[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
DANGEROUS CLIMATE CHANGE
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SELECT COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY INDEPENDENCE
AND GLOBAL WARMING
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
APRIL 26, 2007
__________
Serial No. 110-2
Printed for the use of the Select Committee on
Energy Independence and Global Warming
globalwarming.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
57-965 WASHINGTON : 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
SELECT COMMITTEE ON ENERGY INDEPENDENCE AND GLOBAL WARMING
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts, Chairman
EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr.,
JAY INSLEE, Washington Wisconsin, Ranking Member
JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona
HILDA L. SOLIS, California GREG WALDEN, Oregon
STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan
South Dakota JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma
EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
JOHN J. HALL, New York
JERRY McNERNEY, California
------
Professional Staff
David Moulton, Staff Director
Aliya Brodsky, Chief Clerk
Thomas Weimer, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hon. Edward J. Markey, a Representative in Congress from the
Commonwealth of Massachusetts, opening statement............... 1
Prepared statement........................................... 3
Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. a Representative in Congress
from the State of Wisconsin, opening statement................. 5
Prepared statement........................................... 7
Hon. Hilda Solis, a Representative in Congress from the State of
California, opening statement.................................. 9
Prepared statement........................................... 10
Hon. Marsha Blackburn, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Tennessee, prepared statement......................... 12
Hon. Jerry McNerney, a Representative in Congress from the State
of California, prepared statement.............................. 14
Hon. Emanuel Cleaver, II, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Missouri, prepared statement.......................... 17
Witnesses
Dr. Judith A. Curry, Professor and Chair, School of Earth and
Atmospheric Science, Georgia Institute of Technology........... 18
Prepared statement........................................... 20
Answers to submitted questions............................... 122
Dr. Camille Parmesan, Associate Professor of Integrative Biology,
University of Texas at Austin.................................. 39
Prepared statement........................................... 42
Answers to submitted questions............................... 126
Dr. Kristie L. Ebi, ESS, LLC and Lead author Human Health
chapter, IPCC 4th Assessment, Working Group II................. 50
Prepared statement........................................... 52
Answers to submitted questions............................... 132
Dr. John A. Helms, Professor Emeritus of Forestry, University of
California, Berkeley, 2005 President, Society of American
Foresters...................................................... 65
Prepared statement........................................... 67
Answers to submitted questions............................... 136
Dr. James E. Hansen, Director, NASA's Goddard Institute for Space
Studies........................................................ 72
Prepared statement........................................... 75
Submitted Material
Hon. Edward J. Markey, letter of May 9, 2007, from Dr. Judith
Curry.......................................................... 141
Independent Summary for Policymakers: IPCC Fourth Assessment
Report, of February 2007....................................... 143
DANGEROUS CLIMATE CHANGE
---------- --
--------
THURSDAY, APRIL 26, 2007
House of Representatives,
Select Committee on Energy Independence
and Global Warming,
Washington, D.C.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10 a.m. in Room
2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Edward J. Markey
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Markey, Inslee, Solis, Herseth
Sandlin, Cleaver, Hall, McNerney, Sensenbrenner, Shadegg,
Walden, Sullivan, Blackburn and Miller.
The Chairman. This hearing is called to order, and we
thank you for joining us today as we examine the critical
issues surrounding dangerous climate change.
Members of the Select Committee have been entasked by the
Speaker to become experts on global warming. But a
congressional expert is an oxymoron like jumbo shrimp or McLean
night life. There is no such thing when compared to real
experts who can come to help illuminate these issues.
In 1992, President George Herbert Walker Bush signed and
the Senate ratified the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate
Change. By signing it, the United States, along with 188 other
countries, committed to stabilizing greenhouse gas
concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent
dangerous and trophogenic interference with the climate system.
But what is dangerous climate change and what are its
consequences? How closer are we to it? What can we do to avoid
it? The answers to these questions are critical as this
Congress develops legislation to enhance our energy
independence and to combat global warming. But let us start
with what we already know.
Two hundred years ago, America's industrial revolution
changed the economy, society of our country and the world; and
it also began to change the air around us, powered by the
burning of fossil fuels, first coal and now oil and natural
gas. The energy we have used since that time has caused an
increase in heat, trapping carbon dioxide in the atmosphere;
and it turns out that when it comes to global warming, small
changes make a big difference.
Since the industrial revolution, carbon dioxide
concentrations have risen from 280 parts per million to 380
parts per million. It doesn't sound like much, but neither does
a degree or two in your body temperature. On a normal day, when
you are feeling fine, your temperature is 98.6. But when your
temperature is raised a very small amount, to 101.6, for
example, just three degrees, you feel lousy. You would stay
home in bed and not go to work. But raise it yet another degree
or two, and you would be in the hospital.
Right now, our planet has a temperature; and we are seeing
the symptoms on every continent and in the oceans. Glaciers are
melting, sea level is rising, hurricanes are stronger, heat
waves are more deadly, forest fires are more intense, entire
species are disappearing. Absent strong national leadership, we
are heading for 480 parts per million and beyond; and, as you
know, there is no hospital for sick planets.
If we continue to spew global warming pollution from our
smokestacks and tailpipes, we will alter the very face of the
earth and its inhabitants. For example, the Greenland ice
sheet, which is larger than the State of Alaska and two miles
thick in places, is increasingly in jeopardy. During the melt
season, in one day enough ice breaks off in one large glacier
in Greenland to supply water to New York City for a year. If
the ice cap were to fully melt, sea level would rise 21 feet.
In the southern hemisphere, parts of Antarctica which
contain similar amounts of water locked away as ice also appear
vulnerable. Higher sea levels, rising storms from rising ocean
temperatures will render many of the world's coastal areas,
home to over a billion people today, uninhabitable. Rising
temperatures will disrupt water supplies, agriculture and
forestry, confounding public health gains in the poorest parts
of the world; and creatures and cultures that thrive in the
coldest parts of the earth may be unable to adapt and simply
cease to exist.
Today's witnesses will make clear the urgent need to adopt
policies that prevent the concentration of global warming
pollution from rising to catastrophic levels and the necessity
to prepare for those impacts that we can no longer avoid. If we
are to avoid the worst impacts, we must act now; and that will
be the intention of the Chair.
So let us at this point turn, and I will recognize the
gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Sensenbrenner, the ranking member
of the committee.
[The statement of Mr. Markey follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
The title of today's hearing sounds a little like a scary
movie: Dangerous Climate Change. We have seen this film before;
and it stars industrialized society, a character who improves
the livelihood of billions of humans by providing them with
vital jobs and services. But in this movie industry is actually
the villain, with an evil plan to destroy the Earth with
invisible, odorless gasses.
Our hero, Al Gore, sounds like an intrepid detective who
has dug through the science and uncovered this nefarious plot.
Naturally, our protagonist has a heroic way to defeat the
villain: raise taxes.
Yes, the climate is changing; and human behavior bears some
responsibility. But scientific predictions on whether these
changes will be on the margin or the extremes or somewhere in
between remains a question. Without predicting catastrophe, it
is hard to advocate a tax hike.
As I said at least week's hearing, I firmly believe that
many of these gloom-and-doom scenarios are Hollywood-style
sketches of scientific data that, when studied closely,
presents a much more sober and thoughtful picture; and while
extremist scenarios haven't helped us make much progress in
more than a decade of climate change to be, they made for one
scary script.
I am pleased that one of our witnesses today, Dr. John
Helms, offers climate change solutions that will not only
protect American jobs but also give us healthier forests. I
would like to thank Congressman Walden for bringing Dr. Helms
to the Congress' attention; and I look forward to his
testimony, even as a Stanford grad, hearing some wisdom from
someone who has taught at Berkeley.
As a member of the House Science and Technology Committee
for nearly three decades and as chairman of that committee for
4 years, I have developed a healthy respect for scientists when
they are presenting the facts and answering specific questions
posed by decision makers.
Scientists are also entitled to step beyond that role and
advocate policy. But when they do so, they are stepping out of
the scientific debate and into the political debate, where jobs
and the economy have to be considered along with scientific
data. And once scientists step into the political debate by
advocating policy, then their legitimacy and motives are open
for questioning, just like we politicians.
One of our witnesses today, Dr. James Hansen, has chosen to
wade into the political debate by making these sort of policy
proposals, and I welcome him. I also welcome realistic
proposals that will help us with energy and independence and
global warming, but any proposal must contain four key
principles:
First, it must bring tangible environmental benefits to the
American people; second, it must support advancing technology,
including technologies across the energy spectrum from nuclear
to clean coal to renewable to improved energy efficiencies;
third, any climate change policy must protect U.S. jobs; and,
fourth, it must require global participation.
This year, China will pass the United States of America as
the largest emitter of CO2. In creating global
warming hysteria, the authors of that scary screenplay have
stuck to a structurally very simple script. But we in Congress
know that the story is much more complex than that. The title
of our movie, Protect the Economy and the Environment, may not
sell as many tickets or win an Oscar, but it is a common-sense
plot that most Americans can understand and support.
I yield back the balance of my time.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. The Chair will now recognize members for 2
minutes for opening statements or, if they wish, they can
reserve their 2 minutes and it would be added to the 5 minutes
that they have for questioning of the witnesses.
The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms.
Solis.
Ms. Solis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; and I welcome this
discussion today on the dangers of climate change because, you
know, the attitude in my district right now and when we survey
people is they are extremely concerned about what is happening
globally to the temperature changes in my district.
I represent Los Angeles County, a large number of
underrepresented communities, Hispanic, Asian American, part
African American. Many are extremely concerned with the trends
we are seeing: Heat waves that we have experienced in the last
few years in Los Angeles, what we think is coming is a drought.
There is a shortage of rainfall.
We see also our at-risk populations at a higher level of
asthma, respiratory diseases. We also see more people having
fewer abilities to go outdoors and recreate, to have open
space. So, yes, there is a need to look at what is happening in
our communities and especially communities of color. Urban
centers as well as rural areas, they are also experiencing
drought.
And I say that because agriculture is very important to our
community and our economy. Many of the people that work in that
industry happen to be three-quarters Latino. They are the ones
that pick your fruits and vegetables. But if there isn't ample
protection for them to work in the fields, if there is no water
irrigation, the temperatures are too hot, you are going to see
those failed policies of having people out there getting our
fruit, our vegetables to us. So, yes, indeed there are some
very pressing issues for us to look at.
You know, last year in one of our committees--we tried to
offer in the Energy and Commerce Committee through the Energy
Policy Act in 2005--I offered an amendment to talk about
climate change in the wake of major heat waves in California,
Nevada, and Arizona. My amendment would have required that any
use of public funds would develop greenhouse gas technologies
in the U.S. or developing countries. Unfortunately, my
amendment failed at that time; and I wish that we would have
begun to present the health impacts to our most vulnerable
communities, including the elderly and young children.
I hope that you will hear and glean some great information
from our witnesses.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Chairman. The Chair recognizes Mr. Shadegg.
Mr. Shadegg. I will reserve.
The Chairman. The Chair recognizes the chairman from
Oregon, Mr. Walden.
Mr. Walden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, will reserve
my time.
The Chairman. The time will be reserved.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma.
Mr. Sullivan. I, too, will reserve.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time is reserved.
The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Michigan.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you. I will reserve my time as well.
The Chairman. And the Chair recognizes the gentlelady from
Tennessee.
Mrs. Blackburn. I will reserve my time.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from
South Dakota, Ms. Herseth Sandlin.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. I will reserve my time.
The Chairman. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Texas, Mr. Hall.
Mr. Hall. I will reserve my time.
The Chairman. And the Chair recognizes the gentleman from
California, Mr. McNerney.
Mr. McNerney. I will reserve.
The Chairman. Great.
The gentleman's time is reserved, and it will be added to
his question time.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
All time for opening statements from members has concluded.
[Prepared statement of Representative Cleaver is as
follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
We will now turn to our distinguished panel.
The Chairman. Our first witness is Dr. Judith Curry, who
is a Professor and Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric
Science at the Georgia Institute of Technology. She is an
expert in various aspects of climate science. Her work has most
recently focused on the variability of hurricanes in the North
Atlantic and around the world. She has published over 140
referee journal articles and is a Fellow of both the American
Meteorologic Society and the American Geophysical Union.
We welcome you, Dr. Curry. You have 5 minutes to make an
opening statement.
STATEMENT OF JUDITH A. CURRY, GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
Ms. Curry. I thank the chairman of the committee for the
opportunity to offer testimony this morning.
The devastating 2004 and 2005 hurricane seasons, and
particularly Hurricane Katrina, for the first time made the
public realize that one degree of warming could potentially
have dangerous consequences if this warming made future
hurricanes like Katrina more likely.
Next.
In the last several months, two important assessments have
been issued. Statements made by the World Meteorological
Organization and the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change
have assessed and clarified what we do know about hurricanes
and global warming and also the associated uncertainties.
I would like to begin by presenting some of the data on
North Atlantic hurricanes that support these two statements
from the ICCP's report.
This diagram shows the historical data record of the number
of North Atlantic tropical cyclones back to 1851, which is
indicated by the dark blue curve. Also shown in this diagram is
the average tropical sea surface temperature in the North
Atlantic in red. This diagram shows a remarkable coherence in
variations in the number of storms with sea surface
temperature. In particular, the period 1910 to 1920 with low
storm activity is associated with anomalously cool sea
temperatures, while the largest number of tropical cyclones is
seen during the past decade when the sea surface temperatures
have been the warmest.
This figure illustrates the change in the intensity
distribution for the North Atlantic since 1970. The data has
been divided into three different periods, including the active
period since 1995. Each bar represents the frequency occurrence
of a different category of storm intensity. The most striking
aspect of the histogram is the substantial increase in the
frequency of Category 4 hurricanes during the period since
1995.
The highest resolution climate model simulations capable of
resolving individual hurricanes have been made using the
Japanese earth simulator computer and also by a European group.
The results of these simulations for a climate that is warmer
by about 2.5 degrees centigrade or 5 degrees Fahrenheit show a
30 percent increase in the number of North Atlantic tropical
cyclones, a 10 percent increase in average tropical cyclone
intensity and a 30 percent increase in the number of major
hurricanes.
In the North Atlantic, there is a prospect of substantially
elevated hurricane activity in the next few decades owing to
the combination of global warming and the active phase of the
North Atlantic multi-decadal oscillation. To estimate the
combined impacts of global warming and the natural
variabilities, I have constructed a simple statistical model
that projects an average number of 15 to 20 tropical cyclones
per year, with three to four of them reaching the strength of
Category 4 to 5.
The combination of greenhouse warming and natural
variability will produce tropical cyclone activity in the
coming decades that is unprecedented. The impact of such
elevated hurricane activity includes an increased number of
intense storms striking the gulf coast with increased level of
storm surges plus inland flooding and tornadoes.
The combination of coastal demographics with increased
hurricane activity will continue to escalate the socioeconomic
impact of hurricanes.
How should policymakers react to this risk? As a scientist,
I do not get involved in advocating for specific policies. I am
limiting my comments here to a general assessment of how
certain policies strategies might affect the risks associated
with increased hurricane activity as global temperatures
continue to rise.
Specifically, with regards to energy policy, any
conceivable policy for reducing carbon emissions is unlikely to
have a noticeable impact on sea surface temperatures and
hurricane characteristics over the next few decades. Rather,
carbon mitigation strategies will only impact the longer-term
effects of global warming, including sea level rise and the
associated storm surges.
Particularly in the U.S., we are facing a very serious risk
in the next few decades, owing to the combination of global
warming and the active phase of the Atlantic multi-decadal
oscillation. Adaptation measures are urgently needed to
confront the vulnerability, particularly of our coastal
regions. Decreasing our vulnerability to damage from hurricanes
will require a comprehensive evaluation of coastal engineering,
building construction practices, insurance, land use, emergency
management and disaster relief policies.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Curry.
[The statement of Judith Curry follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Our second witness, Dr. Camille Parmesan, is
an Associate Professor of Biology at the University of Texas in
Austin. Her landmark paper on nature and the impact of climate
change on natural systems around the world established her as
one of the foremost experts on the response of wildlife to
global warming.
She is currently Chair of the International Conservation
Unions Task Force on Climate Change and Conservation, and she
has served as author and reviewer of reports by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and as an expert
adviser for the National Assessment of the Potential
Consequences of Climate Variability for Change of the United
States.
Welcome, Dr. Parmesan. Whenever you feel comfortable,
please begin.
STATEMENT OF CAMILLE PARMESAN, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR IN
INTEGRATIVE BIOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN
Ms. Parmesan. Thank you.
This is working good.
Well, I think to address the question of dangerous climate
change, it is--we can learn a lot by examining what has already
happened with the amount of warming that we have currently had.
We don't have a huge number of biological studies for the
U.S.A., but if you look globally, there are hundreds of
studies, literally, reviewed. I just finished looking at 866
papers, and this is a minimum estimate because I only looked at
major English journals. This represents thousands of species.
We have seen impacts in every single continent in every single
ocean, and when you look at analyses that have estimated what
percentage of species have already been impacted we see that 50
percent of all species studied with long-term data have shown
some sort of response to recent climate change. And by
``recent'' I mean of the past 100 years. This is a huge number,
considering the amount of warming has only been 0.7 degrees
centigrade, about a degree Fahrenheit.
It is a--these changes have been in every major biological
group that has been studied, from herbs to trees, plankton in
the ocean, lakes, fish, insects, mammals. Pretty much every
type of organism that you have got long-term data on has shown
a response; and, again, it has been about 50 percent in each of
those groups.
This and several synthetic global analyses that have been
published in the scientific literature have led to a very
strong consensus amongst biologists that recent warming, this
0.07 degree centigrade, has indeed impacted natural systems. It
has been the cause of the changes that we have been seeing.
And in the IPCC reports what you see is that the level of
confidence of that now mirrors the level of confidence that
climate scientists have that the warming is caused by humans,
and both of those are put at more than 90 percent sure. But I
can tell you if you look into the individual biological
literature you will see that several analyses indicate that the
kinds of patterns that we are seeing globally in wild species,
there is less than 0.1 percent of a chance that those changes
are due to something other than climate change.
These are very, very strong numbers.
Okay. Now I would like to show you, if you could go to the
next slide, just very quickly a few of the examples. A lot of
them are more detailed in the written testimony.
So this is again what we have already seen. This is showing
shifts in phenology, shifts in changes in spring timing.
Everything above that vertical line are later breeding or
emergence or arrival. Everything below it is earlier emergence
or breeding or arrival in the spring.
And the first thing I want to point out is, when you look
at the average--so where there has been an advancement of
spring events by 2 point days by decade on average, several
studies have estimated this. But what I want to show you is
this is a subset of studies that looked at whole communities,
and you can see that there is large variability. In some
species--those individual bars, each a different species--some
species are showing very strong advancement. In butterflies and
birds, you are seeing advances--that is the blue and the
yellow--of 10 to 20 days per decade advancement in spring
breeding. And if you look at the purple--those are frogs--
summer breeding as early as 35 days earlier per decade. So if
you look over the past 30 years we have had warming, that is an
enormous advancement in spring events.
We are also seeing massive rain shifts, and so two of the
consistent patterns are these earlier spring timing.
The other very consistent pattern globally is massive
northward shifts of species ranges and upward shifts in
mountainous ranges. And this is starting to actually affect
whole biums. So we are seeing tropical species moving up from
Mexico and Africa into Europe and into the U.S.A. We are seeing
tempered species of the U.S.A. And Europe moving up into boreal
zones of Canada, Alaska and Lapland; and we are seeing those
boreal species actually contracting towards basically no man's
land as the warming has continued.
This--you would think that tropical species might be
resistant, so perhaps the whole earth is just going to be
tropical, but coral reefs are actually already at their high
temperature limits, and 30 percent have been killed off by
recent high sea surface temperature events.
This is just showing that when you go to the cold adaptive
species is where you see the other drastic declines. You don't
see the graphics, but this is polar bears in the Arctic and
green seals, things that are sea ice dependent. You go down to
Antarctica, you see the same things in sea ice dependent
species, massive declines and contractions towards the poles.
You don't get to see all of the pretty pictures of pikas,
but what this is meant to show you is that the other type of
cold-adapted species are mountaintop species; and we are seeing
contractions of range as species are forced up mountains.
Literally, it is getting too hot at the lower elevations, and
we are starting to see the first whole-species extinctions.
So these are tropical highland frogs. Seventy-four species
have gone extinct in the Cloud Forest of Central America. These
are remote areas, undisturbed areas. These distinctions have
been directly related to warming trends in those regions. And I
do want to remind people that these brightly colored tropical
frogs have provided us with a huge number of medicines, and
particularly heart medicines.
The Chairman. Doctor, could you try to summarize it?
Ms. Parmesan. All of these changes I have been talking
about are with 0.7 degrees centigrade warming.
So what happens with 1 or 2 degrees centigrade or 4 to 5
degrees centigrade?
What this shows you is a time line going back 65 million
years. The blue colors are colder than now. The red colors are
hotter than now. And what you see is if you--I don't know if
you can read this--but humans first appeared during that middle
part of the graph during this cold earth period. So the entire
time humans, homo sapiens, our species, have been around, the
earth has primarily been colder than now.
Modern civilization, agriculture, the arts, et cetera,
appeared when climate stabilized about 10,000 years ago. The
little blips in the middle with the stars are 1 to 2 degrees
higher temperature. There have been tiny blips where you have
had human-like species around. But if you go back to where it
has been 4 or 5 degrees centigrade warmer--that is all the way
to the last third of the graph, that red arrow there--what you
are getting to is a time when a lot of modern species did not
exist. There was a completely different bium; and when the
earth shifted from that hotter to the colder, you did have
massive loss of species, about 20 to 30 percent.
And I think I will leave it at that.
The Chairman. I thank you very much.
[The statement of Ms. Parmesan follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Our next witness is Dr. Kristie Ebi. She is
an independent consultant working with the World Health
Organization, the United Nations Development Program and USAID.
She has been working on global climate change and public health
issues for years. She is the author of three books. She is the
lead author for the Human Health Chapter of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's recent Fourth
Assessment Report.
We welcome you.
STATEMENT OF KRISTIE L. EBI, ESS, LLC
Ms. Ebi. Mr. Chairman and members of the select committee,
I really appreciate the opportunity to talk with you today.
The determination of when a risk becomes dangerous, such as
anthropogenic climate change, is a social choice. It is my role
as a scientist to inform that decision by describing the state
of scientific knowledge.
People, plants, and animals are exposed to climate change
through changing weather patterns such as more frequent and
intense heat waves and floods and through climatic changes
facilitating the geographic spread and increase our number of
cases of a variety of infectious diseases as well as diseases
associated with air pollutants and air allergens.
Population health integrates climate change impacts across
all other sectors, such as changes in water availability, crop
yields, and ecosystem changes and thus is a key sector for
assessing the risk of climate change.
Human injuries, illnesses and deaths are already occurring
due to climate change right now. Currently, approximately
150,000 deaths worldwide are attributed to climate change
annually, with most of these deaths occurring in low- and
middle-income countries.
Although 150,000 worldwide may not seem like a very large
number, the number of life years lost is already about half of
what we are seeing due to urban air pollution. The 150,000 is
about 0.4 percent of all life years lost every year. This means
that, together, between climate change and urban air pollution,
approximately 1.2 percent of all life years lost are due to the
combustion of fossil fuels.
As noted, I am an author of the Human Health Chapter of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for its assessment
report, and we concluded that projected trends in climate-
change-related exposures will have predominantly negative
impacts, with injuries, illnesses and deaths occurring within
all continents. These include increasing undernutrition and
consequent disorders, including those related to child growth
and development; increasing injuries, illnesses and death due
to heat waves, floods, droughts, storms and fires; increasing
numbers of cases of diarrheal diseases; increasing
cardiorespiratory diseases where ozone exposure concentrations
increase; and increase in the geographic range and length of
transmission season of malaria in some regions and a decrease
in the range of others.
Climate change has projected to bring some benefits to
health, including fewer deaths due to exposure to cold, but
these will not offset increased heat-related deaths.
Most of the impacts will occur in low- and middle-income
countries, with the extent of the impacts increasing with
increasing climate change.
Critically important to an assessment of what constitutes
dangerous climate change is that the inherent inertia in the
climate system means that weather and climate will continue to
change, and health impacts will continue to occur for decades
after stabilization of atmospheric concentration of greenhouse
gasses. This is the commitment that we are already facing.
The health impacts of climate change will stress over-
stretched public health programs and health care systems. It
will not be possible to avoid all health impacts due to climate
change, even with immediate implementation with effective
adaptation, policy measures and aggressive reduction in
greenhouse gas emissions. Adaptation and mitigation are
urgently needed to manage the risk of current and projected
climate change impacts.
Recent experiences such as the 2003 heat wave in Europe
have shown the ability to plan for and cope with climate change
needs to be improved everywhere.
Most impacts will not be as dramatic as these events. For
example, we can expect more periods of heavy rain such as the
storm in D.C. last fall that closed several government
buildings for a few days. Because adaptation will be a
continual process and will be required at every level, one
policy response would be to mandate U.S. agencies, such as the
Environmental Protection Agency, the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention and Fisheries and Wildlife to
incorporate climate change risks into the programs and
activities that are or could be affected by climate change and
to provide them with the human and financial resources to do
so. This mandate should include developing a more complete
understanding of the risks that Americans may face over the
coming decades.
In addition, I believe that the U.S. should have a central
agency responsible for working with other agencies, States,
communities, businesses and others to understand climate change
risks and responses. This agency could provide expertise and
decision with support tools to understand local and regional
climate change projections as well as adaptation and mitigation
options. One model is the U.K. Climate Impact Program, which is
now in its tenth year.
Thank you very much.
The Chairman. I thank you. And, again, I think you are
going to have plenty of opportunity to elaborate during the
question and answer period.
[The statement of Ms. Ebi follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Our next witness is Dr. John Helms, who is a
Professor Emeritus at the University of California, Berkeley;
and he is an expert in forestry and resource management. He has
published numerous technical papers; and, in addition to the
United States, he has worked on forestry issues in Sweden,
Germany, Switzerland, Australia, Siberia and China. In 2005, he
served as President of the Society of the American Foresters
and is currently a member of the Board of Directors of the
California Forest Products Commission.
We welcome you, Doctor, whenever you feel comfortable,
please begin.
STATEMENT OF JOHN A. HELMS, PROFESSOR EMERITUS OF FORESTRY,
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY, AND 2005 PRESIDENT OF THE
SOCIETY OF AMERICAN FORESTERS
Mr. Helms. Thank you, Chairman Markey; and I thank Ranking
Member Sensenbrenner and members of the subcommittee for this
opportunity.
I would like to summarize my comments in five areas.
The first one deals with are forests important in this
issue. I would like to comment that forests store about 50
percent more carbon than is in the atmosphere; and, secondly,
U.S. forests sequester about 10 to 20 percent of the total U.S.
greenhouse gas emissions. So it is important that we have
policies to stabilize and preferably increase the amount of
forest land base.
Secondly, what is the impact of climate change on forests?
Well, obviously, forests have evolved over the past 30 or 40
million years and have adapted to change. Relative to the human
life span, however, it seems that the forests are static, but,
actually, their distributions are quite transitory. But the
forests will tend to move up in elevation. They will tend to
move northward in latitude.
And there are three issues here that I would like to
emphasize. One is water. What is the impact of global climate
on the water that is needed by populations and agriculture when
most of the precipitation comes on forest watershed in the form
of smur? Secondly, what is the impact on insects and diseases
which will lead to mortality in the forests? And then, thirdly,
the probability that there will be increased wildfire.
As you know, in 2006, we burned about 10 million acres of
forest. The suppression costs were at $1.9 billion. And so the
likelihood is that this situation is going to be increased.
The amount of carbon or greenhouse gasses that come from
wildfires is difficult to estimate, perhaps a hundred tons per
acre. And so it is a significant issue.
Now what is the role of forests in stabilizing greenhouse
gasses? Why do we want to spend time on elaborating on
sequestration and storage? But I would like to comment on the
importance of recognizing wood as a renewable natural resource
and to emphasize the importance of getting involved in life-
cycle analysis to look at what is the fate of carbon in wood
products and as they are recycled and to recognize that not
only is wood preferable to using alternative materials, such as
steel and aluminum, in terms of the carbon footprint, but it is
important to look at wood from the standpoint of bio-fuels,
wood pellets and with cellulosic ethanol.
The fourth point I would like to comment on is the question
is often asked why should we manage forests rather than just
leaving them to sequester carbon in a natural condition?
Well, there are two issues here: one, that if you look at
current modeling, it shows you that a sequence of harvests is
preferable and will store more carbon for two reasons. One is
that young forests have a far higher efficiency and rate of net
CO drop rates than older forests, and the second issue is you
must take into account what happens to the carbon that is in
the harvests which goes into products which are fundamentally
important to the standard of living of the country.
So if you include the carbon stored in products, plus the
carbon that--or the energy offsets that would have to be
accounted for in the use of alternative products, it becomes
clear that, in the long run, it is better to manage these
forests.
In considering the role of forests, what should be the
efforts that we should be considering?
First, we enhance the observation and monitoring,
developing incentives for landowners to sequester carbon, and
to get knowledge on what is the impact of emphasizing carbon on
forests relative to the outputs of other products such as wood
and water wildlife diversity. My expectation is that if you try
and rise the output of any one thing like carbon, it will
probably be at the expense of some of these important goods and
services.
So, in conclusion, I would like to comment that history
tells us that the health and welfare of nations is very closely
associated with the health and welfare of its forests; and,
therefore, it is important that we develop sound, prudent
policies regarding how our forests are maintained in a healthy,
sustainable condition. And I would trust that this issue would
be so over-arching that it would bring together society,
industry and conservation groups in order to move ahead on this
issue.
Thank you very much.
The Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Helms, very much.
[The statement of Mr. Helms follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Our final witness is Dr. James Hansen, who
is the Director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
He has been conducting groundbreaking climate research for over
two decades. He has published numerous peer-reviewed
publications. He is a Fellow of the American Geophysical
Society and was named one of the 100 Most Influential People by
Time Magazine in 2006. He is appearing today in his personal
capacity and not as a NASA official.
Dr. Hansen, welcome. Whenever you feel comfortable, please
begin.
STATEMENT OF JAMES E. HANSEN
Mr. Hansen. Thank you, Chairman Markey, for inviting me to
discuss dangerous human-made climate change.
In just the past year or two, scientific information has
crystallized showing that we are closer to dangerous climate
change than has been realized. The basis for my conclusions is
provided primarily by four scientific papers listed in my
written testimony as publications A, B, C, and D. These are
peer-reviewed papers in the press in leading scientific
journals.
Mr. Chairman, greenhouse gasses humans have added to the
atmosphere have brought the climate close to critical tipping
points with the potential for irreversible deleterious effects.
This conclusion is revealed by improving data on how the earth
would have responded to changes of atmospheric composition
during its long history and by changes in the climate system we
see in satellite and field observations.
There is new information about positive feedbacks which
amplify climate change. Forest cover is expanding poleward as
climate warms. Forests are dark and increase absorption of
sunlight. Summer melt on ice sheets is starting earlier,
lasting longer and moving higher up the ice sheets, making the
ice sheets darker, absorbing more sunlight and melting more
ice. Methane, a strong greenhouse gas, is beginning to bubble
from melting tundra. The upshot is that very little additional
forcing is needed to cause dangerous effects.
You asked me for advice on metrics, what constitutes
dangerous. I suggest criteria based on critical tipping points
that we must avoid.
Specifically, number one, the stability of the west
Antarctic ice sheet, which is being attacked from below by a
warming ocean and from above by summer surface melt. If it
disintegrates, west Antarctic air can raise sea levels several
meters, causing a world-wide retreat of shorelines and
affecting hundreds of millions of people.
Number two is extermination of animal and plant species.
Because, as with ice sheet disintegration, extinction is
irreversible. Large climate change, because of species
interdependencies, can cause the extinction of a large fraction
of animal and plant species.
And, number three, regional climate change. If we stay on
business as usual, we will cause intensification of subtropical
conditions, exacerbating water shortages in the American West
and other parts of the world and rendering the semi-arid States
from west and central Texas through Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska,
and the Dakotas increasingly drought prone and unsuitable for
agriculture.
These criteria and the earth's history imply a limit on
additional global warming of no more than 1 degree Celsius at
most. The sharpest limitation comes from west Antarctica and
sea level. The staggering conclusion is that the dangerous
level of atmospheric CO2 is no more than about 450
parts per million, and it probably is less. Humans have already
caused CO2 to increase from the preindustrial 280
parts per million to 383. It is continuing to increase by two
PPM per year. If we continue business as usual for even another
decade without taking decisive steps to move on to a different
path, it will be impractical to avoid disastrous climate
effects.
However, there is a bright side to the difficult imperative
that we must stabilize atmospheric CO2 at 450 PPM or
less. It means that we must move on to the next phase of the
industrial revolution, and the steps that I will outline serve
not only to help stabilize global shorelines but also avoid
problems that many people were beginning to consider
inevitable.
We can still avoid loss of all Arctic ice. We can prevent
the West from becoming intolerably hot and dry, and we can
prevent acidification of the ocean. We can avoid exterminating
the plants and animals of the world.
Science provides a clear outline for what must be done. A
four point strategy: First, we must phase out use of coal
except where the CO2 is captured and sequestered.
The reason is simple. We cannot prevent use of readily
available oil in mobile sources where the CO2 cannot
be captured. That oil will take us close to the dangerous
level. A substantial fraction of the CO2 from old-
technology coal-fired power plants will remain in the air for
an eternity, for more than 500 years. If we do not capture and
sequester it, we will guarantee creation of a different planet.
Second, there must be a rising price on carbon emissions,
as well as effective energy efficiency standards and removal of
barriers to efficiency. These actions are needed to spur
innovation in energy efficiency and renewable energies and thus
to stretch oil and gas supplies to cover the need for mobile
fluid fuels, during the transition to the next phase of the
industrial revolution beyond the petroleum, thus avoiding use
of the hulking unconventional fossil fuels such as tar shield,
which could destroy the planet.
Third, there should be focused efforts to reduce the non-
CO2 human-made climate force change, especially
methane, ozone and black carbon.
Fourth, steps probably will be needed to be taken to draw
down atmospheric CO2 via improved farming and
forestry practices. We also should consider burning biofuels in
power plants with CO2 sequestration, thus drawing
down atmospheric CO2. And as a native Iowan, I like
the idea of the Midwest coming to the rescue of our coastal
States.
By means of these steps, we not only avoid the climate
tipping points, we will also have a cleaner, healthier
atmosphere.
The actions serve our interest in many ways. They
contribute to our energy independence and national security. We
will benefit economically from extensive technology development
with many good high-tech, high-paid jobs.
Of course, moving to the next phase of the industrial
revolution surely will require changes, sacrifices and hard
work, but these provide no basis for inaction.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Hansen.
[The statement of Dr. Hansen follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. We thank all of the panelists for their
testimony.
I will now turn to recognize members of the committee for
questions for the panel, and the Chair will recognize himself
now for 5 minutes.
Dr. Hansen, you identified the melting of the west
Antarctica ice sheet as the greatest threat from global warming
and suggest that we could see many feet of level in the rise of
the level of water in this century. The IPCC's report released
in February predicts less sea level rise than you suggest. Can
you explain the discrepancy between your conclusion and the
IPCC?
Mr. Hansen. Yes. IPCC declined to put a number on the
disintegration of the west Antarctic or Greenland ice sheets.
The number that they gave represents only thermal expansion of
the ocean and the effect of mountain glaciers. So those are
relatively small effects.
By far, the largest issue is the stability of the west
Antarctic ice sheet and the Greenland, but especially west
Antarctica, because it is an ice sheet that is sitting below
sea level. Its base is below sea level. So it is being attacked
by both a warming ocean and by a warming atmosphere. And we
know that it, in just the last few years, has been losing ice
at a rate of about 150 cubic kilometers per year. So it is
already beginning to respond to the warming.
The Chairman. Let me ask the other witnesses if they could
quickly respond to how close they each believe we are to
dangerous interference with climate systems as a result of
human activities.
Dr. Curry.
Ms. Curry. Well, I would agree with Dr. Hansen that the
most likely catastrophic thing that could happen in the next
century would be the collapse of the west Antarctica ice sheet.
I mean, that is sort of beyond dangerous. I would call that
catastrophic. I would say that is the single most catastrophic
thing that we might see in the next century.
Ms. Parmesan. From a biodiversity standpoint and also how
that impacts human health, I would say that if we get up to
between 1 and 2 degrees, we will lose species but that most
people think that is manageable. So species will go extinct,
but can we manage reserves? Can we tolerate the amount of
increase in disease that that is going to have? Probably we
can. But everyone that I have talked to in publications is in
agreement that if you go to up to 4 degrees centigrade, that is
catastrophic.
Ms. Ebi. It is a very good and very difficult question. As
I said, human health is already being affected; and danger is a
social choice. As a scientist, I can tell you we don't have the
studies that will tell you what might happen with human health
with a 2-degree, 3-degree or 4-degree increase. We know what is
already going on will become worse. We know the diseases will
change their range. We know the heat waves will be a bigger
problem.
At some point we have to decide when enough people are
suffering and dying and we need to start making changes. The
changes have to be both adaptation and mitigation. We have to
start helping today, and we have to help future generations.
The Chairman. Dr. Helms.
Mr. Helms. I have two responses: One, at a global level,
looking at the effect of warming climate on global forests,
tremendous danger relative to those northern boreal forests in
particular.
The Chairman. How close are we to the danger?
Mr. Helms. I would hesitate to put an actual number on
that, but currently the reports are that the permafrost is
melting.
The second response would be relative to the U.S., and I
would point to the likely increase in wildfire, particularly in
the western forests. If this becomes more prevalent, it is
going to be a very dangerous situation.
The Chairman. Okay. Thank you.
Let me ask--Dr. Hansen, let me ask you one final question.
Has the United States, in your opinion, lived up to its
commitment thus far under the United Nation's Framework
Convention on Climate Change to prevent dangerous climate
change?
Mr. Hansen. Well, I think that we have not done what we
need to do. Because the United States has contributed more than
three times the carbon dioxide--the increase in carbon dioxide
that is in the atmosphere. And it is said that China is now
about to pass us in current emissions. But what counts is the
integrated emissions, the cumulative emissions, because a large
fraction of the CO2 stays in the air forever, more
than 500 years. So we should be--given our moral responsibility
for what we have put up there, we should be taking a leadership
role in addressing the problem, and we are not doing that.
The Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Hansen.
My time has expired.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Thank you.
Dr. Hansen, are greenhouse gasses pollutants?
Mr. Hansen. I don't understand that word.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Do they pollute the atmosphere?
Mr. Hansen. Absolutely. In my opinion, given the impacts
that they will have and on the climate----
Mr. Sensenbrenner. How can you say they are pollutants
when they occur naturally? The largest progenitor of
CO2 are the oceans.
Mr. Hansen. That is true for many things which are
nutritious are pollutants or poisonous if you have them in
excessive amounts. And I can tell you what the excessive
amounts of CO2 will do. In fact, I have already
described some of the potential factors and----
Mr. Sensenbrenner. I have read your full testimony here,
and you talk a lot about CO2. Which causes more
damage to the climate, CO2 or methane?
Mr. Hansen. Per molecule, methane has a stronger
greenhouse effect, but because of the overwhelming number of
CO2 molecules, it is causing a larger effect.
The other thing is that CO2 has a much longer
lifetime. As I have said, more than a quarter of it stays there
more than 500 years. But methane has a lifetime of 10 years.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Why don't we talk more about the
sequestration of methane or the reduction of methane?
Mr. Hansen. We should.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Because molecule per molecule, methane
is much more dangerous than CO2.
Mr. Hansen. It is an opportunity to reduce the overall
problem, and that is one of the four points that I mentioned,
and that is one of the things which the United States should be
given credit for. We have taken steps--our present government
has taken steps to reduce methane emissions, and that is
helpful, but it is not enough.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Well, do you know what I can say is
that almost all the debate on this subject has been relative to
CO2. And in the Kyoto Protocol, you and I have
talked about that at some length in the past, there are six
greenhouse gases that are under the Kyoto Protocol, but
CO2 ends up being the biggest culprit. How do we
change the debate on this so that we deal with the other five
greenhouse gases, particularly methane.
Mr. Hansen. Well, we need to talk about that. We need to
put more emphasis on that. But the critical thing, because of
its long lifetime, is indeed carbon dioxide. And that is where
we have got to bring the sources of that under control within
the next several years, or we are in big trouble.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. In your written testimony you talked
about a carbon tax. In your oral testimony you didn't really
emphasize the T word. How high a tax would be necessary to
achieve the reductions that you think are necessary?
Mr. Hansen. That is a difficult thing to say. What I have
said about that is we should have a nonpolitical czar the way
we do in economics. You don't want to damage the economy, you
want to push this up, and you don't want it to be political.
You want to push it up fast enough that you influence the
development of technology, but you have to give the consumer
options so that he can purchase things that reduce his
requirements for fuel.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. There is a small problem in that called
the United States Constitution, which gives the House of
Representatives the exclusive authority to initiate tax
legislation. As I said in my opening statement, when scientists
weighed into policy discussions, as you have done very
eloquently, you are advising us what we ought to do. You are
advocating a carbon tax. How high does it need to be to reduce
the amount of CO2 you want to see us reduce?
Mr. Hansen. It has to be high enough to drive the
innovations in the technology and to drive energy efficiency.
It has got to be high enough that people feel that they will be
better off if they use energy more efficiently.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. How much per ton of carbon or how much
per pound of carbon?
Mr. Hansen. That would be a function of time. Actually it
can start out relatively small, because you notice people do
complain about increases in prices of energy, so they will
notice. But you have got to do it in a way that allows the
introduction of technologies.
Mr. Sensenbrenner. I guess I would say that if you
increase the gas tax or increase taxes on other types of energy
like natural gas, every economist says it is a progressive
taxation, and I don't think that is very popular.
My time is up. Thank you.
Mr. Hansen. There are things that you can do to relieve
the burden on the people who are affected the most.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time is expired.
The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from North Dakota Ms.
Herseth.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to
thank our witnesses for their testimony today.
I represent the entire seat of South Dakota, and
agriculture is our largest industry, and we have been plagued
by a multiyear drought. And so I am very interested in the
testimony that a number of you offered as it relates to
rainfall location changes, where that has happened
predominantly in each continent and the impact on agriculture.
Just by way of some description of what is happening in
South Dakota, last summer, midsummer, central South Dakota
reached record high temperatures, as high as 117 degrees in a
community right along the Missouri River. The reservoirs along
the Missouri River in the Upper Basin States are experiencing
record low levels of water in those reservoirs linked directly
to what has been happening with snowmelt and snow levels in the
mountains in Montana. As I mentioned, we are experiencing this
drought and the impact that it is having predominantly on
agriculture as it relates to livestock producers, but also some
of our grain producers, and how the drought is affecting forest
health in the Black Hills National Forest in western South
Dakota. So I offer that by way of description, not to be
parochial, but to provide the context of my question.
If you could address the issues of rainfall changes,
perhaps Dr. Parmesan and perhaps Dr. Helms. If you could answer
the question of we know when forests are overstocked, they
present a risk of forest fire. But the impact that they have on
the water resources and the watershed is also significant. I
was wondering, as you described, the carbon storage potential
of our forest, does overstocking of the forest also affect the
potential for carbon storage? And if you could describe that.
And then just to clarify my question to you, Dr. Parmesan,
if you could say where in North America you have seen the most
significant rainfall location changes and how that affects
drought, and perhaps where you have seen that in other
continents, and if it is different from previous cycles of
drought that we have always experienced in some arid States.
Ms. Parmesan. I am not a climate scientist, I am a
biologist, but I can talk about the impacts of changes in
rainfall that we have seen. And certainly large areas of the
Southwestern U.S.A. have become much drier, and we are seeing
species going extinct and changes in vegetation structure.
Other areas have become wetter, and again we are seeing changes
in vegetation structure and species distributions within the
U.S.A. that go along with that.
Now, when I have looked at the projections for the U.S.A.,
one thing that has concerned me is I am actually a farmer also.
I have got farms in the Corn Belt in Illinois, and they rely on
normal rain, natural rainfall, without irrigation. And it has
become more and more difficult to actually grow crops there
with natural rainfall they have had, not quite as strong a
drying trend as you have had, but a slight drying trend. And
fairly quickly, I think 11 of the 12 models believe that
section of the country will continue to become drier. So it is
a concern to me actually personally that agriculture areas in
that section will not be able to sustain crops anymore.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Let me just ask a quick follow-up, if
you don't mind, Dr. Helms. When you say ``can't sustain those
crops,'' we know American agriculture and agriculture around
the world is not a stagnant industry. We have seen technology
going into drought-resistant crops, et cetera. But your
projections, when you say 11 of the 12 models, is that based on
just the current types of crops in sea technology that they are
using, or do you think it is actually going to reach levels
that won't sustain row crops or other types of grain
production?
Ms. Parmesan. Again, this is not quite my area of
expertise. But the agriculture models that do this both
globally and within the U.S.A. and within Europe project that
with a little more warming, you are going to have increased
production in more northern latitudes, meaning Canada, Sweden
and Finland, not in the lower latitudes, the U.S.A. and the
lower part of Europe, and that when you get up to 4 degrees
warming, production goes down globally.
Mr. Helms. The importance of forest, forested watersheds,
is the forests enable the water to get down into the soil,
which is where you want it to be, because a watershed, the
water that is stored in the soil, is the critically important
thing both from the storage capacity and also in terms of slow
release into the streams. If the forest becomes overly dense
and overly stressed, and you have mortality in the forest, then
the forest is not able to serve that function. And particularly
if it induces fire, you are likely to have more surface flow.
And so if you have surface flow, you have not high-quality
water, and you have very rapid water getting into the
watersheds.
So as we look at global climate change, we get concerned
about trying to do whatever we can to maintain forest health.
And then we have to distinguish between whether the
precipitation is in the form of rain or in the form of snow.
And then the actual management of that watershed would differ a
little, because, again, the idea would be to get the moisture
into the soil and, in the case of snow, delayed snowmelt.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. And so in the case of overstocking
that leads to tree mortality, for example, knowing that
overstocking exacerbates the problem of beetle infestations,
that does affect the carbon storage potential of that forest?
Mr. Helms. Yes. And also the water. Obviously if you are
going to grow trees, they will consume water. But the
important--and the most important issue on watershed is to
maintain that forest in a healthy condition and not allow it to
get overstocked, because as we have seen in a lot of forests in
the Southwest, it tends to enhance the probability of insect
disease populations that leads to mortality that leads to
increased fire risk.
Ms. Herseth Sandlin. Thank you, Dr. Helms.
One final comment before my time is up. I do want to agree
with you, Dr. Hansen, that I do think there is great potential
for the Great Plains in the Midwest to assist our Coastal
States as it relates to the impacts of global warming and
climate change. And I think the questions I am posing to
agriculture not only address the issue of the grains that are
grown or the livestock that are raised for food and for the
nutrition of our populations, but increasingly the potential to
meet our energy needs through the form of cellulosic ethanol,
other renewable sources.
So I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. The gentlelady's time is expired.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona for 7
minutes.
Mr. Shadegg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank
all of our witnesses. I appreciate your testimony. I think it
has been a great contribution to this discussion.
Dr. Hansen, I was very encouraged, both by your written
testimony and by your oral testimony, in the kind of optimism
that you bring to the topic; that is, the things you say that
we can do that are positive. It is kind of nice to hear it is
not too late, recognizing that you call for some pretty strong
medicine, but I appreciate that optimism.
I have lots of questions. I want to start by saying in your
testimony you make the point that we could see dramatically
greater sea level rise than the IPCC. The IPCC said 23 inches.
You said it could be much more, and you explained that in
response to the Chairman's question. That is driven largely by
the issue of the demise of the West Atlantic Ice Sheet; is that
correct?
Mr. Hansen. Yes.
Mr. Shadegg. I want to commend you for disagreeing. I am a
little troubled by scientific consensus, and I am glad that
some scientists can say, no, I disagree with other scientists,
even with a consensus scientist, and say, no, I just happen to
have a different opinion, because IPCC says 23 inches, you say
it could be worse. I am glad somebody out there is willing to
disagree even when everybody is on one side.
Mr. Hansen. Well, you know, I perhaps should point out
that, in fact, if you ask the several top glaciologists, they
agree that IPCC has not addressed the real issue, and they are
all very worried about the stability of these ice sheets.
Mr. Shadegg. I appreciate that very much. And I am--just
because there is a consensus doesn't mean a group of you can't
say, do you know what, I just think different. As a matter of
fact, years ago there was an advertising bulletin put out I
think by United Technologies that I used to have on the wall in
my office that said, if 10,000 people believe in a dumb idea,
it is still a dumb idea. And we can be wrong about things.
You all have different views, and at some point in your
paper you say, look, science can't predict these things with
absolute certainty. And I notice everybody--at least several
others agreed with you, that the most catastrophic thing that
could happen would be the demise of the West Atlantic Ice
Sheet. Obviously, you don't believe the likelihood of that is
at zero, and you don't think the likelihood of that is at 100.
Are you willing to try to put a number on it, or is that
something you are not comfortable doing?
Mr. Hansen. No, I am willing to talk about that, but it
depends which scenario we follow. And our best guide for that
is the Earth's history. We know that when the Earth was 2 to 3
degrees warmer, sea level was a lot higher, and the West
Antarctica Ice Sheet was not there. So if we follow business as
usual, then it is a lead pipe cinch, in my opinion, that West
Antarctica will go. The only issue is how long does it take for
it to happen.
Again, the Earth's history is our best guide, and it shows
there is not much lag. The lag is of the order of centuries at
most. And given that the sea level rise associated with 2 to 3
degrees warming was 30 meters----
Mr. Shadegg. I want to follow not following business as
usual, because you make a number of recommendations on that;
stop using coal without sequestration. I have some trouble with
the idea of long-term sequestration. Perhaps that is the right
way to go. I would rather figure out a use for that
CO2 than lock it away, but maybe we can figure that
out.
I am encouraged by your belief that we can, in fact, reduce
the current level of CO2 by farming and on
forestation. I take it then that you agree largely with many of
the comments of Dr. Helms with regard to the importance of
managing our forest and doing other things?
Mr. Hansen. Yes, that is right, managing the forest and
also the agricultural practices, because the soil can store a
lot of carbon.
Mr. Shadegg. And, for example, I have a number of
constituents in Arizona who are working aggressively, for
example, to build biofuel plants that would produce electricity
for biofuels, another way we can help in this process, correct?
Mr. Hansen. It depends on how we do it. We have to do it in
an effective way. Some of the plans for corn-based ethanol
would put quite a bit of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Mr. Shadegg. I am not a big fan of corn-based ethanol. What
they are talking about in Arizona is actually related to Dr.
Helms' testimony.
Mr. Hansen. Those programs are okay to give us a start, but
we shouldn't have a huge program at the beginning because there
are many disadvantages of that in terms of increasing the cost
of food worldwide.
Mr. Shadegg. This is actually forest biomass. We have lots
of forests in Arizona.
Mr. Hansen. That is a very good thing to do.
Mr. Shadegg. And Dr. Helms probably knows the work of Dr.
Wally Covington, who has talked about the overgrowth of our
forests. They become too dense. It was talked about in Ms.
Herseth's questioning. They are talking about moving that
overgrowth to allow the forest to be more productive and then
burning that biomass, another positive thing we can do for both
greenhouse gas emissions and also to produce a new source of
fuel as long as we sequester any CO2 that is
produced in that process.
Methane, the Ranking Member talked a little bit about
methane and the fact that it is by multiples worse than carbon
dioxide. You mentioned methane in your testimony, I have read,
21 times to 23 times. I heard you say that carbon is a more
serious problem because it lasts longer, but I did not hear in
your testimony suggestions for how we deal with methane. I
think about that occasionally, okay, what do we do with animal-
caused methane. But then the other big question is the one
alluded to in your testimony, which is increasing amounts of
methane escaping from the tundra. And I just wanted to ask if
you have suggestions for what we can do about methane.
Mr. Hansen. There are a number of things that can be done:
capturing methane at coal mines, for example, and at landfills
and reducing leakage in the whole fossil fuel process. We have
actually made some progress in that. That is why the growth
rate of methane has slowed down a bit.
Mr. Shadegg. I would like to see us pursue that, but I am
running out of time.
Dr. Curry, I want to ask you one question. In your
testimony at page 1, if you would look at it, your written
testimony, you quote a long paragraph from IPCC number 4, or
IPCC 4th. And about halfway down that paragraph, there is an
ellipsis and an omitted sentence. Do you know what that omitted
sentence says?
Ms. Curry. It wasn't the omitted sentence. That text
appeared in two different subsections of the report. There was
one on detection of climate change, which is the part before
the ellipsis appeared, and then maybe four or five subsections
later there was one about projections of future climate change
and impact. So those two little paragraphs appeared in two
different subsections of the report. That is the entire mention
of hurricanes in the IPCC summary for policymakers.
Mr. Shadegg. If you look at page 8 of 18 of the testimony,
there is, in fact, an omitted sentence.
Ms. Curry. There is an omitted sentence?
Mr. Shadegg. There is an omitted sentence.
Ms. Curry. Oh, okay. My apologies.
Mr. Shadegg. At the end of the first paragraph. And that
omitted sentence says: There is no clear trend in the annual
numbers of tropical cyclones.
It might be better if that sentence appeared.
Ms. Curry. My apologies.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. We can
clarify that.
The gentleman from New York Mr. Hall is recognized for 7
minutes.
Mr. Hall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, too,
everybody on our panel, for your enlightening testimony.
Just a couple quick comments. One is that the price of fuel
is going to rise no matter what we do. Those of us who talk
about peak oil, for instance, know by the laws of supply and
demand, whether it is oil companies charging more and making
more profit even as they are making record profits already, or
whether it is the countries that control the oil charging more
by cartel manipulation and raising prices that way, we are
going to hit higher gas prices whether we tax it or not. In
fact, I have been reading that some expect gasoline prices this
summer to go over $4. I don't know whether that will happen or
not. I suppose as a consumer I hope it doesn't.
I personally bought an American-made hybrid. I decided to
vote with my dollars to try to boost the American automobile
industry in the right direction. And we are talking about this
since jobs have been mentioned. I am as concerned as anybody
about jobs. There are two things. One is these new technologies
will create jobs. In fact, unfortunately, they are creating
more of them--unfortunately for us, I think, in the United
States, they are creating more of them in Japan right now as
evidenced by Toyota just passing GM as the number one volume
auto maker. But I had to sacrifice approximately 20 miles per
gallon to buy an American hybrid, because the American
companies didn't, they wouldn't, they made a decision at the
corporate level not to build fuel-efficient cars 20 years ago
when the research and development was going on in other
countries.
So some of these things can be absolutely job-creating if
we do the right thing. In fact, the Clean Water Act, the Clean
Air Act, other pollution control, scrubbers that we required,
industry always screams or in the past has screamed that it is
going to cost jobs, and, in fact, it usually winds up creating
jobs to solve these problems and give us cleaner and cleaner
water. So I for one believe addressing climate change will do
the same thing.
I wanted to ask, using the median projection of sea level
rise, would it be correct--Dr. Hansen, I will start with you--
to say that such places as Hilton Head, Ocracoke, Hatteras,
South Padre Island, Nantucket, Manhattan, many of the landmark
resorts and famous golf courses and vacation spots that we have
become quite fond of will be at risk?
Mr. Hansen. The entire eastern United States seaboard is at
risk; in Florida almost the entire State. So we have a lot at
risk, but so do China, Bangladesh, India and many other places.
It is something that we should be able to cooperate with the
rest of the world on.
Mr. Hall. I hope in terms of the adaptation versus
mitigation that we lean sooner on the mitigation and don't have
to adapt as much later.
Mr. Hansen. Mitigation is absolutely essential. We could
not--it is not practical to adapt to our rapidly rising sea
level. New Orleans is a village in comparison to the cities
around the coastlines all around the world. The disasters would
be far greater than we saw in New Orleans. So we just can't
adapt to that. We have got to mitigate.
Mr. Hall. Thank you.
Dr. Ebi, perhaps this would be good for you. A number of
you have testified about dramatic climate change and increase
in droughts and heat waves. Are we looking at possibly the
creation of a migratory America as people from coastal
population centers or elsewhere are forced to move or migrate
to more tolerable locations, or are we looking at migrations
from the countries who are south even more than is already
happening into the United States looking for a more temperate
climate?
Ms. Ebi. I don't think that is an ``or,'' it is an ``and'';
that as we see changes, and we are seeing changes already in
temperature and precipitation, we heard about the drought in
South Dakota, people do make choices about where to live. And
they will make choices based on a range of things, one of which
is the current weather and climate. We also have a large number
of migratory workers that come from Mexico and further south
into the U.S. to pick our crops.
These are complex systematic changes. It is likely that as
we see drought in some regions of the world--and to be honest,
most of us are much more worried about places like Africa and
Southeast Asia, where you have very high populations at risk.
Dr. Hansen mentioned Bangladesh. About a third of Bangladesh is
at risk for sea level rise. Bangladesh is the most populated
country in the world. We are looking at sub-Sahara Africa where
another degree or two in temperature and you may have very
severe problems with rain throughout agriculture. Those people
have to go somewhere. Yes, we will see migrations.
Mr. Hall. Our last panel was about national security
implications of climate change, and they talked a lot about the
instability of countries, especially in the developing world,
relative to this. But we are living in the experiment, as I
understand it. If you do the scientific method, you ordinarily
will have one group of mice or frogs or whatever it is that you
are testing, and then you will have a controlled group that you
don't do the experiment on, and then you have a separate
population that you do do the experiment on, and then you can
tell the difference between the controlled group.
We don't have a control planet; we don't have another Earth
that this change is not happening to that we can compare it to.
So given the fact that we have not much to gain in terms of our
balance of trade deficit being improved if we change our energy
mix and develop more renewables here at home, and that we can
perhaps lessen asthma, emphysema in the inner city, and we can
have fewer oil spills and less mercury pollution and less acid
rain, and many fewer wars in the other parts of the world where
they happen to have oil, it seems that even if climate change
turns out to be a fiction, nonetheless we help ourselves by
starting to deal with it. And my time is yielded.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon Mr. Walden.
Mr. Walden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. And I
appreciate the testimony of our witnesses. Obviously we are
going to get called for some votes here, so I will try and make
my questions quick, and I hope you will give us the full
answers.
Dr. Helms, Dr. Hansen mentioned just briefly in part of his
testimony the notion the forests are moving to the north, and
you are seeing more and more dark cover over the Earth as a
result of that. Are you seeing that kind of migration, if you
will?
Mr. Helms. I haven't personal experience. I have seen
references to it in literature.
Mr. Walden. I have, too. I read a report recently about
some people say, well, if that is the case, then those forests
become more heat sinks because they are darker, which could
actually elevate the temperature. And then the same author went
on to say, don't for a minute think you want to have more snow
on the ground thereby clear-cutting those forests. That
wouldn't be good behavior either.
Mr. Helms. It is my understanding the study you are
referring to was dealing with issues that albedo is high.
Obviously if you replace that with a darker forest, that will
absorb more heat. But I think the issue that we are more
interested in is the more temperate area from the tropics up to
the boreal where one gets concerned about making sure that the
forests are stable and increasing because they are indeed
storing carbon.
Mr. Walden. As you know, I chaired the Forests and Forest
Health Subcommittee on the Resources Committee until this
Congress, and we worked very hard to try to change America's
forest policy to get at some of the things that you have
testified today about. First, are forests a carbon sink if
managed properly?
Mr. Helms. Of course.
Mr. Walden. And managed properly means trying to keep them
in balance with what would have naturally occurred pre-fire
suppression time?
Mr. Helms. That is right.
Mr. Walden. And that deals then with stand density,
correct?
Mr. Helms. Yes.
Mr. Walden. As the temperature rises on the planet, won't
there be more pressure on these forests? If they are not
managed at the right density levels, they will be more
stressed, therefore more susceptible to insect infestation?
Mr. Helms. I think you are quite correct in that statement.
Mr. Walden. At the end of the day, that then leads to
higher incidence of fire, correct?
Mr. Helms. Correct.
Mr. Walden. And if that happens, then--talk to me again
about the release of carbon into the atmosphere, as well as
other greenhouse gases. Aren't there other pollutants that are
released into the atmosphere as a result of these catastrophic
fires we are seeing?
Mr. Helms. There are a variety of greenhouse gases, in
aerosols in particular, that are important. Carbon is just one
of these. But when we are dealing with forest, the fundamental
basic tenet of forest management is to ensure the maintenance
of forest health. The way that is done is to be concerned about
stand density. Now, nature takes care of this over time through
mortality. The problem for human society is that we can't
tolerate commonly the consequences of mortality because of the
infrastructure and the fact that we have urban development in
forests.
Mr. Walden. To get back to one of your points, doesn't it
also affect wildlife habitat and water and watersheds? If you
wipe out a forest through catastrophic fire that can otherwise
have been better managed to be more in balance, you lose it.
Mr. Helms. You lose the whole suite of ecosystem services
that the forests provide. Now, these will come back in time as
they have historically.
Mr. Walden. But the issue here is one of time, as we hear
today from every panel that is here. We may not have as much
time as we thought we had to address this issue, correct?
Aren't you all telling us this could happen exponentially, and
it could be rapid, in a matter of decades as opposed to
centuries? So does it make sense then to ignore forest policy
as a small but important part of this equation dealing with
carbon?
Mr. Helms. Well, forests----
Mr. Walden. Can I get an answer from each of you? Do you
agree with what Dr. Helms is suggesting? And I won't have much
time here, so you can give me a yes or no, and I hate to do
that to you.
Dr. Hansen.
Mr. Hansen. I agree it is an urgent issue, yes.
Mr. Walden. But the forests need to be managed.
Mr. Hansen. And the forests are a significant part of the
solution.
Mr. Walden. Dr. Curry.
Ms. Curry. Yes.
Mr. Walden. Dr. Parmesan.
Ms. Parmesan. Yes. And I would like to add that he is
absolutely right. When you properly manage a forest, the fires
are small, they are much less hot. It is when you don't manage
it they get really dense, and you get these huge catastrophic
fires.
Mr. Walden. Thank you.
Dr. Ebi.
Ms. Ebi. Yes.
Mr. Walden. Thank you.
Now, the other issue is the replacement potential for using
wood or woody biomass for products. The dais we are on here is
made of wood. This is a natural carbon sink.
Mr. Helms. Correct.
Mr. Walden. So that versus the concrete. And I am not
against concrete manufacturers or anything like that, but when
we look at these issues, there are trade-offs here, aren't
there?
Mr. Helms. And this is the important part of the discussion
is to make sure that we have a balanced evaluation of
alternatives.
Mr. Walden. Then consumers could make choices, couldn't
they?
Mr. Helms. Yes. And part of the discussion is to look at
what is called the life cycle assessment of the alternative
products that we use in building and construction in daily use.
And if you look at that, it is very clear that wood has by far
the lowest carbon footprint of alternative materials.
Mr. Walden. And so would it be to our benefit and that in
the environment to try to encourage the use of woody biomass,
for example, for alternative fuels or production of energy?
Mr. Helms. That is absolutely correct. And in addition to
that, while you are doing this, you are improving the health of
the forest and reducing a fire hazard. So it is a win-win
situation.
Mr. Walden. The final point is after a catastrophic fire,
do you remove more carbon by quickly replanting and getting a
healthy forest growing sooner, or by letting it sit there and
let nature regenerate it over a much longer period of time?
Mr. Helms. If your goal is to sequester carbon, you have
got to get leaf area growing on that burned area as quickly as
possible. What I think is important, however, after a forest
fire, the most important first thing to do is a very quick
prompt assessment of the issue, because the watershed is not a
single kind. You don't do things. You probably leave wilderness
and natural areas alone; otherwise you have to have prompt
regeneration.
Mr. Walden. Thank you. Thank you all.
The Chairman. Let me just tell everyone they have about
8\1/2\ minutes left to go before this roll call on the House
floor. My intention is to recognize Mr. McNerney for 7 minutes,
if he would like at this time, or I can recognize Mr. Larson
for 5 minutes. It would be up to you, Mr. McNerney. But I will
announce that my intention is for the Chair to go over and make
this first vote; then there will be a 10-minute recommittal
debate, and then obviously a 15-minute vote, which will give us
about another 20-minute gap. So I intend on returning and
reconvening the hearing after this first vote.
So, Mr. McNerney, it will be your choice right now. You
would have to adjourn the hearing with 1 minute left to go and
run and make the vote, or I can recognize Mr. Larson at this
time.
Mr. McNerney. I will make it 1 minute.
The Chairman. The gentleman is recognized for 7 minutes.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I do want to
thank the board. I know it is a big commitment for you to come
here and sit in front of this committee. A mounting evidence on
global warming has caused concern of climate change and become
a significant part of our national consciousness. In fact, just
last week I was meeting with religious leaders, national
religious leaders, who were talking about what they can do to
save God's creation. So it is very impressive what that has
done.
We have an opportunity, I think, to use the national
consensus to develop a new national purpose, to energize and to
inspire our population, especially the coming generation, to
become engaged in education and innovation necessary to end
global warming, to give our country a national leadership
position in energy and economic and environmental issues in the
coming decades. And I think I better leave it with that. Thank
you again for coming, and we will probably see you in another
half hour.
[Recess.]
The Chairman. We thank you, and we will reconvene the
hearing. And I need to recognize the Members that have arrived.
Is there anyone who would want to take on the issue of the
acidification briefly?
Dr. Parmesan.
Ms. Parmesan. In the tropical regions the ocean has become
more acidic, and this is partly because the ocean has been
absorbing a huge amount of the carbon dioxide that we have been
putting out. I think the estimate is 40 or 50 percent. And it
is starting to become saturated, which means it is starting to
get more and more acidic, and at some point it is not going to
be able to absorb the CO2.
So there are two problems. One is we have been sort of not
recognizing that we are not feeling the full strength of what
we put out because the ocean has been this wonderful thing, and
that is gradually going away; and also that as the oceans
become more acidic, they are starting to get near the tipping
point for hard-shelled organisms to be able to make their
shells. And it is a combination of temperature and acidity that
in the tropical regions some estimates, the sort of business as
usual estimates, is that by 2050 a lot of organisms such as
corals and shellfish will not be able to create hard shells.
The Chairman. And this additional emission of
CO2 is what leads directly to the acidification of
the ocean?
Ms. Parmesan. Yes, absolutely, as far as making Coca-Cola.
The Chairman. Meaning?
Ms. Parmesan. You add more carbon to the atmosphere, more
of it gets absorbed by the ocean, and that makes propionic
acid, so gradually it becomes more amorphic.
The Chairman. So it is like making Coca-Cola is not too
far off the point either?
Ms. Parmesan. No, I was serious.
The Chairman. It is serious, but it also an easy way to
understand the point for ordinary people, because everyone
knows when you are shaking up something with too much carbon in
it.
Let me now recognize the gentleman from California Mr.
McNerney for 6 minutes.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
I just finished a diatribe on how global warming can
energize us and give us a national purpose. Dr. Parmesan, many
of the changes we are seeing just in biodiversity and species
reduction, just on a .7-degree change, that is Centigrade,
right.
Ms. Parmesan. Centigrade.
Mr. McNerney. Well, it seems that this is a proverbial
canary in the mine. Do you see that we are approaching a major
breakdown in international health because of global warming?
Ms. Parmesan. On the health issue what really worries me,
as I said, all the diseases, the parasites that cause humans to
become sick are generally not monitored in the wild. So we know
when we go to Mexico, we have a really high risk of getting
diarrhea. Well, part of the reason is that they have lot more
parasites there, a lot more harmful bacteria than we get in the
temperate zone. So as we are seeing birds and butterflies
moving northward, it is very, very likely that those parasites
and the vectors of human parasites are also moving northward
even if we don't have the data, because butterfly collectors
don't go out and collect worms and protozoa.
Mr. McNerney. We hear a lot about biodiversity. We have
heard about it for 20 years or so now. It seems like as we
eliminate more species, we are getting closer to a point where
systems are going to be breaking down. Is that your vision of
where we are headed with all this?
Ms. Parmesan. That is a very active side of research, at
what point--we know that ecosystems are interrelated sets of
species. How many species can an ecosystem lose and stop being
able to function in terms of human services, in terms of
watershed capability, in terms of filtering the air, et cetera?
That is a big debate. There isn't a number on that.
But what I can say is we are actually seeing whole
ecosystems being destroyed. So coral coral reefs are an
ecosystem, and we have lost 30 percent in the area globally
already with .7-degree Centigrade warming. Arctic ecosystems
are declining in general. I cannot give you like a number, if
we lose 20 percent of the species, we are going to lose our
ecosystem services, but what I can tell you is we are literally
losing whole ecosystems that we do rely on. Coral reefs provide
tourism. There are fisheries. There is a huge amount of
economic gain from coral reefs that is being lost.
Mr. McNerney. I am going to direct my next question to Dr.
Ebi. You noted that the U.K. has a global warming agency that
could be a model for us. How do they deal with business
integration into the solutions that might be found for this
problem?
Ms. Ebi. The U.K. Climate Impacts Program, U.K. CIP, is
funded by the U.K. Government, as I noted, for 10 years now,
and it focuses on adaptation. And it works directly with the
government; it works with communities, schools, businesses, the
insurance industry on what kinds of changes they can see at
their local level. They have got downscaling to a very fine
scale in the U.K., and then work with the people, the schools,
the businesses, the regional centers on what that would mean
then for what kinds of things do they need to adjust to. Do
they need to change their flood risk policies? Do they need to
look at their housing infrastructure? How are they going to
deal with heat waves? How can they start making changes so that
they can deal with the change in temperature and precipitation
that already occurred, what is built into the system and what
is projected, then flows into the mitigation policies to make
sure that adaptation and mitigation work together so that we
can make all our communities as resilient as possible?
Mr. McNerney. Well, is there like a venture element to
this or a venture fund element or some way to encourage
businesses to move in that direction that would mitigate the
problem or adapt, whichever the case is?
Ms. Ebi. I don't specifically know if they got venture
capital funding. I do know they have been working with business
and industry. I know that the British insurance industry has
put out a whole very detailed book on how they are going to be
adjusted. So they are working to make sure that innovation does
take place.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. The Chair
recognizes the gentleman from Washington State Mr. Inslee for 5
minutes.
Mr. Inslee. Thank you.
I would like to ask you for some professional advice for
free if I can. One of the mysteries to me is we have this
enormous consensus in the scientific community about the human
contribution to climate change; I mean, enormous consensus
across the international spectrum, multiple fields, multiple
studies. It really is quite compelling. It is also combined
with now our visual observation of being able to see these
things with our naked eye, with melting glaciers and ice caps
and changes in vegetation and biological patterns, which I
thought the testimony was interesting on.
So the question I would like to ask you about is with all
of that enormous scientific consensus and even visual impacts
that we can see with our own eyes, we still have people who are
basically ignoring the signs, blinding themselves to it, still
saying that scientists don't know what they are talking about,
or it is the sunspots, or how can humans possibly change the
climate of the Earth because we are well less than 10 percent
of the total CO2 going into the atmosphere, so how
could we possibly influence the climate? And it is really
surprising to me because these are people who depend on science
in their life. They use a microwave oven, they use a cell
phone, they depend on quantum mechanics, they ride in
airplanes, they trust science, their lives are dependent on
science, but when it comes to this issue, they want to ignore
it.
And I guess just the question is do any of you have any
advice on what helps people understand the degree of consensus
and get over some of these hurdles? Now, my theory has been it
is fear. People are afraid that we can't deal with it. People
tend to ignore what they fear. So I am doing some things to try
to get people to have a little confidence so we can skin this
cat. But I just ask your advice in that general realm how to
help people come to terms with this issue.
Ms. Ebi. I have two different responses. I think you are
right, people need to know that there are a whole range of
things that they can do, and that they are fairly simple. And
there is a number of people working very hard to get that
message out.
Another thing that we really haven't talked about
explicitly here is, as I like to say, the weather is going to
win. If you look at Europe in the last 5 years, they have had
more than eight 1-in-500-year weather events. They have been
inundated with very severe weather events, and we have been
very fortunate in the States that we have not. And I personally
don't see why our luck will hold for a long period of time. And
so ultimately the weather has been convincing people around the
planet.
I have been working with eight developing countries on
adapting to climate change. And people on the ground are seeing
changes. They are seeing them faster than what we are seeing in
the scientific literature. And you go out on the ground, and
people know what is going on.
Mr. Inslee. Anyone else want to take a stab at that?
Dr. Hansen.
Mr. Hansen. I would like to comment that we need to
educate the public about the fundamental difference between
this climate problem and prior global problems such as air
pollution when we are talking about particles in the
atmosphere, because in that case we could see the effects, and
we could take actions, and the effect of our actions would be
immediate because particles fall out within 5 days.
In the case of the climate problem, what is very clear to
the scientists is that there is a long time constant, so we
have only felt part of the impact of the gases that are already
in the atmosphere. And the physics is straightforward. So it
makes it a much more dangerous problem because of this lag
effect. And the proof of that is in the fact that we can prove
that the planet is out of energy balance. There is more energy
coming in than is going out, and it is going into the ocean,
and that means that we have got almost as much warming in the
pipeline as we have already seen. And as we have heard this
morning, even the 7/10 of a degree that we have seen is
noticeable. So we need to make these sort of simple facts
clearer to the public.
Mr. Inslee. I want to ask you about the economics of this
issue. We heard some people argue that we should just do
nothing about this because it might have some impact on our
economy. And that strikes me it would be an interesting
academic exercise except they always forget the economic losses
we will have from inaction.
Now, the most comprehensive review I have seen is the
Stearn's report that suggests we will have I think it almost a
5 percent reduction in global GDP ultimately if we remain on
this course of inaction. Could any of you comment on that and
how we should think of that?
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired. I would
like to be able to recognize the other panels who have come
back, but the panel, please, very quickly answer that question,
anyone who would like to take it.
Ms. Parmesan. Well, as I have said earlier, we are already
seeing economic impacts as small islands and States' coastal
areas that rely on coral reefs are already seeing huge economic
losses.
The Chairman. Anyone else?
The gentleman's time is expired.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oklahoma, Mr.
Sullivan, for 7 minutes.
Mr. Sullivan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have a few
questions I would like to ask the entire panel, and I do
appreciate you being here today, and I appreciate your
testimony.
What action should the Federal Government undertake to
reduce CO2 emissions?
Dr. Hansen.
Mr. Hansen. I mentioned several things in my testimony. I
think the most critical thing concerns coal, because coal has
far more CO2 than oil and gas. And oil and gas are
very convenient mobile fuels, but coal can be used for power
plants. And in that application it is practical to capture the
CO2 and sequester it, and we are talking about doing
that, but until we have that technology, we shouldn't be
building any more coal-fired power plants with the old
technology because it is going to become very clear within, I
would say, less than 10 years that these old power plants are
going to have to be bulldozed. So it is economically stupid to
build them.
Mr. Sullivan. What kind of time frame do you think these
technologies of sequestration can be competitive with other
fossil fuels?
Mr. Hansen. It is expected it is still going to take
another 6 or 8 years to have full-scale carbon sequestration
for power plants. You could speed that up maybe a couple of
years. But in the interim there is plenty of potential in
energy efficiency that we can avoid the need for new coal-fired
power plants if we would encourage energy efficiency. The
building engineers and builders realize that they can make the
new buildings 50 percent more efficient right now. The
technology is available for that, and we need to encourage that
and see that it happens.
Mr. Sullivan. So you think coal, did you say, would
eventually be out of the equation totally?
Mr. Hansen. I think coal is very likely to be a major
energy source, but it should be used in a way that doesn't put
the CO2 into the atmosphere.
Mr. Sullivan. By using technologies and things like that,
right?
Mr. Hansen. With the sequestration technology, yeah.
Mr. Sullivan. What other technologies do you think we
could use?
Mr. Hansen. I think that we should let the market decide
what are the most effective technologies. That is why I say we
need to have--the market needs to understand that there is
going to be a gradually rising price on the emissions, and if
that were the case, then the different renewable energies and
energy efficiency itself could compete very effectively. There
is tremendous potential in energy efficiency and in renewable
energies, so that is why I say the best way to do it is to put
a rising price on the emissions and then let them compete.
Mr. Sullivan. Dr. Curry.
Ms. Curry. In the past two decades we have spent so much
time saying is it really warming, are we really causing it? And
we are just now coming to the, well, what are we going to do
about it?
I believe that what we need to spend some time--not delay,
but spend some time--to really assess the policy options and
what their implications are for the economy, what their
feasibility are, and what their political viability are. And I
think without recommending specific policies, I think we need
to fundamentally change the incentive system in terms of how we
do things so that we can promote effective dealing with this
issue.
Mr. Sullivan. Sounds good.
Ms. Parmesan. I couldn't agree more with both people who
came before me. There are a couple things I wanted to add. One
is that we have an enormous amount of technology that we are
not using. Carbon sequestration is actually doable right now in
certain areas. For instance, the Texas coast, where you have a
huge number of coal-fired plants, is right next to an enormous
salt dome. The technology exists for doing it, but they need
the infrastructure, and no money is being put forward to do
this. Better more fuel-efficient cars, we have the technology;
again, there is not the incentive for people to buy them.
In terms of renewable energy, it is very nice in theory,
but a lot of the renewable energy alternatives do have negative
biodiversity consequences. Sometimes they are fine, as you will
see in my written testimony; in other cases they are not. So
those need to be looked at carefully before just sort of
jumping on the bandwagon and saying we should put up windmills
everywhere and we should convert everything to biodiesel.
Solar panels. Solar energy is perhaps the single one that
has absolutely no negative consequences in terms of
biodiversity as far as I know. The technology again is there.
It is not being implemented as much as it could be.
Ms. Ebi. In addition to looking at technologies, you have
an opportunity here to take a look at other policies. I have
worked quite a lot in Europe, and Europe is redoing its
transport policies, in part in response to reducing emissions
from cars, but also to try and address problems with growing
obesity and trying to create communities where people can walk
to work.
So you can look at a broad range of things that ultimately
come under the rubric of energy efficiency, but if you look
more broadly, you will find places where you can make a change
that will help in areas more than just emissions.
Mr. Sullivan. Dr. Helms.
Mr. Helms. I would like to comment in terms of renewables.
I think there needs to be a level playing field relative to the
tax incentives that are used to encourage wind and geothermal,
which happen to be about twice the incentive that is for woody
biomass. So I think it would be helpful to take a look at that
and see whether these incentives for renewables could be made a
little more equitable.
Mr. Sullivan. Another question I have. Do you feel
strongly that nuclear energy could be part of a climate change
solution which should be a big part of the mix?
Dr. Hansen.
Mr. Hansen. I think it needs to be looked at. As you know,
there are still some disadvantages with nuclear power, but the
next-generation nuclear power, the current potential for
nuclear power can solve some of the problems that are
associated with potential accidents, for example. Nuclear power
does not produce CO2, so it is--if consumers are
willing to have nuclear power plants, then it certainly should
be part of the mix.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time is expired. I apologize
to the gentleman, but I just have time to let the gentleman
from Connecticut be recognized for 5 minutes before we all have
to run over for the roll call. The gentleman is recognized.
Mr. Larson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the
panelists as well, and I want to commend all of you.
And, Dr. Hansen, let me say to you that I agree with you
about the establishment of a czar. I recommend that the czar be
Alan Greenspan. I think that it would make an awful lot of
sense. And as Shakespeare would say, more truth is said in jest
than not. But when we sort all through this, and you have been
questioned by everyone not necessarily in your field, but on
the economics and legislation of this, and I do think that it
has been noted through a number of the testimony that we have
heard to date since the committee's inception about the need
for financial platforms and the need to make sure that we have
the wherewithal to deal with this issue, and having someone
like Alan Greenspan in the position of a czar who could oversee
ultimately monies that would have to be granted or the benefits
of a cap in trade policy.
So I want to cut to the chase, given that it doesn't seem
as though anyone on the panel doesn't agree that climate change
is imminent and that it could be disastrous if we don't act now
and too late, but that means outside from all the good policy
issues, et cetera, making sure that we have the financial
capability to do so.
And so in your testimony, Dr. Hansen, but we didn't get a
chance to hear from the rest of the panelists as well, you talk
about a form of carbon tax. I would call it more an
antiterrorist tax, inasmuch as we heard testimony on national
security that this is really a national security issue, et
cetera. But there is a tendency for these things to be talked
about in a way that avoids the issue, much like the issue has
been avoided of addressing global warming and climate change
itself as to how we are going to pay for it. And if you
followed Representative Sensenbrenner's questioning, he was
asking you to come up with the pricing of what that would be. I
think that might be best left up to another body.
But would you all readily agree--or at least I would like
to hear your opinion on whether or not you think that this kind
of a tax or front, shall we say, is something that if we don't
do, I just don't think we can continue to kid ourselves that we
won't have the monies available to do the various things that
you want to do with forestation from a biological standpoint or
from the standpoint of making sure that we are able to preserve
the West Antarctic Ice Sheets.
We will start with Dr. Hansen.
Mr. Hansen. There is no reason that a tax has to be a
reason for the government to get deeper into your pockets
overall. You can have some compensation elsewhere. But I do
think there has to be a price on these emissions. They are not
paying for the costs that they are incurring. And so I think it
is essential. To solve the problem we are going to have to put
a price on the emissions. It is just too easy. Some of these
fuels are so easy, so cheap to mine.
Mr. Larson. So what you are saying is to do that further
up the line, so to speak, than actually in the consumer. Some
would argue that they will pass that along to the consumer, but
I assume that is what you are talking about.
Mr. Hansen. Frankly, I am not a person to say where that
price should be imposed, but it has got to be there so that the
person who is using the energy will feel a difference if he
conserves the energy.
Mr. Larson. Thank you, Dr. Hansen.
Dr. Curry.
Ms. Curry. Right now carbon emissions are an externality.
We basically do it for free. The key issue is to put a value on
the carbon.
Mr. Larson. Who would you recommend place that value?
Ms. Curry. I don't know.
Mr. Larson. A combination of scientists and, say,
economists?
Ms. Curry. I would guess so. But the key issue is to
change the incentive structure relative to that value.
Mr. Larson. Dr. Parmesan.
Ms. Parmesan. I agree. I think we need to do things that
will change individual behaviors. And I just want to bring up
one example that Britain has done that brought in a lot of
taxes, but it allows the consumers to actually choose how much
tax they are going to pay. So, for instance, the yearly car
registration there is based on the amount of carbon dioxide
emissions, nothing else. And it goes from zero up to $400, and
that top end is about to go up to $800. So as a consumer you
can choose to buy a car where you have zero tax.
The Chairman. We have 1 minute to make the roll call on
the House floor. We thank the panel. We are going to take a
brief recess, and then other Members will come back, and I will
recognize them at that time. The committee will reconvene.
While we are waiting for the members to come back out, I will
ask some questions.
You have noted that our increasing hurricane risk is a
combination of changes from global warming and societal
changes. We noted in the Gulf of Mexico we have lost area
highlands and wetlands over the last few decades.
Is restoring these natural barriers one of the ways we can
prepare for stronger hurricanes? What are some of the other
policies that you would suggest?
Ms. Curry. Well, I think the issue with hurricanes is an
issue where adaptation policies do make sense. Restoring the
wetlands, I think, is something that makes very much sense in
New Orleans.
How this is going to do it--how to do this most effectively
and have it help, effectively limit our damage on a time scale
that is going to get us through these next few decades, I am
not an expert on this. But I will emphasize that I think that
adaptation, particularly on the gulf coast, is something that
will help the issue address the threat that we see,
particularly in the coming--the threat is upon us, and it is
going to be increasing fairly rapidly in the next few decades.
The Chairman. Dr. Hansen, you mentioned that the entire
East Coast could be at risk and especially Florida. Could you
elaborate a little bit on that? And what is the cause of the
most likely threat that you can see to the East Coast of the
United States and to Florida, and what is the time frame you
are talking about?
Mr. Hansen. Well, the--we know that if you go back a few
million years ago, that sea level was 25, plus or minus 10
meters higher. We know there are actually so-called
``Orangeburg scarp'' which show where the shoreline was. We
would lose cities from Boston, New York, Philadelphia,
Washington, if we were to get a comparable sea level rise.
Now, the question of how long does it take ice sheets to
respond to a forcing is the big question, and that is
practically impossible. You can't make a precise prediction on
when a nonlinear process is going to go unstable, but we know
that the time constant from looking at the Earth's history is
not longer than centuries.
The Chairman. Is the threat to the East Coast of the
United States more from Greenland or from the west Antarctic;
or does it make a difference, in other words?
Mr. Hansen. It is from both, but west Antarctica is the
one that can respond more quickly because it is a marine ice
sheet which, as I say, has been attacked from both below and
above. So, frankly, I think that the experts that I--in
glaciology that I respect the most are very concerned that
there could be sea level rise this century measured in meters;
and no one wants to speculate on a number or when you start
getting a very large effect, but just at what is already
happening. Over just the last 100s of years, the rate of sea
level rises increased from 12 centimeters per century to, now,
35 centimeters per century. So it is already more than a foot
per century, and it is getting higher all the time.
The Chairman. Let me turn to recognize the gentlelady from
Tennessee, Ms. Blackburn, for 7 minutes.
Mrs. Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I truly want
to express my appreciation to you all for enduring with us as
we go through votes and running back and forth to the floor. As
you can see, we get plenty of exercise around here.
I have questions for Dr. Hansen, Dr. Curry and Dr. Ebi, and
I think I will start with you, Dr. Ebi, if I may.
With the IPCC report--and, Mr. Chairman, I have a summary I
want to submit for our record. It is an independent summary for
policymakers of the IPCC report; and I would like, with your
permission, sir, to submit this for our record.
The Chairman. I apologize.
Mrs. Blackburn. That is okay. I just want to submit--I
have got an independent summary for policymakers.
The Chairman. Without objection, it will be included.
[The information follows on page 143.]
Mrs. Blackburn. Thank you, sir. I appreciate that.
But, Dr. Ebi, some of the disasters, many of the disasters
from--the IPCC report, which is helpful in going through this
and being able to look at different things is very helpful to
us--these are going to occur from time to time and have seemed
to occur throughout history regardless of global warming and
whether or not that plays a role.
And when you are looking at this, shouldn't they be faced
directly? Hurricanes, droughts, diseases, things of that nature
be faced directly, irrespective of global warming, just as
stand-alone causes, rather than having to wait or address it
via the global warming filter?
And my second question to you is, as you look at your
report and then as you read about economists and scientists who
talk about prioritizing health, water, education, famine, the
things that we see, hunger, things that we are seeing happening
in some of our developing nations, prioritizing that first
before those countries address global warming?
So how do you stack that up in your thought matrix?
Ms. Ebi. The two questions are related. The things that we
are worried about with climate change, most of them are risks
to health right now; and there are very large programs to try
to reduce those risks, because we do like to save human lives.
We don't like to see people suffer and die needlessly when we
can prevent that.
What we do see with the projections on climate change--with
what has already happened since 1961 to 1990, what is happening
today and what is projected for the future--is that these risks
are going to increase. And we know that these are putting a
strain on resources, and that when you get at the country
level, countries have to make choices of where they are going
to spend their very scarce dollars.
Basically what you are asking, in some way, is--one of the
phrases we use in the States--is robbing Peter to pay Paul,
saying, why don't you use the resources you already have to
address increased heat waves, address increased malarial
deaths? And that money, if it is dealing with those kinds of
issues, is not going to deal with other issues. It is not going
to deal with HIV/AIDS, it is not going the deal with obesity,
it is not going to deal with child malnutrition.
There is a responsibility here because of the emission of
greenhouse gasses, and traditionally when we looked at large
environmental issues, we have looked at where the sources of
those emissions have been, whether it is an occupational
exposure, an environmental exposure; and so we need to deal
with those.
Mrs. Blackburn. Okay. And I ask that simply because, as
you read your report and look at your things--and you don't
have to respond back to this--it seems that you prioritize the
global warming issue above the others. And I find--think that
would be a very difficult position for many of these developing
nations.
Dr. Curry, I wanted to ask you, in your report, you use
hurricane intensity data, 1950 on. And do you consider that
data, prior to 1950, unreliable?
Ms. Curry. I have discussed the issue of data reliability
extensively in my written testimony. I do not believe the
intensity data prior to 1970. However, the counts, I believe,
aren't too bad, even back to 1851. There have been some
estimates of the uncertainty.
Mrs. Blackburn. Just the counts? Not the intensity?
Ms. Curry. The intensity I do not believe prior to 1970,
frankly.
Mrs. Blackburn. How much research funding have you
received to examine the effects of the hurricanes with regards
to climate change?
Ms. Curry. None. Subsidized by Georgia Tech specifically.
Mrs. Blackburn. By Georgia Tech.
And, Dr. Hansen, I wanted to talk with you a minute about
the hockey stick theory. We had a hearing on that last year on
the paper that was published by Dr. Mann. And we had
independent statistical analysis by Professor Wegman and the
NRC, and they showed some fatal flaws in that paper. And all of
that was really very interesting to me, because I remember
growing up in the 1950s and 1960s and being in high school and
through the early 1970s when we were in an ice age, an ice age
was coming and we were warned about this ice age.
So then you turn around and before too long, you have
children who are in school and it is all about warming, which
at one point we were told we were supposed to have. But I asked
Dr. Mann about some of these problems with his paper, and he
didn't want to answer questions dealing with independent
statisticians and independent reviews.
So, to you, what is your opinion on the use of the
independent statisticians reviewing science papers such as Dr.
Mann's and others who analyze large amounts of data that are
used for temperature reconstructions?
Mr. Hansen. Well, I think that data that scientists use
for their analyses should be made available.
But, you know, this is kind of a red herring; and I think
if you look in my testimony, I have found other data that we
can look at to see how the current temperature compares with
earlier temperatures on the Earth. What we see is that,
especially in the most important regions, tropical oceans, that
the recent warming is indeed rapid and is putting us back two
levels that are at least comparable to the warmest in the
current interglacial period and within less than 1 degree
Celsius of the warmest interglacial period in the past million
years.
So the basic conclusion of Mike Mann that the recent
warming is sudden and is taking us into new territory is a
valid conclusion, even though you might question some of the
mathematical methods.
The Chairman. The gentlelady's time has expired.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri, Mr.
Cleaver.
Mr. Cleaver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I will move quickly, and I apologize again, as the chairman
has, that we had to leave you here while we went to vote.
I have--my family is in Tanzania. They live in Arusha, in
and around Arusha. I haven't been there since 1995, but I flew
into the airport; it is called the Kilimanjaro Airport. I
landed at the Kilimanjaro Airport which is in the shadow of the
mountain. Flying in or flying out in 1995, I saw what my
ancestors saw 2,000 years ago which--what they called the
``whitecap'' worn by the mountain.
It takes 3 days to climb Kilimanjaro, and I have a cousin
who does it once a year. You start out at the bottom with
shorts, warm--you have to deal with the warmth--but by the time
you get to the top, you have to have a jacket because it gets
cold.
Now you can go from the bottom to the top with virtually no
temperature change, and most of the snow is gone, which the
Masai tribe in the area in which--my relative is one of the
elders. They said that they attribute demonic causes because it
has always been there.
They have in Arusha, there is one little source of water
and people wash their cars in it and then boil it and then do
all kinds of things with it. But not far from the downtown area
are sprinklers going 24 hours a day just watering exotic
flowers so that people in the Western world can have fresh
flowers each day.
This is not an industrialized country. The average income
is below $1,500 a year. They didn't--they didn't do anything to
contribute to this problem. And so what--you can stand out in
an open field in the Serengeti at night and see the craters on
the moon. You know, the sky is clear. There is no factories
anywhere in the country.
What can we do in a country like Tanzania? Any of you? Dr.
Ebi?
Ms. Ebi. I had the privilege last year to work on a
project funded by USAID in Mali, working with farmers in the
southern part of Mali to try and adapt to climate change.
During the year in which I worked there, the Mali Mission
reported that their budget had been cut 50 percent.
USAID is doing marvelous work around the world, helping
people right now adapt to current climate variability; and I
have to say, in that region, the farmers reported the
temperatures have gone up several degrees, water availability
has gone down.
No one has mentioned here that when it is warmer, you get
more evaporate transformation from the soil, the soil gets
drier. We have had a decrease in rainfall in sub-Saharan
Africa, and these farmers have done everything their ancestors
have taught them to do, and they are turning to any external
source that will help them to figure out how they can increase
their crop yields. They are changing their seed varieties; they
are changing the way they are planting. They are innovating in
ways that their ancestors never did, and they still need more
help.
There is a lot that we can do. There are organizations such
as the Global Environment Facility that is funding adaptation
work around the world. I am working with the World Health
Organization in seven other countries on this very issue. There
is USAID. We have got a lot of different mechanisms whereby we
can get money to different organizations and different donors
to help the people that are working right now to reduce
vulnerability.
Mr. Cleaver. You mentioned earlier that this is a social
decision. This is a choice, social choice, that we are
contributing in the Western world by supporting what I think is
a sinful use of water in those countries so that we can have
exotic plants in the hotels in downtown Washington.
Ms. Ebi. And you didn't mention my personal favorite
soapbox. Look at how many golf courses go into regions that
don't have enough water; they use an awful lot of water.
Mr. Helms. I had the pleasure of being in Tanzania a month
ago and was impressed to see the amount of woody biomass that
women had to carry; and so it reinforces the point that in the
world at large, most of the wood in the world at large is used
for fuel, fuel for heating in developing countries.
And so one issue that would be of concern is, what ways and
means can there be in Tanzania to assist in developing
reforestation projects that take the burden off the women who
are having to carry fuel for such a long distance to make woody
biomass a little more readily available?
Mr. Cleaver. Thank you.
Let us assume that the world experiences an epiphany, and
everyone decides today at 1 o'clock that we are going to do the
right thing ecologically and environmentally.
Based on something that Dr. Helms said, it is still a bit
chilling to me that if CO2 has the shelf life of 500
years. If we stopped everything today, what are the problems
that would continue?
Ms. Ebi. Several people have mentioned we are committed to
at least another 1 degree Fahrenheit of warming.
Mr. Cleaver. No matter what?
Ms. Ebi. We are committed to more warming no matter what.
There was on the back table something from the National
Environmental Trust; I am sorry they have run out. It is a
temperature chart showing what has happened--based on the IPCC,
what has happened with current warming and what is projected
with each degree of temperature.
And I can give you the Web address to download that. It is
a nice summary.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Hansen. Could I make a quick comment, an optimistic
comment?
Currently, of the CO2 that we put into the
atmosphere, 42 percent is taken up by the ocean or biosphere.
If we reduce our emissions sufficiently, it is possible to
actually decrease atmospheric CO2 and avoid a lot of
problems that people are beginning to argue--are beginning to
feel are inevitable.
I don't think they are inevitable. It is going to take
major actions. People haven't yet realized how serious the
problem is and what actions are required. But it is possible to
deal with these things.
The Chairman. You are saying they could actually come back
from the parts per million, from 380 parts per million back
down?
Mr. Hansen. Absolutely. That is when I am talking about
drawing it down with biofuel power plants. You actually draw
down the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
The Chairman. So it is not irreversible?
Mr. Hansen. It is not irreversible. But, of course, if you
go too far and the ice sheet collapses, that is irreversible on
time scales of less than tens of thousands of years. So you
have got to start taking your actions soon enough.
The Chairman. What is the number one action that you would
say----
Mr. Hansen. The number one action is a moratorium on new
coal-fired power plants.
The Chairman. And then what would happen if there was a
moratorium in terms of the reversing and reducing. What is the
phenomenon that would unfold that would--that would remove the
carbon from the----
Mr. Hansen. Right now, as I mentioned, you know, 40
percent of the emissions are taken up. So if you reduced your
emissions tomorrow to 50 percent, you would get a slight uptake
for at least some years.
But if you really want to draw it down, then start
sequestering the CO2. If you burn biofuels in a
power plant, for example, and sequester the CO2, the
biofuels are drawing the CO2 out of the atmosphere
and you are putting it back where it came from, in the ground.
The Chairman. Thank you, sir.
Well, you know, we can adjourn this.
What I am going to ask each one of you is to give us a 1-
minute summation of what it is that you want us to remember.
We will come back from you, Dr. Helms. But I am just
wondering if Mr. Cleaver or Mr. Hall, do you have any final
question you would like to ask?
Mr. Hall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have just a couple of
them.
One is too elementary probably for all of your degrees. You
are overqualified, in other words. But methane was talked about
before, and I was curious if by capturing methane from
landfills or from farm waste or from wherever and burning it,
which produces, among other things, CO2, would that
not be an improvement over just allowing the methane to escape
into the atmosphere?
Mr. Hansen. Yes. That is--that helps. You do produce
CO2, but it has much less of a greenhouse effect
than the methane.
Ms. Ebi. This is certainly outside of my expertise.
I have listened to many economists and climatologists
debate this, and they are viewing these kinds of technologies
essentially as a safety valve; if climate change starts going
even more rapidly than it has been, the question is, when do
you want to deploy that technology. Do you want to deploy it
today, or if you are concerned about the rate of warming in 10
years, do you want to do it in 10 years?
So, again, it comes down to choices of when you play that
card, of when it would be most effective to try to reduce the
most impacts.
Mr. Hall. Thank you.
And in my county, the five counties that I represent, which
are all currently under a disaster declaration because we have
had three 50-year floods in the last 18 months, can I tell
people where there is no proof of cause, it nonetheless is
consistent with what models show of extremes of weather
phenomena as the climate changes?
Anybody can take that.
Mr. Hansen. I mean, we know that the extremes do increase
as the globe gets warmer; the extreme events and, in
particular, the hydrologic cycle do get greater. And it is
reasonable to expect that the 100-year floods are going to be
more frequent, especially in the eastern U.S., I think.
Mr. Hall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is all I have.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Hansen, you have a new paper coming out?
Mr. Hansen. Yeah. I have four new papers coming out, which
I listed in my written testimony; part of my testimony today is
based on those papers, yes.
The Chairman. If there was a headline over what you were
adding to what you have said in the past, what would that
headline be?
Mr. Hansen. I think the headline which has become clear in
the last year or two is that the level of dangerous human-made
interference is a lot lower than we thought a few years ago. We
had thought, well, a couple of degrees, maybe we can deal with
that. But I don't think the west Antarctic ice sheet has a
prayer even if we go 1 degree Celsius warmer than now.
But in a sense that is good news, because it means we are
going to have to figure out how to solve--how to meet that cap,
and it is going to solve a lot of these other problems that we
were beginning to think we are going to have to adapt to. Maybe
we can mitigate them.
The Chairman. Let us turn, and we will ask each one of you
to give us your 1-minute summation.
Dr. Helms, please, whenever you are ready.
Mr. Helms. I would like to leave the message that forests,
although they won't solve the issue, they are a terribly
important component.
The first thing that needs to be done is to make sure we
stabilize the forestland base and look at why it is that we are
losing 1 million acres a year to development, why are there so
many disincentives to small, private landowners to sell our
land.
The second thing that we have really got to come to grips
with is wildfire and enhancing forest health, particularly on
public lands. We have got to do something about this because it
is going to get worse.
And the third thing I would leave is to take a realistic
look at renewable wood from the standpoint of its carbon
footprint, life cycle assessment, comparison with alternative
products and its use for biofuels and wood pellets.
There is every reason why we should be using more wood, not
less.
The Chairman. Okay. Thank you, Doctor, very much.
Dr. Ebi.
Ms. Ebi. I would like to leave just a couple of messages.
We are seeing climate change already. The people who are
working on this issue are very concerned because we are seeing
it more rapidly and much sooner than had been expected. We do
need to mitigate and we do need to adapt and we do need to do
both of those urgently. Your leadership is required in order to
do so.
I urge everyone not only to focus on what we need to do
about mitigation. Adaptations are a win-win which should be
something that you should be able to create a policy around,
You have got agencies that are working on that issue right now;
have them be responsible for responding, taking the risks and
responses of climate change into account in the policies that
they create.
The Chairman. Thank you, Doctor.
Dr. Parmesan.
Ms. Parmesan. Yes. I would like to say that ``business as
usual'' leads to the worst case scenario, which is this 4 or 5
Centigrade rise that we cannot afford in terms of biodiversity
laws, in terms of human health, or in terms of our economic
systems. And the only way to keep down to the best case
scenario, which is still more than twice what we have already
seen, is by immediate implementation of whatever use you can
come up with that would reduce CO2 and other
greenhouse gas emissions.
The Chairman. Dr. Curry.
Ms. Curry. I am relieved to see that the U.S. Federal
policymakers are beginning to accept that dangerous climate
change is upon us if we continue with business as usual and are
now asking the question, what are we going to do about it.
Again, I urge you to consider both adaptation and mitigation
strategies.
And I would also like to add that there is--as we deal with
this complex and urgent problem, there is much room for
mischief in policy-making that would not--that would have
unintended consequences and not meet the objectives, all sorts
of opportunities for pork and all sorts of problems. I urge
careful consideration, complex, you know, analysis of the
policy options so we get something that will be effective,
economically feasible and politically viable.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Dr. Hansen.
Mr. Hansen. I would like you to have in your mind the
chart that is in my testimony, a bar graph showing that oil and
gas are relatively small bars, coal is huge and the
unconventional fossil fuels are huge.
Now, the oil and gas are very valuable fuels, and we need
to stretch them until we can get to the next--beyond petroleum.
But because any of these fossil fuels, you put the carbon in
the atmosphere, it is going to stay there a long time, so we
can't afford to put the coal and the unconventional fossil
fuels in the atmosphere.
So if we are going to use those, we are going to have to
capture the CO2 and sequester it.
The Chairman. You said unconventional fossil fuels.
Mr. Hansen. I mean tar shale, tar sands, methane hydrates.
There is a tremendous amount of those, and we just--and there
are companies that are making plans to cook the Rocky Mountains
and drip oil out of them. It is very energy intensive, and the
planet is sunk if we allow that to happen.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Cleaver. I have a suggestion on a paper for you. Thank
you for agreeing.
China signed the Kyoto Protocol, and they are starting a
new coal-fired power plant every 3 days. Could you write a
paper on what you think they would be doing had they not
signed?
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman very much.
I want to, first of all, thank you, each of you. You
brought a lot of expertise to this committee.
Speaker Pelosi has only been in office now for 4 months.
She is only creating one select committee for her first 2 years
as Speaker; it is the Select Committee on Energy Independence
and Global Warming. And so I think you can actually feel the
whole system responding to this intense interest which the
Speaker has in this issue and her public announcement that she
intends on passing legislation with a mandatory cap and trade
system within this 2-year period.
So this testimony helps us a lot. It actually helps to
build the momentum. It helps us to understand the issue better
and to take a smart action that not only won't harm our economy
but in the long run, help our economy, which is, I think, the
surprise ending as long as we work smarter, not harder, and
deal with this in a wise way.
And so your testimony has been very helpful. We look
forward to any other advice that you might want to give the
select committee in the months ahead, because we intend to be
putting together a very intensive work schedule.
With that, this hearing is adjourned.
Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 1:10 p.m., the select committee was
adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]