissions it had reported to account only for
the effects of its efforts; for the other two programs, it did not adjust the
reported reductions. Specifically, for the Coalbed Methane Outreach and
Source Reduction and Recycling programs, EPA determined that
nonprogram factors accounted for some of the reported reductions and,
therefore, adjusted those reductions. For the Green Lights Program, EPA
officials said that some reported reductions were probably the result of
nonprogram factors, but they did not attempt to quantify the extent of the
nonprogram factors because they believe it is not possible to do so. They
said that any reductions resulting from nonprogram factors would likely
be counterbalanced by reductions that they believe are attributable to the
program but were not reported to EPA because the organizations did not
participate in the program. Finally, for the State and Local Outreach
Program, EPA did not attempt to determine whether some of the reported
reductions resulted from nonprogram factors, although program officials
said they tried to eliminate double-counting where reductions might be the
result of other CCAP programs. EPA officials said they limited their efforts to
quantify how much of the reported reductions resulted only from the
effects of EPA's programs because it is difficult to make such an
assessment, especially in the early stages of the programs' development.

EPA's projections of future reductions in greenhouse gases are not consistent with experience to date for three of the four programs but are consistent for the fourth program. For the Green Lights and Source Reduction and Recycling programs, the projected reductions are based on an assumption that the participants will, respectively, upgrade a larger proportion of their space and reduce waste at the source more in the future than they have thus far. For the State and Local Outreach Program, the projections assume that one key project will increase its impact, even though there are questions about the basis for the reductions reported thus far. Finally, for the Coalbed Methane Outreach Program, the projected reductions are consistent with experience to date.

B-276994

Background

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, climate models project an increase in the earth's average surface temperature of between about two and six degrees Fahrenheit in the next century as a result of increasing emissions of greenhouse gases.' Furthermore, the panel reported in 1995, such increases could lead to floods, droughts, and other harmful changes in ecosystems. To address concerns about the possibility of global climate change, in May 1992 the United States and other countries signed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. As part of the Convention, the United States and other developed countries agreed to establish policies and measures with the aim of returning their greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2000. In fulfilling its obligations under the Convention, the United States developed CCAP, whose goal is to reduce emissions by 109 million metric tons of carbon equivalent (MMTCE), from the projected 2000 level of 1,568 MMTCE to 1,459 MMTCE, slightly below the 1990 emissions level.?

EPA's 20 CCAP programs are generally designed to provide the information and tools to encourage the participants to voluntarily undertake changes that will reduce emissions of greenhouse gases whenever the changes make economic sense. Also, some programs are designed to overcome the institutional barriers that have traditionally prevented organizations from taking action. The Congress appropriated about $86 million for EPA's CCAP programs for fiscal year 1997; EPA requested $149 million for these programs in fiscal year 1998.

For this review, we selected four programs because (1) they are involved
with different greenhouse gases and different kinds of organizations,
(2) each accounts for a substantial proportion of EPA's CCAP funding, and

The panel was established in 1988 by the United Nations Environment Programme and the World
Meteorological Organization to assess scientific and technical information about climatic change. See
Working Group II Second Assessment Report: Summary for Policymakers: Impacts, Adaptation and
Mitigation Options, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Working Group II. Technical Support
Unit, Oct. 20, 1995. For additional information on the issue of global warming, see Global Warming
Difficulties Assessing Countries' Progress Stabilizing Emissions of Greenhouse Gases
(GAORCED-96-188, Sept. 4, 1996)

"Greenhouse gases have varied effects on the atmosphere as measured by their global warming
potentials. These global warming potentials are applied to emissions to arrive at a common measure
for the greenhouse gases; the measure is expressed in million metric tons of carbon equivalent.

'According to a 1992 report by the Office of Technology Assessment, there are several reasons why
energy-efficient technologies are not used more often in buildings. These reasons include the
following: (1) There is often a separation between those who purchase energy-using equipment (for
example, building owners) and those who pay to operate the equipment (building tenants).
(2) Because energy costs are relatively low in comparison to total operating costs, those concerned
with cost reduction often focus elsewhere. (3) Energy efficiency is often misperceived as requiring
discomfort or sacrifice, limiting its appeal. See Building Energy Efficiency, ch. 3. Office of Technology
Assessment (OTA-E-518, May 1992).

57-716 99-34