[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
RISING TIDES, RISING TEMPERATURES: GLOBAL WARMING'S IMPACTS ON THE
OCEANS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SELECT COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY INDEPENDENCE
AND GLOBAL WARMING
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
APRIL 29, 2008
__________
Serial No. 110-35
Printed for the use of the Select Committee on
Energy Independence and Global Warming
globalwarming.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
61-725 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
JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut Ranking Member
HILDA L. SOLIS, California JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona
STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, GREG WALDEN, Oregon
South Dakota CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan
EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma
JOHN J. HALL, New York MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee
JERRY McNERNEY, California
------
Professional Staff
Gerard J. Waldron, 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................. 6
Hon. Emanuel Cleaver II, A Representative in Congress from the
State of Missouri, prepared statement.......................... 7
Hon. Marsha Blackburn, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Tennessee, prepared statement......................... 9
Witnesses
Dr. Sylvia Earle, Explorer-in-Residence, National Geographic
Society........................................................ 11
Prepared Statement........................................... 14
Dr. Jane Lubchenco, Department of Zoology, Oregon State
University..................................................... 18
Prepared Statement........................................... 26
Dr. Joan Kleypas, National Center for Atmospheric Research,
Boulder, Colorado.............................................. 32
Prepared Statement........................................... 34
Supplement to Testimony...................................... 53
Answers to submitted questions............................... 92
Ms. Vikki Spruill, President and Chief Executive Office, Ocean
Conservancy.................................................... 54
Prepared Statement........................................... 57
Submitted Materials
Dr. Jane Lubchenco, a white paper on oceans and climate from the
Joint Ocean Commission Initiative.............................. 19
RISING TIDES, RISING TEMPERATURES: GLOBAL WARMING'S IMPACTS ON THE
OCEANS
----------
TUESDAY, APRIL 29, 2008
House of Representatives,
Select Committee on Energy Independence
and Global Warming,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 1:36 p.m., in Room
2318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Edward J. Markey
[chairman of the committee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Markey, Cleaver, Sensenbrenner,
and Blackburn.
Staff present: Ana Unruh-Cohen, Stephanie Herring and
Morgan Gray.
The Chairman. Welcome, everyone. This is a hearing of the
Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. We
welcome you all to this very important hearing today.
Over the course of the past year the Select Committee has
investigated numerous impacts of global warming, from the
melting of the Greenland ice cap, to the drying out of the
Amazon rain forest, to the sliding of Alaskan villages into the
sea. But the impacts on land are only the tip of the melting
iceberg of a potential climate catastrophe. Oceans cover 70
percent of our planet. And they are also feeling the heat of
global warming.
Throughout Earth's history, the ocean and the atmosphere
have worked together to regulate the climate. The ocean serves
as a sponge, soaking up excess carbon and heat from the air
above it. Carbon dioxide dissolves in seawater, where plants
and animals of all shapes and sizes convert it into their own
protective coverings. Although many of these creatures are too
small to see with the naked eye, the result of their work can
be monumental, as witnessed by the White Cliffs of Dover and
the ancient reefs that are now the mountains of west Texas. But
the burning of fossil fuels has released increasing amounts of
ancient carbon back into the atmosphere, and the oceans are
overworked.
During the past 40 years, the ocean has absorbed 90 percent
of the estimated increase in the Earth's heat content from
human activities. Like sweeping dirt under the rug, the oceans
have protected us from feeling the full heat of global warming
pollution. While many of the ocean changes may be out of our
sight, we must not put them out of our mind.
Global warming is causing an underwater heat wave, and the
rise in ocean temperature impacts sea life at all depths. Many
marine species thrive in only a narrow temperature range, and
this heat stress forces them to move away from their
traditional feeding and breeding areas in search of cooler
waters. But not all marine life can simply shift with changing
sea temperatures. Coral reefs have nowhere to go when the water
around them heats up. Instead, they expel their life-giving
colorful algae. Once reefs experience such a bleaching episode,
they often never recover.
Warmer oceans pose another threat, rising sea level. As
water heats up, it expands. During the last 40 years, this
expansion has contributed to 25 percent of the observed sea
level rise. Rising sea levels already cause harm in coastal
communities around the world, increasing their vulnerability to
storms and threatening their drinking water. As global
temperatures continue to rise, so too will sea levels,
reshaping the contours of the world's coasts.
Impacts on the ocean go beyond warmer waters. The rising
carbon dioxide concentration in the air alters the fundamental
chemistry of the ocean. As sea water absorbs more and more
CO2, the water becomes relatively more acidic. This
ocean acidification can prevent coral reefs from growing, stop
shellfish from developing their protective outer layer, and
inhibit the growth of tiny shell-forming plants and animals
that form the foundation of much of the ocean food chain.
The oceans have been taking on the burden of the planet's
fever. Recent evidence suggests that oceans are losing their
efficiency as a sink for the carbon we admit. If we reduce the
ocean's ability to help us handle the global warming burden, we
may face the impacts of global warming sooner than predicted.
Today we hear from some of the world's foremost ocean
researchers. They have seen firsthand many impacts from global
warming that those of us above the surface will never see.
Their testimonies will convey the consequences of our ``out of
sight, out of mind'' strategy. Like an iceberg, most of the
problem lies beneath the surface of the ocean. What lurks below
holds serious consequences, and if we refuse to change course,
we will run into a problem far larger than it first appeared.
At this hearing we will demonstrate through our witnesses that
we need a sea change in our energy and climate policy if we
want to avoid an actual catastrophic change in our seas.
And now I would like to turn and recognize the ranking
member, the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Sensenbrenner.
[The statement of The Chairman follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Sensenbrenner. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
The topic of today's hearing is yet another reason why I
believe technological development is one of the most crucial
steps in the effort to confront global warming. Rising
CO2 levels and increasing temperatures will have an
impact on the oceans. Some prospects are unnerving, like the
dying of the coral reefs. Others can be approached through
adaptation, such as a rise in sea levels.
Energy is the life blood of our economy. Right now much of
the energy that is generated creates CO2, but there
already exists some technologies that generate energy without
emitting CO2 into the atmosphere. And if Congress
acts wisely, there could be more on the way.
One of these technologies is nuclear power, which generates
great amounts of energy without producing any CO2
whatsoever. Another technology that is on the horizon is carbon
capture and storage, which has the potential to allow the U.S.
to continue to use our vast coal reserves to generate energy
but with only a fraction of the CO2 emissions.
Renewable energy technologies and gains in energy
efficiency also stand to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. And
we should strive to achieve all of these key technological
improvements. Nuclear power and carbon capture and storage are
technologies that not only would go a long way toward reducing
CO2 emissions, but they will also help ensure the
energy security of the United States.
And if the U.S. can't be secure in its energy supply, it
certainly can't be secure in its economy. These days anyone
pumping gas into their car knows this. That is why I don't
support the array of policy proposals that unwisely seek to tax
away carbon dioxide. This won't work, and it will slow the
economy and eventually will end up being repealed.
The production of CO2 through energy production
is a factor in global warming, but it is not the only factor.
There are many natural sources of CO2 that are
emitted into the atmosphere. There are still some scientific
questions about how large a role humans play in global warming.
It raises some questions as to how much humans can do to stop
these changes in the oceans and in the atmosphere. Even if by
some divine intervention humans were able to completely stop
emitting CO2 tomorrow, some of these changes would
still occur. Therefore, in some cases, adaptation will be the
only reasonable choice. And that is something that people all
over the world need to be ready to handle. The witnesses today
will present very interesting and well researched testimony on
the scientific topic, which I am sure will not only help
educate all of us but will also help to strengthen my belief in
the need for the development and advancement of energy
technology.
And I thank the Chair.
The Chairman. The gentleman's time has expired.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cleaver follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[The prepared statement of Ms. Blackburn follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. We will now turn to our witnesses.
STATEMENTS OF SYLVIA EARLE, EXPLORER-IN-RESIDENCE, NATIONAL
GEOGRAPHIC SOCIETY; JANE LUBCHENCO, DEPARTMENT OF ZOOLOGY,
OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY; JOAN KLEYPAS, NATIONAL CENTER FOR
ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH, BOULDER, COLORADO; AND VIKKI SPRUILL,
PRESIDENT AND CEO, THE OCEAN CONSERVANCY.
The Chairman. Our first witness is Dr. Sylvia Earle,
Explorer-in-Residence for the National Geographic Society. For
decades Dr. Earle has set herself apart as a world-renowned
oceanographer, a pioneering explorer, and as the first female
chief scientist of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric
Administration. Her incredible work understanding and
protecting our oceans in more than 7,000 hours conducting
underwater research have earned her the title ``Her Deepness.''
She has been named a living legend by the Library of Congress
and a hero for the planet by Time Magazine.
We welcome you, Dr. Earle. Whenever you feel comfortable,
please begin.
STATEMENT OF SYLVIA EARLE
Ms. Earle. Thank you, Representative Markey, for hosting us
here, all of you. We were asked, those of us who have been
invited to comment, to address several questions. And let me
start with that.
The first was, what climate changes that we have personally
observed. As one who splashes around in the oceans of the world
as often as possible for a number of years, I have witnessed
changes in the natural systems that have greatly changed over
the period of time since I was a child. In projecting forward,
if the pace of change continues, our children are not going to
have much in the way of stable ecosystems in their future.
Degraded systems are more vulnerable to climate change or any
other factors, storms or diseases. And what we have caused in
the last half century through our actions, what we put into the
sea, what we take out of the ocean, is causing profound changes
in the nature of the ocean itself.
What are some of the initiatives we can take to conserve
the oceans and work toward their long-term health? Well, look
at what we are doing, what we have put into the ocean and what
we are taking out of the sea, both in excess and both causing
the destabilization of these natural systems, that if you
really pull back and think about it, this is our life support
system. The ocean governs climate and weather, governs climate
and weather, churns out most of the oxygen in the atmosphere,
governs the chemistry of the planet. It is the great
thermoregulator for the Earth.
I gave a talk recently at the World Bank, and I chose as my
opening image to make my point an image that all of us have now
taken for granted owing to the observations of astronauts; that
is Earth from space, the blue Earth. And I said there it is,
the World Bank. That is it. Those are the assets. That is the
source of all that we hold near and dear, our economy, our
health, our security, actually the substance of life itself.
As to what we might be able to do about the situation,
first I think the greatest concern about climate change is that
many people aren't taking it seriously, and many others aren't
taking it seriously enough. To deal with the problem, you first
have to recognize that you have got one. And generally
speaking, people are not acting or reacting as if we have got a
serious problem. Well, we do.
Most worrisome perhaps is the accelerated warming trend
caused by greenhouse gases. And you, Representative Markey,
have articulated most of what I would have otherwise said and
done it very well, putting on the balance sheet the issues that
we now face, including the acidification of the ocean and the
warming, the consequences of this warming trend with sea level
rise.
But what can we do about it as a Nation? Well, one thing we
can do is certainly to support policies to swiftly and sharply
increase protection for natural systems on the land and in the
sea. They are important for stabilizing the destructive trends
that we are seeing. And of course, we should also start at the
source of those destructive trends and modify our behavior.
Certainly the upstream issues are important. Protecting forests
benefits watersheds and rivers that inexorably flow into the
sea. Healthier landscapes yield healthier seascapes.
The United States can help by acknowledging the importance
of methane in global warming and recognize the need to view
climate change with an increased and enhanced sense of urgency.
In a little submarine, I have been out off the coast of
Mississippi a hundred miles, down 1,800 feet beneath the
surface and seen methane bubbles burbling up out of the sea
floor. And I have wondered what would happen with even a modest
increase in temperature, which would enhance the release of
methane, which would increase the rate of global warming with a
great and classic feedback mechanism.
Sadly, while the ocean provides the foundation for all of
the planet's systems that I have already articulated, driving
climate and weather and taking up and holding carbon dioxide
from the atmosphere, shaping global chemistry, and providing
home for most of life on Earth, the ocean nonetheless is being
ignored by most of those who have been working on climate
change issues of all things. It is baffling to me that with all
the attention being given to climate change that you have to
look pretty hard to find attention being given to what is
happening to the ocean.
Another good reason for having this hearing. One of the
most important and positive things that this country can do to
prepare for the consequences of climate change is to recognize
the role of the ocean and take all possible measures to protect
that vast but vulnerable system that governs the way the world
works. The blue heart of the planet, the ocean presently is
choked with plastic and other debris. Even more troubling is
that other big problem with carbon dioxide, the acidification
issue that you will soon hear more about.
Yet there are many reasons for the United States to be
optimistic, to consider the powerful influence that this
country can have on the rest of the world by setting the right
example as well as providing help in blunting the sharp edge of
climate change impact. Many people who do know what is going on
feel helpless and, therefore, hopeless.
There is time, but no time to waste. The next 10 years may
be the most important in the next 10,000 years because of what
we do or what we fail to do concerning climate change. Never
again perhaps we will have a chance. And those of you who
represent this country have a unique opportunity to promote
actions that will protect all that we hold near and dear and
that, again, are our wealth, our health, our security, and not
only our lives but all the lives to follow. Thank you.
[The statement of Ms. Earle follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Thank you, Dr. Earle, so much for your
testimony.
Our next witness is Dr. Jane Lubchenco, who is a professor
at Oregon State University. She is also co-head of the
Partnership for Interdisciplinary Studies of Coastal Oceans, a
team of scientists that studied the marine ecosystem along the
West Coast. She served on the Pew Oceans Commission, which made
comprehensive U.S. ocean recommendations in 2003. And she now
works with the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative that seeks to
implement those recommendations.
For her work, Dr. Lubchenco has received numerous awards,
including eight honorary degrees and a MacArthur genius
fellowship.
So we welcome you, Dr. Lubchenco. Whenever you are ready,
please begin.
STATEMENT OF JANE LUBCHENCO
Ms. Lubchenco. Chairman Markey, Ranking Minority Member Mr.
Sensenbrenner, members of the committee, it is a great pleasure
to be here with you today. Thank you very much for the
invitation. As you mentioned in your opening remarks, oceans
have indeed been out of sight, out of mind. And it is nice to
have an opportunity for them to be front and center. I hope
this is just the beginning.
My name is Jane Lubchenco. I am the Wayne and Gladys Valley
Professor of Marine Biology at Oregon State University. And as
you mentioned, I had the pleasure of serving on the Pew Oceans
Commission, and now on the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative. I
am here today as a marine scientist to describe some of the
impacts of climate change on oceans and some of the
implications that that has for us. I respectfully request that
my PowerPoint images which I will use and a white paper on
oceans and climate from the Joint Ocean Commission Initiative
be entered into the record.
The Chairman. Without objection, it will be included.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Lubchenco. Thank you very much. I intend to focus my
remarks both on impacts and on implications today. And with
respect to impacts, I want to talk about two different
categories of impacts. One are those that have been predicted
and in fact are happening. That includes warmer oceans. Sea
level temperatures are rising around the world in every single
ocean basin. Sea level is rising. And as Dr. Kleypas will
describe, oceans are becoming increasingly acidic. And that has
huge consequences for much of life in oceans and, in turn, for
us.
I also wish, though, to focus on some surprises that are
playing out that we suspect are related to climate change. And
they really underscore how little we really understand about
how the oceans work and how they will change in the future as
these other predicted changes come about.
There is no doubt that ocean temperatures are increasing
and that sea level is becoming more acidic and ocean levels are
rising. It is worth noting that all of these are happening
faster than originally predicted. Warming and acidification are
particularly serious threats to marine life and to the benefits
provided by ocean ecosystems. Rising sea level is a very real
problem for many people in, especially in coastal communities
and for coastal habitats. But by and large, on balance, the
warming temperatures and increasing acidity are far greater
threats for most of life in the oceans.
Turning now to consideration of some of the surprises that
we are seeing in oceans, I draw your attention to the western
sides of most of the continents in the world that are
characterized by what are called coastal upwelling ecosystems.
These ecosystems are particularly rich. They represent only 1
percent of the surface area of the oceans, but they have
historically provided 20 percent of our global fisheries. Many
of these systems are changing dramatically. And I would like to
describe some of the ways that we are documenting.
The systems depend on winds that blow along the coast
toward the equator. This in turn pushes surface waters away
from the coast and brings up cold nutrient-rich water, which is
why these systems are so incredibly productive. Off the Pacific
northwest coasts off Oregon and Washington, we have a seasonal
upwelling that appears in the summertime. It is intermittent,
so it is upwelling alternating with downwelling, and our rich
systems are legendary.
What we are seeing is a very significant perturbation of
this normal upwelling, specifically the appearance of new dead
zones. Now, these are different from the dead zones that you
have heard of in the Gulf of Mexico and elsewhere around the
world that are driven by runoff of nutrients from the land.
This is a different type of dead zone. It is caused by changes
in the coastal winds and in ocean conditions, both of which we
believe are likely related to climate change.
We have seen a dead zone off the Pacific northwest coast
now 6 years in a row; 2006 was the longest lasting. It was 4
months long. It occupied as much as two-thirds of the water
column. This is a slice of the ocean where you see in colors
different amounts of dissolved oxygen. On the far right of the
screen is the land. And the bottom shows the coastal--the
continental shelf getting deeper and deeper. And as much as
two-thirds of the water column, the blues in here, are in fact
too low in oxygen for most marine life to persist, and so they
suffocate.
This image shows where the dead zone is. In blues and
purples is the dead zone off the coast of Washington and Oregon
in 2006. And you can see it is a very significant fraction of
that shore line. Our research teams have in fact been working
hard to figure out what is happening and why. We have pieced
together a story that suggests that changes in the coastal
winds and ocean conditions are the culprits here. There has not
been a change in the runoff of land, so it is a different type
of dead zone. But changes in ocean conditions and wind
conditions are well described. We have images from remotely
operated vehicles that have been driven along the sea floor
showing what the sea floor looked like in normal years, for
example in 2000, and then the devastation that has happened
since then in 2002 and also 2006, the images that you see on
the screen, with just massive numbers of dead crabs, dead sea
stars, dead urchins on the ocean floor.
I had a movie to show you, but I am not going to have time.
I want to switch quickly to the implications of this. Ocean
ecosystems are already at serious risk. Many of the services
that they provide to people are being threatened by
overfishing, destructive fishing gear, runoff of nutrients,
chemical pollution, and coastal development. The things that
people want from oceans are in fact at risk. And if society
wishes to avoid the most serious consequences that climate
change is already bringing and that will get worse, we need to
do a number of things: reduce greenhouse gas emissions very
significantly first and foremost; secondly, avoid mitigation
quote-unquote solutions that trigger serious unintended
consequences; third, as you mentioned, prepare to adapt to
changes.
But I believe we need to expand the way we think about
adaptation. And it is not just adaptation of human systems, but
in fact, we need to think about creating the conditions for
nature to be able to adapt to the inevitable warmer waters and
more acidic waters. If we have more funding for scientific
research and monitoring, we can do a better job of helping to
figure all this out. And of course, educating citizens is
incredibly important.
Strategies to minimize impacts of climate change are both
to reduce stresses that can be controlled and to protect as
much biodiversity as possible. So, in summary, Mr. Chairman,
oceans are in very serious trouble. Climate change will
exacerbate them. We understand them relatively poorly. We need
to reduce emissions. We need to make protecting ocean
ecosystems one of the highest priorities, redefine adaptation
to include creating the conditions for nature to adapt,
increase funding, and educate citizens. Thank you very much.
[The statement of Ms. Lubchenco follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Thank you so much, Doctor. We very much very
much appreciate your testimony.
Next we are going to hear from Dr. Joan Kleypas, an ocean
scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research.
Since joining NCAR in 2002, Dr. Kleypas has become a leading
voice on the impacts of climate change, on the health of oceans
and coral reefs. Her work has been featured in BBC News,
Science magazine, Science Daily. A real expert in the field.
We welcome you, Doctor. Whenever you are ready, please
begin.
STATEMENT OF JOAN KLEYPAS
Ms. Kleypas. Thank you, Chairman Markey, Ranking Member
Sensenbrenner, and members and staff of the Select Committee.
Thank you for holding this hearing on such an important and
urgent issue. And I will reiterate Dr. Earle's comment; we have
a serious problem.
I am a scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric
Research, and I have specialized on coral reefs for about 20
years. I thank you for this opportunity to discuss two serious
consequences of climate change for coral reefs, ocean warming
and ocean acidification.
Since the 1950s, the tropical oceans have warmed on average
by more than half a degree Fahrenheit. This warming has caused
a phenomenon called coral bleaching. Bleaching happens when a
coral expels a colorful algae that lives within its tissues and
provides that coral with most of its energy. Bleaching is often
fatal. Coral bleaching has already destroyed about 10 percent
of reefs worldwide and has weakened many more. The projections
of bleaching patterns indicate that if ocean warming continues
along its current path, we will lose this ecosystem. We hope
that corals can adapt to the warming, but there is really very
little evidence that they can do so.
The other problem I want to raise is something known as the
other carbon dioxide problem. This is ocean acidification. The
concept of ocean acidification can be explained with a bottle
of carbonated water. So that water was carbonated simply by
adding CO2 or carbon dioxide to it. And carbonated
water is more acidic than just regular tap water. And anybody
can test this with litmus or pH paper. The oceans have already
absorbed about a third of the carbon dioxide released into the
atmosphere by man's activities. And this really is a natural
gift, because it lessons the impact of climate change, but it
is changing ocean chemistry. Although we can't feel the change,
we can measure it, and measurements are confirming that ocean
acidification is indeed happening.
So there are two main ways that ocean acidification affects
marine organisms. First it can stress the organisms
physiologically, such as increasing its respiration rate, lower
reproduction, and lower survival. And second, what we know the
most about, too, is that acidification impacts the ability of
marine organisms to secrete their skeletons or their shells.
This includes many important groups of marine organisms, from
microscopic algae at the base of the food chain to familiar
organisms like clams, starfish and corals.
Corals are the best studied of these. And there is strong
evidence that their calcification rates will decline by 10 to
50 percent within the next 40 to 50 years. They simply won't
grow as fast or they will grow more fragilely. And you can
think of it as osteoporosis.
This slide shows a dramatic example of a coral cultured in
normal versus acidified sea water. Ocean acidification not only
slows skeletal formation, but at some point, it actually
dissolves it. So what does this mean for the coral? Organisms
that produce shells do so for a reason, for protection, for
example. Even if this naked coral in this slide could somehow
survive in the real world, it would be living as an anemone,
not as a coral, and it wouldn't be producing coral reefs.
In fact, reefs themselves exist because corals and other
organisms build the reef faster than it is eroded. Ocean
acidification attacks a reef's structure itself by increasing
the rate at which it dissolves. And if reefs erode away, we
will lose many of the valuable services that they provide. And
that includes high biodiversity, fisheries, and shoreline
protection.
So what can be done about ocean acidification and warming?
Obviously, reducing greenhouse gas emissions tackles the root
cause of both. And we need to reduce those emissions
aggressively. Given that coral bleaching is already so
widespread, we may already be above the threshold for that
ecosystem. For acidification, certainly we need to find a way
to keep carbon dioxide levels below 500 parts per million
because, above that level, some reefs will start to erode away.
It is worth noting here that geo-engineering solutions to
reduce warming, such as putting dust into the atmosphere or sun
shades in space, do not solve the problem of ocean
acidification because those solutions don't reduce carbon
dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere. I want to also stress
that ocean acidification affects not just coral reefs, but it
affects all marine ecosystems. And I really feel that this may
be the greatest environmental threat that we face this century.
It is a new issue, and we have our hands full just trying to
understand the scope of the problem. We need to know how much
carbon dioxide is too much carbon dioxide, but we also need to
know what we can do to help marine ecosystems make it through
this difficult time.
So I urge you, first, to take on the task of reducing
greenhouse gas emissions and, second, to pass the FOARAM Act,
which is an act to increase research on ocean acidification.
And I just want to sign off on a comment that, 25 years ago, we
thought that global warming was going to be good for reefs
because, like warm water, they would expand. Well, now we, you
know, now we know about coral bleaching. We know about ocean
acidification. Climate change is not good for coral reefs. And
what is at stake if we lose them is the most biodiverse
ecosystem of the ocean. It is one that supports major fisheries
and economies of the U.S. States and territories. It protects
many shorelines. And of course, this is a masterpiece among
God's creations.
Thank you very much, and I am happy to answer questions.
[The statement of Ms. Kleypas follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Thank you, Doctor, very much.
And our final witness is Ms. Vikki Spruill, who is the
president and CEO of The Ocean Conservancy, where she leads the
organization's efforts to promote healthy and diverse ocean
ecosystems. She was also recently appointed to the Pew Fellows
Advisory Committee. We welcome you.
Whenever you feel ready, please begin.
STATEMENT OF VIKKI SPRUILL
Ms. Spruill. Thank you, Chairman Markey, Ranking Member
Sensenbrenner, and the committee, for your leadership in having
this hearing. The committee has already done such a service to
the country by moving us forward on the urgent issues of energy
independence and climate change. Your effort today to focus on
the ocean, the place where it all starts, and yet is often
overlooked, is of enormous importance. It is a real honor to be
on such a distinguished panel of women. I had to say it.
The ocean is essential to the health of everything on the
planet, including our own. It covers over two-thirds of the
Earth. It drives our climate. It provides much of the food we
eat and the oxygen that is essential for our very survival. It
is a source of renewal for the human spirit.
Fundamentally, as Sylvia says, the ocean is the life
support system for our planet. Seafood is a major staple, in
some cases the staple in this country and elsewhere. In the
U.S., the contribution of the seafood industry exceeds $50
billion per year. A healthy ocean contributes to a healthy
economy. The President's Commission on Ocean Policy reported
that coastal communities generated over 10 percent of GDP.
Three-quarters of those associated jobs are in ocean tourism
and the recreation sectors alone.
The ocean, of course, also moderates our climate, absorbing
over a third of the greenhouse gases that we produce. The
dynamics of the ocean and the atmosphere are so tightly linked
and so easily overlooked that we ignore the ocean's role in
climate at our own peril. In 2005, millions in the U.S. and in
the Caribbean experienced firsthand and quite tragically how
the ocean's heat engine can drive violent storms, most
dramatically, of course, Hurricane Katrina. Over 2,000 lives
were lost and over $100 billion in damage occurred during that
devastating season.
Fundamentally, the ocean is the basis of our ecosystem,
with an incredibly diverse web of life that supports the
planet. Of course, we are most familiar with the grand
diversity of life at the margins, on coral reefs and in tide
pools, where many of us saw our first mussels and sea stars,
and maybe even a hermit crab looking back at us. The truth is
that our essential and diverse ocean ecosystems cannot protect
us unless they are healthy and resilient. Harmful impacts are
exacting a toll on this web of life that frankly we can no
longer afford to pay. Ocean Conservancy is working to make the
ocean healthy by fostering sustainable fisheries, by protecting
marine wildlife, and putting in place management plans for
State and Federal waters, and preserving magnificent ocean
places that we like to call ``Yosemites undersea.''
All of this work is vitally important, but the most
sweeping and devastating threat to the ocean is global climate
change. The planet has warmed in the last 100 years by nearly a
degree. And over 80 percent of the excess heat produced by the
greenhouse effect has already been absorbed by the ocean. Even
if carbon emissions are substantially reduced, ocean warming
will continue to increase for decades. Two or more degrees of
warming, which is quite possible, will devastate many coastal
communities, kill the world's coral reefs, and result in mass
extinctions of marine life. Think about it, when our own
temperatures rise 2 degrees, we have a fever.
So our ocean is sick. And if you are an Alaskan native
whose people have lived in harmony with the Arctic Ocean for
over 10,000 years and your village is falling into the sea, you
know that climate change is happening and that our ocean is
sick. If you are a fisherman in the Caribbean, where up to 90
percent of corals bleached and died in 2005, then you don't
doubt that climate change is actually happening now.
The ocean is really where the rubber meets the road with
climate change. It isn't decades of projections we are dealing
with or ominous warnings about the future of the ocean. It is
now. This is happening now. And if you detect a sense of
urgency in my voice, it is because I believe that protecting
our ocean from the onslaught of climate change is one of the
greatest challenges of our lifetimes; 2008 is the ``year of the
reef,'' and I commend the committee for drawing attention to
this fragile, yet critical ecosystem.
Coral reefs have long been threatened by over-exploitation
and pollution, and now climate change adds another one-two
punch, maybe the knockout punch for an already damaged system.
Ocean warming has already increased coral bleaching and is a
major threat to reefs worldwide. Let me put it this way, in
1998, we lost 16 percent of the world's coral reefs in a single
year. If we lost 16 percent of the forests in the world, that
would be the equivalent to losing all of the forests in North
America in a single year.
Unless we change course, coral reefs, the entire ocean, and
all of mankind are at the mercy of climate change. There are
two essential ways we must address climate change. First, of
course, is mitigation. We must substantially reduce greenhouse
gas emissions, and we must do that now. And the second is
adaptation. Simply meaning we have to strengthen the health and
resiliency of our ocean ecosystems so they can better
anticipate and adapt to the increased stresses of climate
change while we work to reduce emissions. It is as if we have a
patient who has already been suffering from the flu and high
blood pressure and now has been given a diagnosis of serious
but treatable cancer. The plan for recovery involves curing the
patient of the flu and then taking some medication and adapting
your lifestyle to lower the blood pressure. But of course
fighting the cancer, in our case global climate change, is the
goal. But the way to do that is to first make the patient
healthy and strong to take on the much bigger challenges ahead.
To save our coral reefs, we must adopt adaptation
strategies that build resilience and restore ecosystem
function. We need to be protecting reefs from unsustainable
fishing practices. We need to be reducing the inputs of
pollution, such as fertilizers and sewage and sediments, and we
need to be implementing a more comprehensive and stronger
system of coral reef protected areas.
I know this committee and this Congress is working hard on
mitigation solutions trying to cure the disease. I would
respectfully urge you to follow your principles that you set
forth last week on Earth Day and put as much effort into
adaptation strategies to lessen the damage and pain as we seek
to cure the patient. We simply have to do a better job of
sustaining the life support system that sustains us. Our oceans
are in trouble. And that means so are we. That is the sea
change we are starting at Ocean Conservancy. And thank you for
propelling that change forward with your leadership.
[The statement of Ms. Spruill follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Spruill, very much.
And we thank all of our witnesses.
And Ms. Spruill raises a very good point, that we have four
brilliant women who are testifying here today simultaneously.
And that is what happens when you have two women Ph.D.s in
science, Dr. Ana Unruh Cohen and Dr. Stephanie Herring, plan
the meeting. Somehow or other they find four more brilliant
women to all give the testimony. So that is kind of the theme
for today's hearing, appropriately so.
So let me begin with you, Dr. Earle. Just give us your
summary of how your views have changed, how the world's views
have changed of the science of the seas over the last 30 or 40
years. Where were we then, and where are we today in terms of
the way in which we should view the seas, their health, and the
danger to the planet?
Ms. Earle. When I was a child, there was a widespread view,
that many still hold that the ocean is infinite in its capacity
to rebound no matter what we take out or whatever we put in.
The best way to get rid of something was to deep six it, throw
it into the sea. We thought that our job was to find new and
better ways to extract wildlife out of the ocean, going back to
the 1960s and 1970s. And some still hold to that view.
The importance of wildlife in the ocean was primarily
viewed as a commodity, protein from the sea. I think we have
learned a great deal--actually, we have learned more in the
last half century than during all preceding human history about
the ocean, about a lot of things, but certainly about the
ocean. We didn't even know, and Rachel Carson was not even
aware of the mountain ranges that run like giant backbones down
the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans when she wrote, ``The
Sea Around Us,'' in the early 1950s. We did not know at that
time that there was life from the surface of the ocean to the
greatest depths. We certainly didn't appreciate the profound
impact that the living systems, particularly the microbes, have
on all of us, on the nature of the ocean, the little guys that
do the heavy lifting with respect to churning out oxygen and
taking on carbon dioxide.
We now know much that should alert us to the importance of
taking care of the ocean that takes care of us. We certainly
would not like to see the demise of rainforests. We would feel
the loss if something devastated them even more than they have
been devastated. But in fact, if they did go, if we still had a
healthy ocean, life would probably continue. But if we did away
with the ocean or seriously impacted the health of the ocean,
everything, everything would be impacted. The ocean really
rules the world. And one of the baffling things that strikes me
today is that, although that knowledge has been around for a
while, it has been growing over the last half century, but we
still don't take the ocean seriously enough. And it is no more
apparent than in the climate change issues where great
attention, at least up to the present time, has been focused on
the atmosphere. But as all of us have pointed out, there are
links, inextricable links to the sea. In fact, the ocean really
is the governor of climate and climate change.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Dr. Lubchenco and Dr. Kleypas, what has your research shown
about the pace of climate change when you kind of compare it
with geologic history? What is happening now as you look back
over the whole history of the planet?
Ms. Lubchenco. Mr. Chairman, the history of Earth is a very
dynamic history. We have seen many, many changes over
millennia. And what is striking about the changes that have
been happening with respect to climate change over the last
century is the rate of change. The changes are so much faster
than the background levels. In many cases, the levels of some
greenhouse gases exceed historic or previous levels, but it is
the rate of change that is really particularly striking. Even
knowing that, many of the models, the early climate change
models that were created have predicted rates of change that
reflect our current measurements. And even those predictions
have been too low. We are seeing much faster changes than even
our best models have predicted.
One of the best examples of that is the melting of ice in
the Arctic, the floating sea ice that has always created a very
dynamic, rich habitat and upon which the peoples of the Arctic
have always depended as well as the rich marine life there. And
that area is warming so much faster than was originally
predicted. The models are just continually revised and revised.
The same is true of ocean acidification. It is happening faster
than we had initially thought that it would. And I believe that
this theme is one that we haven't yet sufficiently paid
attention to.
In light of this knowledge, we need to be even more
conservative in our use of natural resources and even more
aggressive in our attempts to slow down the rate of climate
change.
The Chairman. Dr. Kleypas.
Ms. Kleypas. I would like to key in on a couple of things,
the rates of change and adaptation. We often use the term
adaptation a lot, particularly in terms of human adaptation.
And we are an extremely adaptable species. But most of these
organisms that are in the ocean have not seen these kind of
changes, either the magnitude or the speed at which they are
changing, for millions of years. I think the last time we have
seen an ocean acidification event was about 55 million years
ago. That was only 10 years after the dinosaurs were wiped out.
And even then, that rate of change was probably not as fast as
what we are seeing today. And during that time period, there
were a lot of big changes that happened in the ocean that can
be attributed to ocean acidification. So adaptation, we can
count on that for a lot of humans, but I don't think we can
expect these ecosystems to adapt alongside us. Not unless we do
a lot of things to help them.
The Chairman. You have heard these concerns, Ms. Spruill.
How can we explain this to the public? What is your
recommendation in terms of having the fire alarm sound so that
we ensure that this does not result in catastrophic
consequences?
Ms. Spruill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am not a
researcher. I consider myself a translator and a communicator.
And I represent a constituency of people across the country who
are very much hungry for change. And I think today the good
news is we have got a combination of increased awareness and
this growing sense of urgency and momentum. We really have a
golden opportunity to act.
There are actually three things that I think we would want
to encourage Congress to do. First, of course, is to make that
link between climate change and oceans. That process has
already begun today. And that means making adaptation
strategies part of every climate change bill passed by
Congress. The second thing is, there are a number of good bills
already in the pipeline: Oceans 21, which passed subcommittee
just this past week; the Coral Reef Protection Act; the Marine
Sanctuaries Act. All of these bills, if passed, will help to
provide these adaptation strategies that you have heard about
today. And then, third, I would say, to continue with my
medical analogy, first we need to be doing no harm. We need to
be looking at some of these technological solutions. They
obviously have a place. But we need to be moving carefully
towards any proposals and make sure that the cure isn't
actually worse than the disease.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Dr. Earle, why don't people understand the relationship
between the ocean and the planet? What do you attribute that
huge gap to? How can such a huge percentage of the Earth's
surface be something that is just not a part of public
consciousness?
Ms. Earle. It is the great mystery of the sea. I had
occasion to ask that very question to Clare Boothe Luce once.
And she looked skyward, and she said, well, looking at the big
puffy clouds, heaven is there and you know what is in the other
direction. And whatever the reason, because perhaps we are
terrestrial by nature and only in fairly recent times have
human beings acquired access to the sea, effective access to
the sea, but we are still beginning. SCUBA divers go down maybe
a 100 feet, 150 feet perhaps if they push the edge a bit. But
we are still exploring the ocean. Less than 5 percent of the
sea has been seen at all, let alone explored. And because of
our attitude that the ocean is a place to throw things away, or
it is a place just to--well, you think of fish, fish are to
eat, right? Without thinking that fish are to the sea as birds
are to the land, they are components of our life support
systems. They are as, as has been said about components of the
land, the nuts, the bolts, the cogs, the wheels that make the
ocean work. And it is not just the fish, it is all of the
diversity of life in the sea. We need to respect fish alive,
not just fish dead. And coral reefs alive, not just ornaments
for your shelf. We need to think about the ocean with a new
attitude. And it is happening, but it needs to happen faster
than it presently is.
The Chairman. Which organisms, which ecosystems are most
vulnerable right now to this acceleration of climate change?
Ms. Earle. I can answer a bit, but we all can weigh in. The
acidification is comprehensive in its impact. We can look at
coral reefs because we are familiar with them, and we don't see
the tiny creatures, the coccolithophores, the foraminifera, the
little calcarea-shelled creatures that make up much of life in
the sea and that drive much of the ocean chemistry. And we
better pay attention. And it is important. With every breath we
take, it is important to understand this. And it is not rocket
science, as they say. This is--this is ocean science, which is
really a lot of fun as well as really important.
The Chairman. Dr. Lubchenco.
Ms. Lubchenco. Mr. Chairman, I believe that Sylvia has
given an answer I would agree with. Relative to warming,
certainly those communities, those ecosystems that are in the
tropics and those at the poles appear to be most vulnerable.
But every community is vulnerable to the increased acidity of
oceans. And that is going to be one of the biggest challenges
facing all of us. Because of its consequences at all different
levels, from the microscopic plants through the filter feeders,
to the herbivores, predators, on up the food web. Anything with
a shell or a skeleton. And so crabs, lobsters, sea stars,
urchins, microscopic plants, mussels, oysters, snails, all of
those are going to be affected by this acidification. And those
critters are everywhere.
The Chairman. Dr. Kleypas, are there particular areas of
the ocean that we should prioritize for protection?
Ms. Kleypas. Thank you, Chairman Markey.
I would say that the shallow oceans are where most of the
life is. That is where the primary production occurs, where
they use sunlight to create the bulk that feeds the rest of the
ocean. So the shallow oceans I would say are the place of
urgency right now. And it does extend from the tropics to the
poles. That would be my answer.
The Chairman. Ms. Spruill, as Congress considers
legislation to reduce our global warming pollution, what other
policies in your opinion are necessary to help protect the
oceans from climate change?
Ms. Spruill. Well, I think I named three that are actually
already in the pipeline. And a little push from this committee
would go a very long way. Oceans 21, I think----
The Chairman. Oceans 21. Why don't you just outline a
little bit of what each one of these bills does and why they
are important to pass?
Ms. Spruill. So, Oceans 21 really creates a national ocean
policy and then a mechanism for implementing that policy across
a variety of Federal agencies. It is really the coordinating
function that we need across so many Federal agencies. This
grew out of both Presidential commissions. And as you
mentioned, Dr. Lubchenco was on the Pew Commission. She can
maybe talk a little bit more about the genesis of that
legislation.
Then there is the Coral Reef Conservation Act, which passed
the House and awaits Senate floor action. So these are bills
that are quite far along in the pipeline. That promotes
community-based conservation and provides tools at the local
level, a number of these adaptation strategies that we have
discussed. And it empowers NOAA to respond to damaged reefs,
again another adaptation strategy if you will.
And then there is the National Marine Sanctuaries Act,
which certainly has the promise at least of protecting more of
our ocean and making it more resilient, as we have already
discussed, in the face of unforeseen climate change.
The Chairman. Thank you. Dr. Lubchenco, Ms. Spruill
referred to it; how successful has the Federal Government been
in implementing the recommendations from the commission?
Ms. Lubchenco. We had hoped to have seen much more progress
by now. I think hope still remains that Congress----
The Chairman. What is the obstacle in your opinion?
Ms. Lubchenco. I believe that it is part of what we have
been talking about at these hearings, that oceans are not on a
lot of people's radar screens. And in the press, of so many
other important issues, it is sometimes hard to break through.
And so the reality that oceans are in trouble and that there is
real urgency has not penetrated as far as it needs to go.
It is also the case that I think there are vested interests
in sort of current arrangements. Many of the recommendations
call for much more comprehensive ways of having different
agencies, different departments be able to work together
collaboratively and to work toward much more comprehensive
integration of ocean decisions. That is always a tough sell.
Ms. Lubchenco. I believe that we are making some good,
significant progress, but there is just a lot more to be done.
The Chairman. Can we just go down and explain--each one of
you give us one example in your opinion of what happens to the
ocean that affects those of us who are living on land? I think
that kind of will help to dramatize what the storyline is for
us if we continue to ignore the oceans as a part of this story.
So we will begin with you, Ms. Spruill. Do you have one
example you would like to use?
Ms. Spruill. I have a list of examples, Chairman Markey,
and I am going to include them in the context of climate
change, because I think, you know, that is where we are going
to feel the impacts first, and obviously, coastal communities
will be influenced.
We are going to see changes in fisheries. There is no doubt
about that. Climate change is going to disrupt availability. It
is going to raise seafood prices. There are human health
considerations. Human health is predicted to decline due to
climate change-related causes.
Food and water shortages. We have already seen some of this
brought about because of areas affected by drought.
Insurance rates. We are already seeing rates affected
because of extreme weather events such as hurricanes.
Our infrastructure needs are only going to increase as sea
levels rise. New reports have been released that show that, you
know, States are going to need to be spending more money on
roads and on homes and on airports, and of course, these
coastal communities are going to feel these losses most in the
coming decades.
The Chairman. Dr. Earle, do you have a vivid example of how
we are affected?
Ms. Earle. I think it is important to first understand the
basic process and then see how the changes are influencing
those processes. So think about every breath you take. Where
does the oxygen come from? 20 percent of the atmosphere is
oxygen. 80 percent or so is nitrogen. There is just enough
carbon dioxide to make the green plants do their thing to
produce more oxygen through photosynthesis and, thus, drive the
great food chains. That is the way it has been now for many
millions of years. It was not always that way; the earth was
not always hospitable for the likes of us. I think that is
something many people need to put on the balance sheet that
what we have today represents the distillation of all preceding
history.
Literally, hundreds of millions of years have led us to a
planet that works in our favor. There was a time going way back
before dinosaurs when there was not 20 percent oxygen in the
atmosphere but where today there is. We have the power, the
capacity to change that through what we are doing to the
engine, the green engine in the ocean as well as on the land
that produces that oxygen.
So, first, understand how the system works, and then
realize we are really messing that system up. It is also true
with the water you drink. People think it comes out of the
spigot, water does, or you get it in little bottles when you go
to the store. Most of earth's water, 97 percent, is in the
ocean. How does it get into the bottles, into your sink,
whatever? It goes up into the atmosphere as clouds, mostly from
the ocean. Take away the ocean, and you just eliminate the
water system. So it is to first understand that and then to
realize what we are doing that is disrupting that system.
The Chairman. Back to you, Dr. Kleypas.
Do you have an example?
Ms. Kleypas. I think, to play on what Sylvia said, you
know, these ecosystems are not separate. You do not just lose
one ecosystem; you are going to have a cascading effect.
The example I had for coral reefs is that they provide the
environment where we can have mangroves and seagrass beds.
Those are very good fishing areas. So, if we lose coral reefs,
we lose a lot of the other ecosystems that are intertwined with
that ecosystem.
I agree with you. It is hard to explain to someone who has
lived in Kansas his entire life who maybe has never seen the
ocean in order to really make those links. That is where we
fail, in the education. If we lose our economies and our
coastal regions, which really depend on the oceans, we are
going to affect all of the cities in the U.S. and elsewhere. It
is hard to imagine that economic impacts on the coast are not
going to permeate the rest of the economy.
The Chairman. Dr. Lubchenco, do you have anything to add?
Ms. Lubchenco. When I was on the Pew Oceans Committee, Mr.
Chairman, we were told something that I actually had not
thought about, and that was that half of America lives on the
coasts. The other half goes there to play. I think that that is
a nice touchstone.
As the Pew Oceans Commission moved around from one city to
another, to another, all along the coastal margins, and also in
the heartland, I asked Americans exactly the question that you
posed to us: What do you want from oceans? What do you care
about oceans? Why should we be thinking about changing
anything?
What I heard from them were five things. It boiled down to
five things: Americans told us they wanted safe seafood,
healthy seafood, number 1; number 2, clean beaches; number 3,
abundant wildlife; number 4, stable fisheries with no more of
this boom and bust and closures; and fifth, vibrant coastal
communities.
Now, I think that is a very nice summary and synthesis of
the way Americans think about oceans, and I think that they
truly understand that they appreciate them; they want these
things. What they do not understand is that all of those things
depend on healthy, productive and resilient ecosystems, and
that is not what we are seeing now. We are seeing serious
degradation and disruption and depletion. Climate change is
going to exacerbate that very, very seriously.
The Chairman. Well, let me ask you this then. Now you have
outlined the problem, each one of you. Let us talk about
solutions.
Do any of you have an example that you would like to give
us of something that is happening that is very positive that
you can point to that would not have been happening 10 years
ago? In giving that answer, are you optimistic that we can
build on your example to find a comprehensive solution to the
problem?
Let me go back through you again, Dr. Earle.
Ms. Earle. I think one of the greatest causes for hope is
our expanding level of communication, that any little kid can
look at the world through the eyes of an astronaut now. Hold
the world in your hands when you pull up Google Earth, for
heaven's sake. There it is, the whole world. You can spin it
around. You can see your backyard. You can see your neighbor's
backyard.
The Chairman. Be careful.
Ms. Earle. Uh-huh. Maybe someday, before long, you will be
able to take dives in the ocean and will be able to see what is
going on in the ocean, not only to look at the blue blob that
is now the surface but to be able to actually see what is
actually going on below--the good news and the bad news. I
think that is not only good for kids; I think that is good for
all of us to be able to have new ways to see how we are
connected to the rest. I am optimistic, in part, because there
is a growing concern that people--kids and all of us--are
increasingly detached from nature, and there is some effort to
do something about that--the last child in the woods, no child
left inside, these initiatives.
The Chairman. Beautiful.
Ms. Earle. While you learn your A, B, Cs and your 1, 2, 3s,
learn that you are connected to nature and that the ocean
dominates nature. Those things are beginning to happen. We need
to do much more to accelerate those things.
The Chairman. Dr. Lubchenco.
Ms. Lubchenco. Mr. Chairman, I had the pleasure of serving
on the Oregon Governor's Advisory Group, the Citizens' Advisory
Group on Global Warming, which began as a group of citizens who
did not know a lot about the problem. In the process of our
deliberations, they learned about them and came to make some
very strong, unanimous recommendations to the governor, many of
which have been adopted. Others are currently being developed.
Those essentially will put Oregon on a path to very
significantly reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, to slow the
rated growth--to cap that--and then finally to return to 1990
levels. That action of one State has been mirrored by many
other States, including yours. States working together along
the West Coast and in New England have been making very
significant progress in drawing attention to the problem and
are beginning to address it in very serious ways. I get hope
from that. I believe that now it is Congress' turn to act in
kind and to listen to what the States have been saying and to
do for the rest of the country what these States have begun to
do and to take it even further.
The reason that I draw hope from all of these issues is
partly the knowledge that social systems can often change very,
very rapidly. We have seen that in attitudes toward drunk
driving, towards smoking, towards women's suffrage, towards
civil rights issues. So we know that it is possible to have
very, very rapid change. It is my hope that we are getting
closer and closer and that Congress will show very real
leadership in bringing to us the tipping point and in having
some very meaningful actions to put us on the right path.
The Chairman. Dr. Kleypas.
Ms. Kleypas. I make a habit when I am traveling on planes
and putting all of that extra CO2 in the atmosphere
to interview the people next to me about what they know about
climate change and including ocean acidification. I have been
astounded in the last year--I would say the last year, maybe
two--at how much people know. Now, this is somewhat of an elite
group. These are people who fly planes. What I have noticed is
so many people are becoming more aware, and they are no longer
arguing with me that is this really happening. For a long time,
I got the question: Is this really happening? Now I am hearing
the question: What can we do?
So people are hungry for solutions. They are hungry for
choices. They are willing to sacrifice. I am just seeing this
momentum, and it is time to sort of seize that and to do what
Jane was saying. You know, the States have become leaders in
this issue. If the U.S. becomes a leader in this issue and
finds real solutions either technologically or through invoking
social change, then the rest of the world will follow. We have
been a leader for so long.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Ms. Spruill.
Ms. Spruill. Well, at the risk of stating the obvious, Mr.
Chairman, I, actually, think this hearing is a bright spot in
that the dots that are being connected like this between ocean
and climate change would not have happened even 5 years ago. I
would agree with my panelists that this level of awareness
brought about by the urgency of climate change is creating a
formula that we have not had before, and we need to seize on
that opportunity.
I am actually hopeful about coral reefs, and I want to
bring it back to that in this year of the reef. I think there
is some hope even in the face of this dire news we have heard
today. If we act divisively now, we can save some of those
reefs that still remain. I think certainly emerging science is
showing us that if we can protect the integrity and the
resiliency of these systems they should be able to withstand
some of these climate change stresses that we cannot yet
anticipate, but we have to act now.
The Chairman. So let us get here at the end of the hearing
a 1-minute summation from each of you as to what you want us to
remember about the oceans, about ocean policy, about the
responsibility of the United States Government to be the leader
in the world to protect it and to have a leadership role that
commands the respect of the rest of the world when we ask them
to work with us on these issues.
Let us go in the opposite order of the opening statements.
So we will start with you, Ms. Spruill, if we may, in giving us
your concluding 1-minute.
Ms. Spruill. Thank you, Chairman Markey.
I think, as the policy organization represented at the
table, I am going to probably summarize with some brass tax and
restate that there is a lot that we can already do that is
already in the pipeline to move forward on some of these
problems we have talked about today.
First, every climate change bill should support adaptation
strategies. Mitigation alone is not going to solve this
problem. We need to take on both the cure and the recovery
simultaneously. You know, these adaptation strategies could be
and, actually, should be paid for by funding from the auction
of carbon allowances, so there is a mechanism there.
Secondly, this Congress should pass the three bills that I
outlined previously--Oceans 21, the Coral Reef Conservation Act
and the National Marine Sanctuaries Act. Oceans 21 is
successfully out of the subcommittee, and it would be a major
step forward in providing this comprehensive ocean management
scheme that we have talked about.
Then lastly, do no harm. I think that we need to be
researching some of these technological solutions.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Dr. Kleypas.
Ms. Kleypas. Well, first of all, I think you guys have
gotten the point that the oceans are in trouble and that we
really need to act rapidly. We cannot afford a doubling of
CO2 from preindustrial levels in the atmosphere. I
really stress that we try to keep it below that.
The hopeful note is that we know that warming has some
momentum and that, even if we cap carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere, we still will have increased warming. With ocean
acidification, if we can stop atmospheric CO2
concentrations, that will stop the ocean acidification process.
If we can remove CO2 from the atmosphere, it
reverses the situation. So it is a fixable problem.
We also talk a lot about the importance of ocean ecosystems
to our economies. You know, we are always asked to put a dollar
value on all of the things that the oceans offer to us, but
there is something we are missing here. That is the aesthetic
quality of the oceans. We talk about so many of these
ecosystems being rain forests of the sea and so forth. I think
we cannot forget that. That is something we need to leave for
future generations. If anything sticks in your mind, let it be
one of my favorite quotes from Jacques Cousteau, which is
``People protect what they love. All of you who love the sea,
please help us protect her.'' So I would ask you to help us
protect the oceans.
The Chairman. Thank you, Doctor.
Dr. Lubchenco.
Ms. Lubchenco. I guess I would highlight four quick things.
I truly believe we are at a crossroads right now. The
choice that we have to make is between the path that we are on,
which has been called by one scientist, Jeremy Jackson, the
slippery slope to slime, which is the direction that oceans are
headed in now due to all of the threats, including climate
change. The other path is what I like to think of as the mutiny
for the bounty. I think that we really are at a crossroads, and
we need to understand that and need to have the courage to
choose the right thing because it is in our interest to do so.
The second thing I would highlight is that we need to think
about adaptation differently. It is not just the adaptation of
human systems, but we need to understand how to create the
conditions for wildlife to adapt to the changes that are
inevitable. That means reducing other stresses--managing
fisheries very conservatively, eliminating destructive fishing
gear, reducing the flow of nutrients and chemical pollutants to
the coasts, protecting habitats as much as possible.
It means creating networks of no-take Marine reserves and
protected areas so that the raw material so as much genetic
diversity and as many species as possible have the best chance
to adapt to changes that are inevitable. So expanding the way
we think about adaptation.
Thirdly, I would emphasize the importance of significantly
increasing the funding for scientific monitoring and research.
It is woefully inadequate for us to understand and to better
advise how to do this adaptation, how to do many of the things
that lie ahead.
Fourthly, I would suggest a much more comprehensive
understanding of oceans, of the management of oceans through
mechanisms such as those in the Oceans 21 bill, but also
educating citizens is vitally important.
The Chairman. Thank you, Doctor.
Dr. Earle.
Ms. Earle. Well, first, I want to wholeheartedly endorse
all of the above. Well said.
I will add only a few little additional comments, that we
have a chance to protect what remains of all preceding history
that still exists in the wild places on the planet. The United
States took the lead going back to the early part of the 20th
century. Some say the best idea America ever had was the
national park system, an idea that is now being adopted in some
measure in the sea. Although, there is more of an attitude of
managing instead of protecting areas in the sea. There are some
4,000 worldwide places that are known as marine-protected
areas, but there is not full protection for the wildlife that
is there. We can do a much better job of taking care of our
own, exclusive economic zone, an area that exceeds the size of
the rest of the United States put together. We have a chance to
do something really bold in our own waters.
Another thing to do is to take a leadership role. Others
followed the example back in the early part of the 20th
century. Here we are at the early part of the 21st. What we
could do is to take a role through encouraging actions on the
part of other nations to look at the high seas--the 64 percent
of the ocean that is beyond national jurisdictions--and to
encourage through treaties, through partnerships, through our
own example, to look at the Arctic and to the Antarctic.
In the Antarctic 50 years ago, a treaty was put into place,
and we were among the primary instigators of that treaty to
protect and to forestall the development and the destruction in
many ways of that distillation of all preceding history. There
is a chance right now to do something like that for the Arctic
before the frozen goose is cooked, if you will. We have a
chance to do something in the Arctic now, but if we wait much
longer in terms of asserting ourselves as leaders and in
working with others to show the advantage of protection exceeds
by far the advantage of short-term exploitation, this is the
moment. I think you have heard it recently from all of us. This
is a moment in time when, as never before, we recognize we have
got a problem. Maybe, as never again, we can do something about
it.
The Chairman. Beautiful. Thank you, Dr. Earle.
Now, while you were each giving your concluding statements
to the committee, unfortunately, Congressman Emanuel Cleaver
from the State of Missouri, arrived. I will now recognize him
for a statement or for a round of questions, whatever is his
choosing.
Mr. Cleaver. I apologize for being late.
This is certainly a panel that I wanted to hear, and your
written comments are along the lines of what, I think, is
needed for our country. I was thrown into some panic over the
weekend when I read about the shark attack in San Diego. Being
from Kansas City, Missouri--and I am a United Methodist
pastor--Satchel Paige's family were members of our church. In
fact, I eulogized the great Satchel Paige.
Satchel once told me that he and one of his teammates were
out fishing. As they were sitting there on the bank, fishing, a
water moccasin came out of the water, and his teammate grabbed
a huge brick to kill it. Satchel said to him, no, we are not
going to kill him because we came into his house. If he comes
into our house, that is a different story, but when we are in
his house, we do not kill him.
So my fear every time I hear about a shark bite is that it
feeds--pardon the pun--the men and women who would suggest
that, you know, the best white shark is a dead white shark, so
they can do this aimless killing of these fantastic animals
without regard to the fact that the shark would never go into
7-Eleven to kill anyone and that, you know, you would have to
come into his house. So I am very concerned about that.
As I am reading that, I am driving by last evening here in
Washington--seafood restaurant after seafood restaurant after
seafood restaurant. I am deeply concerned about the overfishing
in our oceans, and I think we ought to try to do more than just
condemn it. At some point, we need to move legislatively and,
in some instances, maybe even militarily to prevent
overfishing.
I do not want to delay you. You know, you came here today
and provided fantastic testimony, and I hope that in the days,
months and years to come that you will continue to be resources
for those of us who believe that the ocean is the key to our
survival on this little ball that circles the sun. I am not at
all sure that the ocean receives the respect that it should
from those of us who depend on it, even those who depend on it
and do not know it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. I thank the gentleman from Missouri. He
reminds us again of what a powerful combination a minister can
be when talking about moral issues that actually come into the
political realm, which is this responsibility that we have to
protect the planet.
We thank each of you for testifying here today. The planet
is running a fever. There are no hospitals for sick planets. We
have to engage in preventative care in order to avoid
catastrophic consequences. That is our opportunity, our
responsibility.
Our most important Supreme Court decision regarding the
environment in history was in Massachusetts versus EPA just 1
year ago, in April of 2007. It ruled that the EPA had a
responsibility to make a determination as to whether or not
CO2 was endangering the planet. Massachusetts relied
upon, in its argument, the danger already existing to the
coastline of Massachusetts. The Supreme Court ruled that the
EPA, as a result, has a responsibility to make a decision,
which they have yet to do 1 year later.
So your testimony helps to, once again, dramatize how
important the oceans are 1 year after Massachusetts versus EPA,
Massachusetts' trying to protect itself against what is
happening to its coastline and to every coastline everywhere on
the whole planet. You are all incredibly important national and
international leaders on these issues. This was one of the most
important hearings that we have had.
Speaker Pelosi has only created one new committee during
her 2 years as Speaker, and that is this Committee on Global
Warming. I think that if, for no other reason, the creation of
this committee is valuable because we had this hearing today
with the witnesses that we have had testify before us. We thank
you all.
With that, this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:58 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]