#37 to #45

300 Natural Resources & Environment:Eliminate Nine Climate Programs

Savings in Millions of Dollars
  • 2016
  • 2017
  • 2018
  • 2019
  • 2020
  • 2021
  • 2022
  • 2023
  • 2024
  • 2025
  • 2016-2020
  • 2016-2025


Savings are expressed as budget authority and were calculated using the FY 2014 enacted spending levels for Environmental and Program Management and Science and Technology as found on page 203 of EPA, “Fiscal Year 2015: Justification of Appropriation Estimates for the Committee on Appropriations,” March 2014. The 2014 enacted level was then increased at the same rate as discretionary spending for 2016–2025, according to the CBO’s most recent August 2014 baseline spending projections.


Technical Notes on Scoring

CBO Baseline

Unless otherwise noted, calculations for savings for each recommendation relies on the most recent Congressional Budget Office baseline, as found in “An Update to the Budget and Economic Outlook: 2014 to 2024,” published August 27, 2014, has been used.

Savings “Totals”

While totals for the five and 10 year savings are provided by section and for the complete set of recommendations, there are two reasons they should not be viewed as representing total savings for The Budget Book.

First, as noted in the introduction, The Heritage Foundation would recommend that the savings realized in the Function 050 Defense section would stay within the Department of Defense to strengthen the nation’s defense capabilities.

Second, the numbers cannot be deemed to represent the realized savings if every single recommendation were adopted because policy changes made in one program can impact spending levels in other programs.  Thus, the numbers in the table do not reflect any potential interactions between the various policy changes affecting spending or savings.


Heritage Recommendation:

Eliminate climate-related programs within the Department of Energy. This proposal saves $106 million in 2016, and $1.1 billion over 10 years.


Eliminate wasteful EPA programs that drives up the cost to heat our homes.

When the Clean Air Act (CAA) was passed, Congress never intended or envisioned that CO2, an invisible and odorless gas required for life, would be covered under the law. The potential economic implications of CO2 regulation are staggering, and its effect on everyday life could be unprecedented without offering any measurable environmental benefit. For these reasons, Congress, and not the EPA or any other federal agencies, should decide whether carbon dioxide should be regulated or considered in environmental permit reviews. Congress should expressly prohibit the regulation of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, deny funding of agency efforts to reduce greenhouse gases, and repeal any agency actions to date that serve either directly or indirectly to develop CO2 regulations, such as the EPA’s endangerment finding.

The EPA’s greenhouse gas regulations will drive up energy prices for families and businesses. It will cost more to heat, cool, and light homes, and to cook meals. These higher energy prices will also have ripple effects throughout the economy. As energy prices increase, the cost of making products rises. Higher operating costs for businesses will be reflected in higher prices for consumers. As prices rise, consumers buy less, and companies are forced to shed employees, close entirely, or relocate to other countries where the cost of doing business is lower. The result is fewer opportunities for American workers, lower incomes, less economic growth, and higher unemployment.

While carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions may have contributed in some capacity to climate variations, the available climate data simply do not indicate that the earth is heading toward catastrophic warming with dire consequences for human health and public welfare, nor do the data indicate that the dominant driving force behind climate change is human-induced greenhouse gas emissions. Such a view does nothing to account for the shortcomings of climate models that are the underlying foundation for carbon policies and regulations. While some climate models have forecast such a catastrophe, data of observed climate reality has shown these models, and the assumptions on which they are built, to be incorrect. There is simply no need for the EPA to implement costly accounting programs and egregious greenhouse gas regulations that will choke off American energy use.

Congress should eliminate funding for:

  1. Regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles (as well as non-road equipment, locomotives, aircraft, and transportation fuels)
  2. Regulation of CO2 emissions from power plants and all sources
  3. Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program
  4. Global Methane Initiative
  5. Climate Resilience Fund
  6. Climate Resilience Evaluation Awareness Tool
  7. Green Infrastructure Program
  8. Climate Ready Water Utilities Initiative
  9. Climate research funding for the Office of Research and Development


Eliminate wasteful EPA programs that drives up the cost to heat our homes.

Contributing Expert

Nicolas (Nick) Loris, an economist, focuses on energy, environmental and regulatory issues as the Herbert and Joyce Morgan fellow at The Heritage Foundation.

See publications by Nicolas Loris

Nicolas (Nick) LorisHerbert and Joyce Morgan Fellow

Heritage Experts

Jack Spencer oversees Heritage Foundation research on a wide range of domestic economic issues as director of the Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies. Those topics include federal spending, taxes, energy and environment, regulation and retirement savings.

See publications by Jack Spencer

Jack SpencerVice President for the Institute for Economic Freedom and Opportunity

Katie Tubb is a Research Associate and Coordinator in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies

See publications by Katie Tubb

Katie TubbResearch Associate and Coordinator

Additional Reading