[Senate Hearing 112-975]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 112-975
UPDATE ON THE LATEST CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE AND LOCAL ADAPTATION
MEASURES
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
AUGUST 1, 2012
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
25-111 PDF WASHINGTON : 2017
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
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
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman
MAX BAUCUS, Montana JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
TOM UDALL, New Mexico MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York
Bettina Poirier, Majority Staff Director
Ruth Van Mark, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
AUGUST 1, 2012
OPENING STATEMENTS
Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California... 1
Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma... 3
Sanders, Hon. Bernard, U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont.... 76
Sessions, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama...... 77
Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland 84
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from the State of New
Jersey......................................................... 86
Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode
Island......................................................... 88
WITNESSES
Field, Christopher B., Ph.D., Founding Director, Carnegie
Institution of Washington's Department of Global Ecology,
Professor of Biology and Environmental Earth Science, Freeman
Spogli Institute for International Studies, Senior Fellow,
Stanford University............................................ 93
Prepared statement........................................... 96
Responses to additional questions from Senator Boxer......... 103
Christy, John R., Ph.D., Distinguished Professor, Director of the
Earth System Science Center, Department of Atmospheric Science,
University of Alabama in Huntsville............................ 106
Prepared statement........................................... 109
McCarthy, James J., Ph.D., Alexander Agassiz Professor of
Biological Oceanography, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard
University..................................................... 131
Prepared statement........................................... 134
Responses to additional questions from Senator Boxer......... 172
Griffin, John B., Secretary, Maryland Department of Natural
Resources...................................................... 217
Prepared statement........................................... 219
Responses to additional questions from Senator Boxer......... 225
Fielding, Jonathan, M.D., MPH, MBA, Director, Los Angeles County
Department of Public Health, National Association of County and
City Health Officials.......................................... 233
Prepared statement........................................... 235
Responses to additional questions from Senator Boxer......... 240
Thorning, Margo, Ph.D., Senior Vice President and Chief
Economist, American Council for Capital Formation.............. 243
Prepared statement........................................... 245
UPDATE ON THE LATEST CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE AND LOCAL ADAPTATION
MEASURES
----------
WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 1, 2012
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in room
406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Barbara Boxer
(Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Boxer, Inhofe, Lautenberg, Cardin,
Whitehouse, Udall, Merkley, Sessions, Crapo, and Boozman.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Senator Boxer. Good morning, everybody. I want to welcome
my colleagues, and I want to welcome our distinguished panel.
Everyone will have an opening statement. We will be 5 minutes,
and we will try to stick to it. Go a little bit over, that is
fine.
Colleagues, climate change is real. Human activities are
the primary cause, and the warming planet poses a significant
risk to people and the environment. I believe to declare
otherwise is putting the American people in direct danger. The
body of evidence is overwhelming. The world's leading
scientists agree. And predictions of climate change impacts are
coming true before our eyes.
The purpose of this hearing is to share with the Committee
the mountain of scientific evidence that has increased
substantially over time, time that I believe we should have
used to reduce carbon pollution, the main cause of climate
change.
In 2011 the National Academy of Sciences released the Final
Climate Report. It concluded: ``Climate change is occurring. It
is caused largely by human activities. It poses significant
risks for a broad range of human and natural systems, and the
preponderance of evidence points to human activities as the
most likely cause for most of the global warming that has
occurred over the last 50 years.''
Even some former climate deniers now see the light. Just
this past weekend, Professor Richard Muller, a self-proclaimed
climate skeptic, wrote the following in the New York Times:
``Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a
dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real, and
the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I am
now going a step further. Humans are almost entirely the
cause.''
Claims by the remaining skeptics are overcome with an
examination of the facts. At the first hearing of this
Committee when I became Chairman on January 30, 2007, I invited
all Senators to give their views on climate change, all
Senators in the U.S. Senate. More than one-third of the Senate
spoke out. We put together a book. Do we have that book here?
Yes. And this is the way the book looked, and it included the
voices of the Senate, colleagues from all different political
persuasions.
At that time, Senator McCain wrote we are no longer talking
about how climate change will affect our children's lives as we
did a few years ago. We are talking about how it already is
impacting the world. Drought, declining snow packs, forest
fires, melting ice caps, species dislocation, habitat loss, and
extreme weather events all are examples of how climate change
is impacting us. We need to act to mitigate and adapt to these
devastating events. I believe he was right then.
Senator Snowe said Arctic glaciers and polar ice caps
millions of years old are melting; sea levels are rising. Our
own Federal agency, NOAA, reported that 2006 was the warmest
year since regular temperature records began in 1895, and the
past 9 years have been the warmest on record. And she was right
then.
Now, more than 5 years later, we continue to see evidence
that the climate is changing around us through trends in
extreme weather. And we simply cannot afford to ignore the
warnings. And we have some charts I would like to show.
The first chart shows a wildfire in Bastrop, Texas, that
destroyed 1,500 homes in 2011. Chart 2 shows a man in what used
to be his home in that area. There is nothing left. Chart 3 is
a headline from The Guardian in the United Kingdom, Deadly Heat
Waves Will Be More Frequent in Coming Decades Say Scientists.
Mega-heat waves like the one estimated to have killed tens of
thousands in Western Europe in 2002 will become up to 10 times
more likely over the next 4 years, a study suggests.
There are many examples of how the climate is continuing to
change around us. NOAA reported in June that the previous 12
months had been the warmest 12-month period the nation has
experienced since recordkeeping began in 1895. Many cities set
all-time temperature records during the month of June. Over 170
all-time warm temperature records were broken or tied.
As of July 3rd, 56 percent of the U.S. experienced moderate
to exceptional drought conditions. Scientists at NOAA have
confirmed the record breaking Texas drought was strongly
influenced by climate change.
NASA reported last month that an iceberg twice the size of
Manhattan--you could see the size of that iceberg--broke off of
Greenland, a phenomenon that is expected to be repeated as the
climate continues to warm. Scientists have also linked warming
of the oceans to the emergence of a group of bacteria in the
Baltic Sea in Northern Europe. These recent event make it clear
that the climate continues to change, and the likelihood of
extreme events is growing greater which puts our nation, and
puts our people, at risk.
In 2008 Congress blocked action. We needed six more votes
to take action on climate change. But Congress blocked action,
and we have lost valuable time. But progress has been made. The
Obama administration deserves credit for moving forward with
measures to reduce pollution and improve the nation's energy
efficiency. New automobile efficiency will reduce carbon
pollution by over 6 billion tons while saving consumers $1.7
trillion in fuel costs.
The GSA has reduced energy consumption by 20 percent over
2003 levels. By 2020 the GSA expects to increase its renewable
energy production and procurement to 30 percent of annual
energy consumption.
According to the Brookings Institution, in 2010 2.7 million
workers were employed at more than 40,000 companies across the
nation in the clean energy sector. And bipartisan proposals,
such as the Bennet-Isakson SAVE Act which would reduce barriers
to home energy efficiency improvements, offer ways to reduce
harmful carbon pollution.
So, colleagues, we cannot turn away from the mountain of
evidence that climate change has already started to impact the
planet and will only grow worse without action. Leading
scientists who are testifying today on the latest science will
reinforce that point.
Taking action to address this serious problem will benefit
us, will benefit us and future generations, will actually
reduce energy costs in the long-term for our people, make us
energy independent, and create millions of jobs.
So, I look forward to hearing from the witnesses. But
before we do that, we will hear from colleagues. And this is
one that is a little bit different than a highway bill.
[Laughter.]
Senator Boxer. You may see a few disagreements on this
panel.
With that I would call on my friend, Senator Inhofe, for
his statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
In a way it should not be any different from the highway
bill. We just have different beliefs, different ideas, and that
is what this is all about today.
Senator Boxer. Yes.
Senator Inhofe. And so, this seems like the good old days.
We used to have these hearings all the time. It has been, what,
since February 2009, I think, since we had one of these on the
science. So I am glad we are back to doing it now.
Back then we heard promises from the Obama administration
of the clean energy revolution with green jobs and propped up
by billions of taxpayer dollars going to companies like
Solyndra. What came of all those promises? The global warming
movement has completed collapsed, and the cap and trade is dead
and gone.
I suspect a look back over the past 3 years will be a
little painful for some. In 2009 the Democratic President,
overwhelming majority in the House and the Senate, the
majorities, the global warming alarmists were on top of the
world. They thought they would reach their goal and have an
international agreement. All of that was there. I mean, why
not? We had a Democrat President, Democrat majorities in the
House and the Senate.
It did not happen. Of course, what drove the collapse of
the global warming movement was the science of the United
Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It was
finally exposed, I had been exposing it for some time, but it
actually was exposed when Climategate came.
And here is something interesting. I am going to read this
into the record. These are publications that were on the
alarmist side of this issue. And yet the change that took
place, the New York Times editorial, ``Given the stakes, the
IPCC cannot allow more missteps, and at the very least, must
tighten its procedures and make its deliberations more
transparent.'' The panel's chairman, again, quoting from the
editorial, is under fire for taking consulting fees from
business interests.
The Washington Post: ``Recent revelations about the flaws
in that seminal IPCC report ranging from typos in key dates to
sloppy resourcing are undermining confidence not only in the
panel's work, but also in the projections about climate
change.'' Newsweek, some of the IPCC's most quoted data in
recommendations were taken straight out of unchecked activist
brochures and newspaper articles. The U.K. Daily Telegraph on
Climategate, Climategate is the worst scientific scandal of our
generation.
This is the science on which all of these things have been
based. Now, how unpopular is the global warming movement now?
The Washington Post recently published a poll revealing that
Americans no longer worry about global warming, and one of the
reasons is that they do not trust the scientists and their
motives.
The IPCC has even lost trust in the left. Andrew Revkin of
the New York Times--he was one that was always on that side--
recently called for the IPCC Chair, Pachauri, to make a choice
between global warming activism and leading the IPCC. They are
also saying similar things about global warming alarmist James
Hansen. As David Roberts of Grist acknowledged, Hansen has
become, quoting now, so politicized that people tend to dismiss
him.
Just one look at this Committee and we can see how bad
things have gotten for the alarmists. Today, there are no
Federal witnesses here to testify, as was called out in an
article this morning, I think it was in Politico. President
Obama himself never dares mention global warming. He will not
say the term. And some of the left have noticed that Bill
McKibben recently criticized the President for not attending
the Rio+20 and acknowledged that 20 years ago George Bush did
attend. And Obama did not even attend.
It has got to be very hard for my friends on the left to
watch the President who promised he would slow the rise of
oceans posing in front of pipelines in my home State of
Oklahoma pretending to like oil and gas. I imagine they are
trying to keep quiet because they know that President Obama is
still moving forward with his global warming agenda. They just
do not want the American people to know it.
Now, what the American people do not know, President Obama
is doing, through his bureaucracy, what he could not do
legislatively. And we have already identified $68.4 billion
that has been spent on his global warming agenda. And people
are not even aware of it. He did it without any authorization
from Congress.
Today, we should have a fascinating debate. I want to thank
Climatologist Dr. John Christy for appearing before the
Committee to provide his insights. I am also looking forward to
testimony from Margo Thorning, as we have heard from her
before, and it will be very good.
Let me just--we have been through this now for the past 3
and a half years, and the results are clear. President Obama's
green energy agenda has been a disaster. The time has come to
put these tired, failed policies to rest and embrace the United
States' energy boom so that we can put Americans back to work,
turn this economy around, become totally energy independent
from the Middle East, and ensure energy security for the years
to come.
I really believe this. We, just in the last couple of
years--no one is going to deny the fact that we have more
recoverable reserves in coal, oil, and gas than any other
country. We could be totally independent. And those who say we
have got to have green energy to become independent from the
Middle East, we can do that now, just doing what every other
country in the world does, and that is develop our own
resources.
And while I made the comment about the President not saying
the words global warming, let me compliment one of my fellow
Senators. Senator Sanders had read my book and was down on the
floor on Monday and I happened, when I got off the plane and
came in, there are people like Senator Sanders, in his heart,
he believes everything that he says. There is no hypocrisy in
him. And you see a lot of that in Washington.
But you do not see as much of the people who sincerely are
willing to fight for the things that they believe in, as is
Senator Sanders. I said this on the Senate floor. And I say it
again. And I know he believes everything that he says. He knows
that I believe, in my heart, everything that I say.
So, I was talking to Senator Cardin on the elevator coming
up here, and we both said, is that not what the Senate is
supposed to do? All of us represent different people, different
philosophies, say what we really believe. And I think that is a
healthy thing.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:]
Statement of Hon. James M. Inhofe,
U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma
I must say it feels like we're back to the good old days.
It may be hard to believe, but it was in February 2009, during
the height of the global warming alarmist movement, that this
Committee last held a hearing on global warming science. Back
then we heard promises from the Obama administration of a clean
energy revolution with green jobs propped up by billions in
taxpayer dollars to companies like Solyndra.
What came of all those promises? The global warming
movement has completely collapsed, and cap and trade is dead
and gone.
I suspect a look back over the past 3 years will be a
little painful for my friends on the other side. In 2009, with
a Democratic President and overwhelming Democratic majorities
in the House and the Senate, global warming alarmists were on
top of the world--they thought they would finally reach their
goal of an international agreement that would eliminate fossil
fuels. Yet the Waxman-Markey cap and trade bill didn't happen.
Of course, what drove the collapse of the global warming
movement was that the science of the United Nations
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was finally
exposed. For years I had warned that the United Nations was a
political body, not a scientific body--and finally the
mainstream media took notice:
New York Times editorial: ``Given the stakes, the IPCC
cannot allow more missteps and, at the very least, must tighten
procedures and make its deliberations more transparent. The
panel's chairman . . . is under fire for taking consulting fees
from business interests . . . '' (February 17, 2010)
The Washington Post: ``Recent revelations about flaws in
that seminal IPCC report, ranging from typos in key dates to
sloppy sourcing, are undermining confidence not only in the
panel's work but also in projections about climate change.''
Newsweek: ``Some of the IPCC's most-quoted data and
recommendations were taken straight out of unchecked activist
brochures, newspaper articles . . . ''
UK Daily Telegraph on Climategate: ``The worst scientific
scandal of our generation.''
Just how unpopular is the global warming movement now? The
Washington Post recently published a poll revealing that
Americans no longer worry about global warming, and one of the
reasons is because they don't trust the scientists'
motivations.
The IPCC has even lost the trust of the left. Andrew Revkin
of the New York Times recently called for IPCC chair Pachauri
to make a choice between global warming activism and leading
the IPCC. They are also saying similar things about global
warming alarmist James Hansen. As David Roberts of Grist
acknowledged, Hansen has ``become so politicized that people
tend to dismiss him.''
Just one look at this Committee and we can see how bad
things have gotten for the alarmists: today there are no
Federal witnesses here to testify about the grave dangers of
global warming. President Obama himself never dares to mention
global warming, and some on the left have noticed: Bill
McKibben recently criticized the President for not attending
the Rio + 20 sustainability conference, noting that, ``Unlike
George H.W. Bush, who flew in for the first conclave, Barack
Obama didn't even attend.''
It must be very hard for my friends on the left to watch
the President who promised he would slow the rise of the oceans
posing in front of pipelines in my home State of Oklahoma
pretending to support oil and gas.
I imagine they are trying to keep quiet because they know
President Obama is still moving forward with his global warming
agenda--he just doesn't want the American people to know about
it.
Now what the American people don't know: President Obama is
doing through his bureaucracy what he couldn't do
legislatively. He is spending billions of taxpayer dollars on
his global warming agenda. We've already identified $68
billion.
Today we should have a fascinating debate. I want to thank
climatologist Dr. John Christy for appearing before the
Committee to provide his insights. I am also looking forward to
the testimony of Dr. Margo Thorning, a noted economist who will
discuss the economic pain of the Obama EPA's current
regulations.
We've been through this now for the past 3 and a half
years, and the results are clear: President Obama's green
energy agenda has been a disaster. The time has come to put
these tired, failed policies to rest and embrace the U.S.
energy boom so that we can put Americans back to work, turn
this economy around, become totally energy independent from the
Middle East, and ensure energy security for years to come.
Senator Boxer. Thank you very much, Senator.
I want to clear two things up. I did not ask for any
witnesses from the Administration. I wanted outside scientific
voices because I did not want to see this turn into an attack
on the Obama administration. Clearly, clearly, it is still is
turning into that, but that is OK. I did not want to have a
witness become the face of the Obama administration because
they have done a lot on this.
And I want to put in the record what I talked to before.
Because you heard my colleague say, no jobs, nothing further.
Let me just say something here. We are going to put in the
record the report from the Brookings Institution. They said the
clean economy which employs some 2.7 million encompasses a
significant number of jobs in establishments spread across a
diverse group of industries. Though modest in size, the clean
economy employs more workers than the fossil fuel industry.
So, let us just get this straight. Yes, the Obama
administration has taken some steps. And yes, we have seen job
creation. We will put that in the record.
And we will call on Senator Sanders.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BERNARD SANDERS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT
Senator Sanders. Madam Chair, thanks very much for holding
this important hearing.
Let me begin by concurring with my friend--and he is my
friend--Jim Inhofe. Senator Inhofe and I were on the floor the
other day. We have very strong political and philosophical
differences. On occasion we agree, on transportation and
infrastructure. But certainly on the issue of global warming we
have profound disagreements.
Do I have any doubt that Senator Inhofe is sincere and
honest about what he believes? I have no doubt about it. And I
think he and I are also in agreement that having honest,
straightforward debates on this issue is good for the Senate
and good for the people of the United States of America.
I may be wrong on this, but I think Senator Inhofe, in many
ways, is the leader of the Republicans on the issue of global
warming. And I am going to challenge--I think Senator Inhofe's
positions are extreme, I think they are dead wrong, and I am
curious to see how many of our Republican friends agree with
Senator Inhofe. And that is kind of going to be the thrust of
the work that I am going to be doing in the near future.
Let me begin by saying that I certainly agree with
approximately 98 percent of active publishing climate
scientists according to the National Academy of Sciences that
global warming is real and that global warming is significantly
driven by human activity. I think the broad consensus--not
everyone, to be sure, and I think we may have a scientist here
today who disagrees--but I think the overwhelming majority of
peer reviewed scientists who write on this issue believe A,
global warming is real, and B, global warming is significantly
caused by human activity.
In my view, as Americans, as part of the greatest country
on Earth, we have a moral responsibility and an economic
responsibility to lead the world in cutting greenhouse gas
emissions and transforming our energy system to energy
efficiency and sustainable energies such as solar, wind,
geothermal, and biomass.
Senator Inhofe often makes a point, which is valid, which
is the United States cannot do it alone. If we did it tomorrow,
what about China, what about India, what about Brazil? He is
right. But if we do move forward with our technology, with our
expertise, we could create jobs in this country, not only
transforming our own energy system but leading other nations
away from fossil fuel to energy efficiency and sustainable
energies.
Now, we have heard a lot, and we have heard it from Senator
Inhofe again today, about the economic implications of
transforming our energy system. And I wanted to pick up on the
point that Senator Boxer has made.
Studies done--there have been a whole bunch of studies done
by economic groups, but there was one by the McKinsey
consulting firm in 2009, and also the American Council for an
Energy Efficient Economy in 2010, confirming that we can meet
our 2020 target of reducing emissions 17 percent from 2005
levels through cost effective energy efficiency alone.
Now, I come from a cold weather State. Senator Inhofe comes
from a warm State. They use a lot of air conditioning there, I
suspect. We use a lot of oil in our State. I can tell you
firsthand because we are moving fairly aggressively in Vermont.
Not as fast as we should. But we have seen, through
weatherization projects, people saving substantial sums of
money on their fuel bills, 20, 30, 40 percent, through
retrofitting their own homes. And when you do that, you are
cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 20, 30, 40 percent.
In Vermont, we have made a good start. We have a long way
to go, and we are leading the country. If we do that, we can
make huge cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. And you know what
else we do? We are going to create jobs in the process of doing
that.
A White House Middle Class Task Force report found that we
can save up to 40 percent of the energy being used in our homes
and our buildings with existing technology. In Vermont, we have
weatherized 15,000 homes over the last 10 years, saving the
average household over $900 a year on fuel bills. That is a lot
of money for a middle class person.
Madam Chair, it is beyond comprehension to me that in the
year 2012 we are still giving huge subsidies to fossil fuels, a
19th century technology. And when we hear about so-called
Solyndra and other problems, please understand that in a 10-
year period we are providing--the Federal Government is
providing--over $113 billion to coal, oil, and gas. A 10-year
period, over $113 billion. Meanwhile, here in the Senate we
face opposition to continuing modest incentives--modest
incentives--for solar and wind like the Production Tax Credit
or the 1603 Grant Program.
So, it is time to get our act together. I have got to say
this. I think, and maybe Senator Inhofe will agree with me on
this issue. The whole world is debating global warming. I think
most people would agree with the position that many of us, on
this side, are taking. Some will agree with what Senator Inhofe
is saying. But I think, and Senator Inhofe is right on this
issue, we need--we cannot run away from this issue. We have got
to put it front and center. We need debates.
I thank Senator Boxer for this hearing today. And I hope we
will continue this discussion in this Committee and on the
floor of the Senate.
With that, I would yield.
Senator Boxer. Thank you.
Senator Sessions.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF SESSIONS,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA
Senator Sessions. Thank you.
Well, let me say with regard to Senator Inhofe, I came
here, was on this Committee for the first 2 years in the Senate
15 years ago, and I believe that actual fact, empirical data,
since that day has validated Senator Inhofe's skepticism and
has demonstrated the incorrectness of the computer modeling
that the global warming alarmists have produced.
Now, that is fact. That is science. And we are going to
talk about that today. And if that is so, the question for the
American policymakers is how much can we demand this economy
pay to meet and confront a fear that is not being proven by
empirical data? So, that is the question.
President Obama is engaged in a systematic drive to promote
the global warming agenda, and in fact said electricity prices
will necessarily skyrocket. So, this is a big issue. We are
making this decision right now, and it will be part of the next
election, I suppose.
Let us look at this question that has been discussed a lot
lately about storms and temperature extremes and how this is a
product of global warming. The data does not show that. This is
a chart that I hope all of my colleagues will look at. It
shows, from NOAA's data, when the record high and record low
temperatures for each State were set. The largest number of
record highs was set in the 1930s, by far. Twenty-five out of
50 States set their record highs in the 1920s or 1930s. You
look at this chart from 1960 through today. Every decade they
have had more record cold temperatures than record high
temperatures.
Now, I do not know whether that is conclusive evidence
about anything. But it does suggest we are not having more
extremes, either highs or lows, now than before. But to the
extent States have set record temperatures recently, more of
them have been record lows than record highs. And Senator
Inhofe, you had a record ^31 degrees in Oklahoma recently. That
is a dramatic thing. We have to look at what is happening.
Now, this is not what the models have said. The computer
models say that if CO2 goes up, temperature will go
up. And these are the IPCC scientists, Nobel Prize winners and
so forth. That is what they are predicting.
Now, look at this chart. When I came to the Senate, Dr.
Christy testified before this Committee, Dr. Lindzen at
Harvard, the scientists at MIT, they express skepticism. But
the overwhelming group of scientists says the computer models
show that we are going to have dramatic changes in our
temperature.
This chart reflects the latest computer models, not the
ones earlier which were even more extreme. These are the latest
computer models. The black line shows what the computer
modeling predicted that temperatures would be. These two lower
lines, based on satellite data and temperature, show that from
about the time that I came to the Senate in 1997, the
temperature has basically stayed flat.
Yes, it has increased from 1975, from 1980, to 2010, .2 of
1 degree. Now, you do that over 100 years, that is about .6 of
1 degree if that trend were to follow. But in the last 10
years, we have seen virtually no change in the temperature.
This is from empirical data, what is really happening.
So, I guess I am saying, Madam Chairman, we have got to be
careful not to ask the American people to bear an immense
economic burden to try to defeat a computer modeling that is
not coming out to be correct. And we know, throughout history,
that temperature has been up and down----
Senator Sanders. Would the Senator yield for 1 second?
Senator Sessions. Yes.
Senator Sanders. Did you just say, I just wanted to clear
the record, that in the last decade we have seen no change in
the temperature? Is that what you just said?
Senator Sessions. I say that the empirical data, and Dr.
Christy will explain that these are not his numbers, but they
are the numbers that have been published, show that the
temperature is basically the same.
Senator Sanders. In the last decade?
Senator Sessions. Yes.
Senator Sanders. OK. Thank you.
Senator Sessions. Yes, that is the chart. And so, we have
heard a lot of spin the other way. I think it is time for the
nation to discuss it. If those numbers are wrong, Senator
Sanders, so be it. We would have to confront that issue. But I
do not think they are wrong. I think they are correct. And that
means that we need to be careful about what price we expect the
American people to pay to meet the visions of people who are
not being proven correct by reality.
Thank you.
Senator Boxer. Senator, may I just say, and we will put in
the record an article that talks about credibility in climate
change. Ninety-seven to 98 percent of the scientists do not
agree with the 1 to 2 percent that you are citing. It is fine.
There are still probably 1 to 2 percent of scientists who do
not believe that lung cancer is associated with smoking----
Senator Sessions. Madam Chairman, I am offended by that.
Senator Boxer. Please do not be----
Senator Sessions. I am offended. I did not say anything
about the scientists. I said the data shows it is not warming
to the degree that a lot of people predicted, not close to that
much. And you are asking us to have unprecedented high
electricity prices in order to avoid a danger that is not as
real as it appears, it seems to me. So we will have a hearing.
If I am wrong, I will acknowledge it. But I do not think so.
Senator Boxer. Yes. And I am going to ask the scientists
about the data that you have used. All I was pointing out is
that the conclusion you are coming to is shared by 1 to 2
percent of the scientists. You should not be offended at that.
That is the fact.
Senator Sessions. I do not believe that is correct, Madam.
Senator Inhofe. I have to chime in here because I have not
had a chance, Madam Chairman, to get my----
Senator Boxer. Go right ahead. And then we will return and
go to Senator Cardin.
Senator Inhofe. When we had our, I thought, very enjoyable
joint effort on the floor between Senator Sanders and myself on
Monday, one of the things that came up about the NAS, the
National Academy of Sciences, I do not think we should let it
go beyond our recognition that there is a lot of criticism of
the NAS and their motives.
Let us keep in mind that the NAS issued a report of the
coming ice age in 1975. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences
has turned itself into--I am quoting now from Seth Bornstein,
which was on the other side of this issue--turned itself into
an advocacy group on policy promotion.
I only want to say I disagree with you when you say 1 or 2
percent. I have on my Web site over 1,000 names, and I think it
is kind of interesting when you come up with someone who was a
skeptic and became an alarmist, that is one out of maybe 1,000
as I mentioned on the floor. So, there is a lot of, the science
is clearly divided out in the real world, and that is what this
hearing is all about.
Senator Boxer. OK. All right.
Senator Sessions. And Madam Chairman----
Senator Boxer. Yes, go right ahead.
Senator Sessions. I would acknowledge that we may well have
some warming, and it may well be human caused. The disagreement
that I am concerned about is how much we can affect it, how
much we can afford to spend to alter it, and I am skeptical of
the proposal that we have seen.
Senator Sanders. Would my friend yield?
Senator Boxer. Just one moment. I am going to try to gain
some kind of traction here, and then we will, all I am going to
do now, instead of getting a debate going, is put into the
record, this is something we have not done in a while. It is
kind of exciting.
[Laughter.]
Senator Inhofe. Yes, the highway bill got kind of boring
there. It really did.
[Laughter.]
Senator Boxer. Yes, we agreed on everything there, which is
very unusual.
I am going to put into the record, and I hope Senator
Sessions that you will look at this, it is a paper by the
journal, it is the National Academy of Sciences. It is our
people. And basically, I do not want to get into another
argument with you, but they used the figure 97 to 98 percent of
climate researchers agreed with the fact that this is occurring
now.
So, I am just, you can read this. You may not agree with
the----
Senator Sessions. Well, that would be 3 percent.
[Laughter.]
Senator Boxer. All right. All right. We will put this on
the record. Thank you.
Senator Cardin, thank you for your patience.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND
Senator Cardin. Thank you, Madam Chair. And let me thank
you for calling this hearing on an update of the latest climate
change science, and listening to our witnesses, and local
adaptation measures, which I really do think is critically
important.
I would make just an observation on some of the discussion
that has already taken place by my colleagues. When we talk
about averages, it can be misleading. One of the consequences
of climate change is extreme weather conditions. You can have a
drought in one part of the country and a flood in another part
of the country, and the equal averages. But the consequences to
the people of this nation are severe when we have these extreme
weathers.
And Senator Sessions, you mentioned the cost of adaptation,
the cost of dealing with these issues. Those who have survived
the wildfires have endured a real cost. And those who tried to
deal without electricity for over a week in 100 degree weather
suffered significant economic losses.
So, I think we have to recognize that extreme weather
conditions have a real burden and cost on our society. Those of
us who are trying to deal with living on a coast and seeing the
rising sea level, wondering how we are going to protect our
critical assets, which may be just a homeowner's property, or
it may be the Government's Naval Academy, are worried about
what the effects of climate change are going to be on the
coasts to our country. So, I do think we have to keep this in
balance as to the cost to our society.
Climate change is upon us. It is real. This year the United
States has seen an increased number of major, deadly storms
that are devastating to our communities. We have seen major
wildfires, not only in the West but also in the Plains States.
We are experiencing a drought that is right now affecting 60
percent of the country and is predicted to cause food prices to
rise.
The time to act is now, to harden our infrastructure
against extreme heat, to strengthen our electric grid, and to
prepare our public health infrastructure to protect our coastal
zones and low lying areas.
Today we will hear not only from scientists who will
explain to us the data showing how climate is changing, but we
will hear from a second panel of policymakers and experts who
will tell us the efforts we need to take and projects that are
currently underway.
Unfortunately, we are already seeing these problems
happening. Just last month, Washington, DC, hit 95 degrees or
higher for the 11th straight day, the longest consecutive
streak on record. This streak coincided with a devastating
multi-day power outage that crippled the Washington area. In my
home State of Maryland, hundreds of thousands of folks were
without power for days and were forced to contend with extreme
heat without air conditioning.
The extreme weather that Marylanders had to deal with this
year is just a continuation of the weather emergencies that
folks across the country were faced with last year. The
administrator of NOAA wrote that last year, and I quote, 14
extreme weather related events caused an incalculable loss of
human life and cost the U.S. economy more than $55 billion.
The extreme weather of 2011 has continued into this year,
not only with strong storms and intense heat but with dangerous
and deadly wildfire seasons in the American West. A brutal heat
wave in late June fueled the Wild Oak Canyon fire just outside
of Colorado Springs. This fire forced the evacuation of more
than 32,000 residents and engulfed almost 350 homes, almost
forced the evacuation of the United States Air Force Academy,
and tragically killed two people.
Madam Chair, these extreme weather events and increased
temperatures are not theoretical. They are happening to us
right now. And when those of us in this hearing room leave this
building today, we will be walking into one of the worst
sustained heat waves on record for this area.
These extremes are the new normal, and they are affecting
our nation's infrastructure, our environment, and our public
health and safety. It is time we get serious about adapting our
infrastructure and systems to these new realities. From our
transportation infrastructure to our water systems to public
utilities, major systems are being negatively impacted by heat
and storms.
Last month at Washington Reagan National Airport, a U.S.
Airways regional jet became stuck in the tarmac when
temperatures over 100 degrees melted the asphalt. There was a
DC train derailed just down the road last month after tracks
buckled in the extreme heat. The extreme Derecho storm system
that devastated the Maryland, Virginia, and DC area last month
left thousands and thousands of people without power for a week
during severe heat.
This is a public health issue, a public safety issue. We
lost lives. As a result, Governor O'Malley has ordered a
special task force to specifically examine solutions for
adapting its utility infrastructure to extreme heat and major
storms.
Our water infrastructure already is in desperate need of
repair. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson told Congress that
adapting to changing hydrological conditions caused by climate
change is a significant issue that water systems must act to
address. These hydrological changes will likely result in too
little water in some places, too much water in other places,
and degraded water quality in other areas across the country.
According to that study of the National Association of Clean
Water Agencies, the costs of dealing with these new realities
will approach $1 trillion through 2050.
I am the sponsor of a bill, the Water Infrastructure
Resiliency and Sustainability Act, to equip our communities to
adapt their water systems to these changing conditions, and I
thank the Chair for being a co-sponsor on that legislation.
Madam Chair, I believe that we have a responsibility. I
have a responsibility in Maryland, to the people in this
country, to do all I can to prepare us for the consequences of
climate change. We need to adopt our water infrastructure, our
transportation infrastructure, and our electrical grid. We need
to help farmers to adapt so that our food supply in the world
remains reliable.
We need to adapt our coastal regions to prepare for sea
level rise that is already beginning to threaten some of our
coastal communities. We need to improve our public health
infrastructure to deal with the heat related illnesses that
result from these extreme temperatures. In short, we need to
act now to protect our communities.
I look forward to the witnesses to give us help and
direction of what we can do to help prepare our nation.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Boxer. Senator Lautenberg, then followed by Senator
Whitehouse, unless a Republican comes back.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Senator Lautenberg. Thanks very much, Madam Chairman, for
daring to walk into this bonfire of reality.
[Laughter.]
Senator Lautenberg. I find it quite incredible that we are
still raising the question about whether global warming is a
real problem.
In 2003, in this very room, we heard that global warming
was the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.
We had a hearing in this building that included a scientist
from the Pasteur Institute, and his view was that, and I speak
some French poorly but I do like the accent, but I will leave
it out for the moment----
[Laughter.]
Senator Lautenberg. He said that it is quite incredible. We
would know absolutely if we had global warming by the increase
in mosquitoes, increases in malaria. And we have not seen that.
There cannot be any global warming, he said in quite
understandable English.
And we have gone through these, I am going to call them
charades for the moment, and our friends on the other side
happen to be very likeable, but they are wrong.
[Laughter.]
Senator Lautenberg. Anyway, one of the things that we ought
to be----
Senator Inhofe. I agree with half your statement.
[Laughter.]
Senator Lautenberg. Oh, you are not likeable?
[Laughter.]
Senator Lautenberg. I have to ask your kids, I guess.
One of the things that all of us ought to be able to agree
on is that we need to get our science from scientists, not
politicians nor industry lobbyists. And the scientists at NASA,
the National Academy of Sciences and every other leading
scientific body have made it clear that global climate change
poses a very serious threat to humanity.
In the past, that threat may not have seemed urgent. But in
recent months these dangers have become impossible to ignore.
Right now, we are seeing the effects of climate change all
around us, and we have got to take notice and action
immediately because whatever costs we might be seeing increases
with now are dwarfed by what could be the result of laissez-
faire, leave it alone and not bother with it; it will take care
of itself.
Well, last year was the 11th hottest year on record, it was
the 11th hottest year on record according to the Commerce
Department's Annual State of the Climate Report. Heat waves and
flooding to droughts and extreme tornadoes, the U.S. in 2011
experienced some of our most destructive weather ever. And 2012
is on pace to be even worse.
The first 6 months of this year have been the hottest on
record for the continental United States, and though our
colleague from Alabama has found some solace in the fact that
he found places where it is cold, the fact of the matter is
that you cannot deny these temperature levels in the recent
months. It has led to the worst drought in our nation in more
than half a century, resulting in 1,200 counties being declared
natural disasters by USDA. And these droughts are killing crops
throughout the country, forcing taxpayers to dole out $30
million to $40 million for Federal crop insurance payments,
according to a recent report.
Hot and dry conditions have also led to thousands of forest
fires throughout the United States. According to NOAA, June
wildfires burned more than 1.3 million acres of land, the
second most on record. We saw most recently the destruction in
Colorado Springs where nearly 350 homes were destroyed at the
cost of $9 million.
And we have to be clear. This is just the beginning. The
destruction we see throughout the country and globe is simply a
thing of signs to come. And if we do not act now to stem the
worst effects of climate change, we are looking at once greater
problems with hotter temperature, rising sea levels, extreme
weather and spread of diseases, climate change poses a serious
threat to our way of life.
Nothing, nothing is more important to any of us who have
children than to care about the kind of a country, the kind of
an environment, we are going to be leaving for them. And we
have to remember that the state of the planet that we leave
them is the ultimate test of our stewardship.
It has become abundantly clear that we cannot let the
doubters deter action any longer because they prefer to ignore
the inconvenient facts of an overwhelming scientific consensus.
We have got to act on that now.
And I want to call attention, Madam Chairman, to an article
that is talked about ravenously, almost, in our Senate, The
Conversion of a Climate Change Skeptic. It is an article by a
man named Richard Muller. He is a professor of physics at the
University of California Berkeley, former MacArthur Foundation
Fellow. In a very short paragraph, he said, ``Call me a
converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in
previous climate studies that in my mind threw doubt on the
very existence of global warming. Last year, following an
intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I
concluded that global warming was real and that prior estimates
of the rate of warming were correct. I am now going a step
forward,'' he says, ``humans are almost entirely the cause.''
So, I do not know how we dismiss the evidence we see around
us and the comments made from reputable organizations. But I
think this debate ought to be over, and we ought to move, not
discussing today's hearing, it is very important, but in the
body that we all spend so much time in, that we ought to get on
with trying to solve the problem instead of dismissing it.
Thank you.
Senator Boxer. Thank you very much.
Senator Whitehouse, and then we will get to our panel.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate
the opportunity to participate in this important hearing.
Yesterday marked the end of what is expected to be one of
the top five warmest months on record. The USDA recently
declared nearly 1,400 counties in 31 States disaster areas as a
result of the ongoing drought. NASA and NOAA declared the last
decade the warmest decade on record.
So, I am glad we have come together to discuss the science
of climate change. Virtually all respected scientific and
academic institutions have stated that climate change is
happening and that human activities are the driving cause of
this change.
Many of us here in Congress received a letter from a number
of those institutions back in October 2009 supporting this
consensus. This letter was signed by the heads of the
organizations listed here. These highly esteemed scientific
organizations do not think the jury is out. They recognize
that, in fact, the verdict is in, and it is now time for us to
act.
As Senator Lautenberg mentioned, Dr. Richard Muller at the
Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project recently revealed
how he has become a converted climate skeptic. In a New York
Times op-ed, he cites the findings from his research which was,
ironically, partially funded by the Koch brothers, that the
Earth's land temperature has increased by 2.5 degrees
Fahrenheit in the past 250 years and 1.5 degrees over the past
50 years. He states, ``Moreover, it appears likely that
essentially all of this increase results from the human
emission of greenhouse gases.''
Unfortunately, human emission of greenhouse gases is on the
rise. This year a monitoring station in the Arctic measured
carbon dioxide at 400 parts per million for the first time.
This is 50 parts per million higher than the maximum
concentration at which scientists predict a stable Earth
climate. And it is way out of the bandwidth of 170 to 300 parts
per million that has prevailed for the last 8,000 centuries on
the Earth's surface.
A 2012 report by the IPCC concludes that climate change
increases the risk of heavy precipitation. Rhode Islanders are
no strangers to heavy precipitation. In 2010 we saw flooding
that exceeded anything Rhode Island had seen since the 1870s
when Rhode Island started keeping records.
At the height of the rain, streets in many Rhode Island
towns looked more like rivers than roads. Local emergency
workers sailed down Providence Street, a main road in West
Warwick, by boat and Jet Ski, down a main road on boats and Jet
Skis in order to assist residents trapped by the flood waters.
While we cannot link that exact storm to climate change, we do
know that climate change is increasing the risk of extreme
weather like we saw in Rhode Island.
As a New Englander, I was very concerned at a report
released this week by Environment America, When It Rains, It
Pours, which found that in New England, ``Intense rainstorms
and snowstorms are happening 85 percent more often than in
1948.'' Not only are these inundations happening more often,
but the largest events are actually dumping more
precipitation--around 10 percent more, on average--across the
country. For States like mine, as you can see, these storms are
dangerous, expensive, and cause lasting damage.
Ensuring the integrity of our infrastructure in the face of
a rapidly changing climate is essential, and our coastal States
face a unique set of challenges, what I call the triple whammy.
We must adapt not only to extreme temperatures and to extreme
weather events, but also to sea level rise.
Long-term data from tide gauges in the historic sailing
capital of Newport, Rhode Island, show an increase in average
sea level of nearly 10 inches since 1930. At these same tide
gauges, measurements show that the rate of sea level rise has
increased in the past two decades compared to the rate over the
last century. This is consistent with reports that since 1990
sea level has been rising faster than the rates predicted by
models used to generate IPCC estimates.
Sea level rise and the increase in storm surge that will
accompany it will bring devastation to our doorsteps. Critical
infrastructure in at-risk coastal areas, roads, power plants,
waste water treatment plants will need to be reinforced or
relocated. One consequence of rising sea levels is that local
erosion rates in Rhode Island doubled from 1990 to 2006. And
some freshwater wetlands near the coast are transitioning to
salt marsh.
In Rhode Island, we are trying to be proactive. We have to,
frankly, if we want to protect public health and safety. Rhode
Island has 19 high hazard dams that have been deemed unsafe by
our Department of Environmental Management. We have 6,000
onsite waste water treatment systems located near the coast,
several landfills that may be susceptible to coastal erosion,
and evacuation routes that could be under water as sea levels
rise.
In 2008 our Coastal Resources Management Council adopted a
climate change and sea level rise policy to protect public and
private property, infrastructure, and economically valuable
coastal ecosystem. In 2010 our General Assembly created the
Rhode Island Climate Change Commission to study the projected
effects of climate change on the State, develop strategies to
adapt to those effects, and determine mechanisms to incorporate
climate adaptation into existing State and municipal programs.
A draft progress report from the commission lists many ways
the State is planning to adapt to climate change including
National Grid, our electricity and natural gas utility,
undertaking a statewide substation flooding assessment and the
Army Corps of Engineers, FEMA, and the Rhode Island Emergency
Management Agency conducting a hurricane and flooding
evacuation study. And the list goes on and on.
In the town of North Kingston, Rhode Island, they have
taken the best elevation data available and modeled 1, 3, and 5
feet of sea level rise, as well as 1 foot of sea level rise
plus 3 feet of storm surge. By overlaying these inundation
models on top of maps identifying critical infrastructure like
roads and emergency routes, railroads, water treatment plants,
and estuaries, the town will be able to prioritize
transportation, conservation, and relocation projects.
They are also able to quantify the costs of sea level rise.
In one small area of the town, 1 foot of sea level rise would
put--I am sorry, I have taken over my time. Let me just ask
unanimous consent for the remainder of my statement to be put
into the record as if I had read it.
Senator Boxer. Absolutely.
Senator Whitehouse. And I thank the Chairman. I just want
to emphasize that this is not just a hypothetical problem in
Rhode Island. It is real, and real government agencies, real
big corporations, real people are facing the facts and having
to respond.
[The prepared statement of Senate Whitehouse follows:]
Statement of Hon. Sheldon Whitehouse,
U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island
Yesterday marked the end of what's expected to be one of
the top five warmest months on record. The USDA recently
declared nearly 1,400 counties in 31 States disaster areas as a
result of the ongoing drought. NASA and NOAA declared the last
decade the warmest on record. In 2011 we faced 14 weather
related disasters totaling more than a billion dollars each in
overall damages and economic costs. And we already have several
in 2012.
I am glad we have come together to discuss the science of
climate change. Virtually all respected scientific and academic
institutions have stated that climate change is happening, and
that human activities are the driving cause of this change.
Many of us here in Congress received a letter from a number of
those institutions in October 2009, stating that:
Observations throughout the world make it clear that
climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research
demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human
activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based
on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary
assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the
vast body of peer reviewed science.
This letter was signed by the heads of the following
organizations:
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Meteorological Society
American Society of Agronomy
American Society of Plant Biologists
American Statistical Association
Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
Botanical Society of America
Crop Science Society of America
Ecological Society of America
Natural Science Collections Alliance
Organization of Biological Field Stations
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
Society of Systematic Biologists
Soil Science Society of America
University Corporation for Atmospheric Research
These highly esteemed scientific organizations don't think
the jury's still out. They recognize that in fact, the verdict
is in, and it's time to act.
In fact, over the weekend, Dr. Richard Muller, professor of
physics at the University of California, Berkeley, director of
the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, and a former
MacArthur Foundation Fellow, revealed how he's become a
converted climate skeptic in a New York Times op-ed. He cites
findings from his research--partially funded by the Koch
brothers, ironically--that the Earth's land temperature has
increased by 2 and a half degrees Fahrenheit in the past 250
years and 1 and a half degrees over the past 50 years. He
states, ``Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of
this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse
gases.''
Unfortunately, human emission of greenhouse gases is only
on the rise. In 2011 the Mauna Loa Observatory documented the
biggest annual jump in carbon dioxide. And this year a
monitoring station in the Arctic measured carbon dioxide at 400
ppm for the first time. This is 50 ppm higher than the maximum
concentration at which scientists predict a stable climate. And
this is well outside the 170-300 ppm range that has existed for
the past 8,000 centuries.
A 2012 report by the IPCC concludes that climate change
increases the risk of heavy precipitation. Rhode Islanders are
no stranger to heavy precipitation. In 2010 we saw flooding
that exceeded anything we've seen since the 1870s when Rhode
Island started keeping records. At the height of the rains,
streets in many Rhode Island towns looked more like rivers than
roads. Local emergency workers sailed down Providence Street, a
main road in West Warwick, by boat and Jet Ski; down a main
road on boats and Jet Skis; in order to assist residents
trapped by the flood waters.
While we can't link that exact storm to climate change, we
know that climate change is increasing the risk of extreme
weather events like this one. As a New Englander, I was
concerned by a report released this week by Environment
America. ``When It Rains, It Pours,'' found that, in New
England, ``intense rainstorms and snowstorms [are] happening 85
percent more often than in 1948. The frequency of intense rain
or snowstorms nearly doubled in Vermont and Rhode Island, and
more than doubled in New Hampshire.'' And not only are these
inundations happening more often, but the largest events are
actually dumping more precipitation--around 10 percent more on
average--across the country. For States like mine, as you can
see, these storms are dangerous, expensive, and cause lasting
damage.
We are moving down a troublesome and unknown path where the
best thing we can do is prepare for dramatic environmental
shifts. We must look to science and scientists and use the best
available data to protect and prepare both our natural and
built environments, which sustain us and our economy. Ensuring
the integrity of our infrastructure in the face of a rapidly
changing climate is essential. Coastal States face a unique set
of challenges--what I call a triple whammy--as we must adapt
not only to extreme temperatures and weather but also to sea
level rise.
As average global temperatures rise, less water will be
stored in snowpack and the ice sheets of Antarctica and
Greenland. We also know that at higher temperatures water
expands to greater volume. Predictions for sea level rise range
from 20-39 inches by the year 2100, with recent studies showing
that the numbers could be even higher due to greater than
expected melting of glaciers and ice sheets.
Long-term data from tide gauges in the historic sailing
capital of Newport, Rhode Island, show an increase in average
sea level of nearly 10 inches since 1930. At these same tide
gauges, measurements show that the rate of sea level rise has
increased in the past two decades compared to the rate over the
last century. This is consistent with reports that since 1990
sea level has been rising faster than the rate predicted by
models used to generate IPCC estimates.
Sea level rise and the increase in storm surges that will
accompany it will bring devastation to our doorsteps. Critical
infrastructure in at-risk coastal area--roads, power plants,
waste water treatment plants--will need to be reinforced or
relocated. Additionally, our estuaries, marshes, and barrier
islands that act as natural filtration systems and buffers
against storms will be inundated, with little time or space to
retreat and move inland as they have in the past.
One consequence of rising sea levels is that local erosion
rates in Rhode Island doubled from 1990 to 2006, and some
freshwater wetlands near the coast are transitioning to salt
marsh. Increased sea level and erosion puts critical public
infrastructure at risk. In Rhode Island, we have a small but
vibrant coastal community, Matunuck, where beaches have eroded
20 feet over the past 12 years. The town faces very difficult
decisions as the only road connecting about 1,600 residents and
several restaurants and businesses is protected by less than a
dozen feet of sand. The road, which provides access for
emergency vehicles and lies on top of the water main, must be
protected. But what are the costs of protecting this piece of
road for areas nearby or further down shore? Often, when you
protect one area of beach from erosion by hardening or altering
the shoreline, you do so at the sacrifice of other areas.
These are not easy decisions for communities with limited
resources when lives and livelihoods are at risk, and climate
change will only make things worse. To best protect
infrastructure and the communities and families that live in
at-risk areas, we must plan ahead, using the best and most
reliable science, and be able to prioritize adaptation efforts.
In North Carolina, the State legislature considered a
measure that would have severely restricted the ability of
their Coastal Resources Commission to employ scientific
estimates of future sea level rise. This type of thinking will
cost money and lives in the future.
In Rhode Island, we're taking a different approach. We have
to if we want to protect public health and safety. Rhode Island
has 19 ``high hazard'' dams that have been deemed ``unsafe'' by
our Department of Environmental Management. We have 6,000
onsite waste water treatment systems located near the coast,
several landfills that may be susceptible to coastal erosion,
and evacuation routes that could be underwater as sea levels
rise.
In 2008 our Coastal Resources Management Council adopted a
Climate Change and Sea Level Rise Policy to protect public and
private property, infrastructure, and economically valuable
coastal ecosystems. The policy states the following:
The Council will integrate climate change and sea level
rise scenarios into its operations to prepare Rhode Island for
these new, evolving conditions and make our coastal areas more
resilient.
It is the Council's policy to accommodate a base rate of
expected 3-5 foot rise in sea level by the year 2100 in the
siting, design, and implementation of public and private
coastal activities and to ensure proactive stewardship of
coastal ecosystems under these changing conditions. It should
be noted that the 3-5 foot rate of sea level rise assumption
embedded in this policy is relatively narrow and low. The
Council recognizes that the lower the sea level rise estimate
used, the greater the risk that policies and efforts to adapt
to sea level rise and climate change will prove to be
inadequate.
This policy is already helping the State make smart
decisions. For example, when a new pump station was needed at a
sewage treatment plant, CRMC looked at sea level rise models
before determining where it should go, avoiding future
relocation costs or malfunction in the face of flash flooding
and sea level rise.
In 2010 our General Assembly created the Rhode Island
Climate Change Commission to study the projected impacts of
climate change on the State, develop strategies to adapt to
those impacts, and determine mechanisms to incorporate climate
adaptation into existing State and municipal programs. A draft
progress report from the Commission lists many ways the State
is planning to adapt to climate change, including:
Creating a ``Structural Concept and Contingency Plan to
Inundation of the Ferry Terminals and Island Roadway Systems'';
Creating the ``Central Landfill Disaster Preparedness
Plan'';
National Grid, our electricity and natural gas utility,
undertaking a ``Statewide Substation Flooding Assessment''; and
The Army Corps of Engineers, FEMA, and the Rhode Island
Emergency Management Agency conducting a ``Hurricane and
Flooding Evacuation Study.''
The list goes on and on.
In the town of North Kingston, Rhode Island, they have
taken the best elevation data available and modeled 1, 3, and 5
feet of sea level rise, as well as 1 foot of sea level rise
plus 3 feet of storm surge. By overlaying these inundation
models on top of maps identifying critical infrastructure like
roads, emergency routes, railroads, water treatment plants, and
estuaries the town will be able to prioritize transportation,
conservation, and relocation projects. They are also able to
quantify the costs of sea level rise. In one small area of the
town, 1 foot of sea level rise would put 2 buildings, valued at
$1.3 million, underwater. Five feet of sea level rise, however,
jeopardizes 116 buildings valued at $91 million.
Similarly, by modeling how sea level rise will impact
estuaries, towns can preserve areas that will stay wetlands or
undeveloped areas that will become wetlands in the future, as
opposed to areas that will be lost. Estuaries act as nurseries
for our hugely valuable fisheries and protect our homes,
buildings, and communities from storm surge. There is already
limited funding to protect these important ecosystems, and this
kind of planning promotes efficiency in spending.
Now is the time to start making policy that helps us all
adapt to the emerging scientific reality that our actions
affect our environment.
Nature could not be giving us clearer warnings. Whatever
higher power gave us our advanced human capacity for
perception, calculation, analysis, deduction, and foresight has
lain out before us more than enough information to make the
right decisions. Only a wild and reckless greed, or a fatal
hubris, could blind us to our world's distress signals.
Fortunately, these human capacities provide us everything we
need to act responsibly, if only we will.
Senator Boxer. Thank you very much.
Now, we turn to our esteemed panel. We have two majority
witnesses and one minority witness.
Our first witness is Dr. Christopher B. Field, Founding
Director, Carnegie Institution of Washington's Department of
Global Ecology, Professor of Biology and Environmental Earth
Science, Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies,
Senior Fellow, Stanford University.
We welcome you.
We ask all of our witnesses to try to stick to 5 minutes.
We will give you a little leeway there, but if you can keep it
to 5.
STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER B. FIELD, PH.D., FOUNDING DIRECTOR,
CARNEGIE INSTITUTION OF WASHINGTON'S DEPARTMENT OF GLOBAL
ECOLOGY, PROFESSOR OF BIOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL EARTH SCIENCE,
FREEMAN SPOGLI INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL STUDIES, SENIOR
FELLOW, STANFORD UNIVERSITY
Mr. Field. Thank you, Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member
Inhofe, and Members of the Committee. I am delighted to appear
before you today to discuss one of the most important issues
facing our nation, the challenge of a changing climate.
The link between climate change and the kinds of climate
extremes that lead to disasters is clear. To quote the latest
report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a
changing climate leads to changes in the frequency, intensity,
spatial extent, duration, and timing of extreme weather and
climate events and can result in unprecedented extreme weather
and climate events.
My name is Chris Field. I am a working scientist. Over the
past 35 years I have published more than 200 peer reviewed
papers about all aspects of climate change. In 2008 I was asked
by the Bush administration to help coordinate the work of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or IPCC. That is work
that I now do as an unpaid volunteer.
In my testimony today, I will address three aspects of the
state of science of climate change. Three key points. The
first, climate change is real. Second, some kinds of extreme
events are already increasing. Third, climate change leads to
risks in the kinds of extreme events that can lead to
disasters.
Climate change science is complex, technical, and rapidly
changing. We are very fortunate in climate science to be able
to take advantage of a wide range of comprehensive assessments
so that all the scientists who are working in this complicated
topic can bring their ideas together, sort them out, see which
ones stand the test of time, and present balanced,
authoritative overviews of what is known and what is not known
about climate science.
And recent assessments overwhelmingly support the
conclusion that ``Climate change is occurring. It is very
likely caused primarily by the emission of greenhouse gases
from human activities and poses significant risk for a range of
human and natural systems.'' This is from the 2011 report of
the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and is absolutely
characteristic of what is coming from all of the major
assessments by national academies of scientists from around the
world and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The conclusion that warming in the climate system is
unequivocal is supported by many kinds of data. Could I have
the first chart, please? Several groups have analyzed weather
station data, and they all reach strikingly similar
conclusions. As you can see from the figure on the easel,
global land areas warmed by about 2 degrees Fahrenheit since
1900. We really have reached the point where the question of
whether the Earth is warming is no longer in doubt.
In its 2012 report on extreme events and disasters, the
IPCC concludes, based on observations, not on models, that we
have experienced increases in three kinds of extremes--extremes
of high temperatures, extremes that are associated with intense
precipitation, and extremes that are associated with high sea
levels, basically storm surge. It also provides evidence that
human caused climate change has played a role in these kinds of
extremes.
Now, for some kinds of climate related extremes, we do not
yet know the strength of the link with climate change. But for
many other categories of extreme climate and weather events,
the pattern is increasingly clear. Climate change is shifting
the risk of hitting an extreme. The IPCC concludes that climate
change increases the risk of heat waves, heavy precipitation,
and droughts for most land areas.
These findings about risk do not speak directly to the role
of climate change in any particular event. In this sense, the
increase in risk of a climate extreme from climate change is
parallel to the increasing risk of an accident from speeding in
a car. We can point clearly to the causal mechanism, but it is
still difficult to predict exactly when or where the crisis,
either the accident from speeding in a car or the disaster that
is related to climate change, will occur. But still, we can
still have high confidence in the driving mechanism. It is also
important to recognize that just as many factors influence the
risk of a car accident.
The risk of climate related disasters is also influenced by
a number of things like disaster preparation and early warning.
As a result of recent progress in understanding the role of
climate change and the risks of extremes, it is now possible to
quantify the way that climate change alters the risk of certain
kinds of extremes. For example, climate change at least doubled
the risk of the European heat wave of 2003. This was a major
event that resulted in tens of thousands of excess mortalities.
For the 2011 Texas drought, La Nina--this is the cold water
in the eastern Pacific--played a role. But recent research by
David Rupp and colleagues indicates that there is now more than
20 times greater likelihood of high temperatures during a La
Nina than in the 1960s. More than 20 times greater likelihood
of high temperatures now than in the 1960s.
Let me conclude with a comment about the 2011 Texas
drought. The U.S. is an agricultural superpower. It is our
responsibility, I believe, to maintain the ability of our
citizens and the people of Texas to sustain their role as the
nation's second largest producer of agricultural income. For
this hope to be realized, the farmers and ranchers of Texas
have to have access to the best available information so that
they can make sound choices about their future and their
children's future.
In summary, there is no doubt that the climate has changed
and that changes will continue with an amount that is
determined by the amount of heat trapping gases that we release
into the atmosphere. There is also no doubt that a changing
climate changes the risk of extremes, including extremes that
can lead to disasters----
Senator Boxer. Ten seconds; close it up.
Mr. Field [continuing]. Recognizing these changing risks is
critical, if we are to make good decisions about the challenges
of protecting and enhancing our natural legacy, our economy,
and our people.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Field follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Dr. Field.
Now, I understand--Senator Sessions, would you like to
introduce the minority witness, John Christy, Dr. Christy?
Senator Sessions. I would be honored if you would allow me
to do that.
Senator Boxer. I would love for you to do that. Sure.
Senator Sessions. Dr. Christy is a Distinguished Professor
of Atmospheric Science, I believe the only climatologist here
today. Since 1987 he has been a professor at the Atmospheric
Science Department at the University of Alabama, Huntsville. He
currently serves as Director of the Earth Science System
Center. He holds Master and Doctorate degrees in Atmospheric
Sciences from the University of Illinois and in mathematics and
a Master of Divinity.
He has served as Alabama State Climatologist since 2000.
During his time, he was worked with Dr. Roy Spencer to produce
a global temperature data set from satellite observation. For
their work, Drs. Christy and Spencer were awarded NASA's
prestigious Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement in
1991. Five years later he and Dr. Spencer were recognized by
the American Meteorological Society for the development of a
precise record of global temperatures from operational polar
orbiting satellite data.
For his contribution to climatology and research, he was
inducted as a Fellow into the American Meteorological Society
in 2002. He has been involved with the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change by serving as a contributor and lead author
on U.N. reports. Through his efforts working with the IPCC,
satellite temperature became classified as high quality data
sets for the purpose of climatology research.
He served on five different national research council
panels and committees, participated in research projects funded
by NASA, NOAA, DOE, and DOT and the State of Alabama, published
numerous times in journals including Science and Nature,
Journal of the Climate, and Journal of Geophysical Research. He
has spent time in Africa. He is married with children and is no
stranger to Washington. He has testified over a dozen times at
the House and the Senate.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much. And I reserve the right
to extend and revise my introductions to include the life
stories, the awards, and the great speeches of our two
witnesses.
[Laughter.]
Senator Boxer. But you could not have done a better job.
Dr. Christy, go ahead.
STATEMENT OF JOHN R. CHRISTY, PH.D., DISTINGUISHED PROFESSOR,
DIRECTOR OF THE EARTH SYSTEM SCIENCE CENTER, DEPARTMENT OF
ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCE, UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA IN HUNTSVILLE
Mr. Christy. Thank you, Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member
Inhofe, and Senator Sessions and Committee members.
I am a climate scientist. I build data sets from scratch to
answer questions about climate variability and to test
assertions people make about climate change. And that really is
what the scientific method is all about.
During the heat wave of late June and early July, high
temperature extremes were becoming newsworthy. Claims were made
that thousands of records were broken each day, and that is
what global warming looks like. And that got a lot of
attention.
However, these headlines were not based on climate science.
As shown in Figure 1.3 of my testimony, which did not make it
here today, it is scientifically more accurate to say this is
what Mother Nature looks like because events even worse than
these that we have seen here have happened in the past before
greenhouse gases were increasing like they are today.
Now, it gives some people great comfort to offer a quick
and easy answer when weather strays from the average rather
than struggle with what the real truth is. The real truth is we
do not know enough about the climate to even predict events
like this.
Climatologists looking at the heat wave would not be
alarmed because the number of daily high temperature records
set in the most recent decade was only--were actually less than
half of that set in the 1930s, as shown in my written
testimony.
Senator Sessions. Would you like to use this chart that I
had?
Mr. Christy. No, it is a different chart. It is a different
chart. But thank you, Senator. It is a different chart. More
dramatic, I think, but I did not make it up.
I suppose most people forget that Oklahoma set a new record
low of 31 below; it was not 27, it was 31 below this past year.
And in the past 2 years, towns from Alaska to my home State of
California established records for snowfall.
The recent anomalous weather cannot be blamed on carbon
dioxide. More evidence is available now to suggest that the
climate is not as sensitive to extra greenhouse gases as
previously thought, and now I will put that second one there.
This is a spaghetti chart. There are 34 climate models on
there.
But if you just focus on the black line that Senator
Sessions showed earlier, that is what the models indicate
should be happening now. And yet the real world, where the
circles are, you see it at the bottom, is what has actually
happened.
The temperature of the models clearly has overdone what has
happened, and when considering legislation I would encourage
you to base it on the observations rather than the speculative
trends of climate models. And basing legislation on
observations means addressing the large year to year variations
that were talked about, like droughts and flood that caused so
much economic distress.
There is still a discrepancy between the warming and the
traditional surface data sets and less warming in the
atmosphere. A new study led by my colleague, UA Huntsville's
Richard McNider, along with my observational studies, explains
part of the reason for the difference. When the surface and air
around a thermometer station are disturbed by, say,
urbanization, farming, aerosols, and so on, nighttime surface
temperatures will appear to be warm due to a complicated
turbulent process, not the greenhouse effect. The bottom line
is that traditional surface temperature is contaminated by such
effects and is not an accurate indicator of greenhouse warming.
When it comes to legislation or regulatory actions, there
really is nothing that will definitively alter whatever the
climate is going to do. However, I suspect there will be some
discernible economic consequences if energy costs rise.
As more CO2 is released back into the
atmosphere, there are benefits that are often overlooked. Most
notable of these is the invigoration of plant life on which we
and the rest of the animal world depend for food.
CO2 is fundamentally plant food, and therefore, our
food.
Today, carbon energy provides about 87 percent of the
world's energy demand. So, if CO2 is increasing,
that is an indicator that a nation is providing energy for its
people who then live longer, healthier, and more productive
lives. As someone who has lived in Africa, I can say that
energy--without energy, life is brutal and short. So this is a
goal of poor countries, to access energy.
I will close with this unpleasant thought. Demanding a
reduction in worldwide CO2 emissions without
affordable, reliable alternatives means reducing the hope for
prosperity of our fellow world citizens who are struggling to
escape their impoverished condition.
Thank you for your time. I will be happy to answer
questions that you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Christy follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much, Dr. Christy.
Now we are going to turn to our last witness on this first
panel, Dr. James McCarthy, Alexander Agassiz Professor of
Biological Oceanography, Museum of Comparative Zoology,
Harvard.
And we will expand your repertoire when we get to the
written record.
STATEMENT OF JAMES J. MCCARTHY, PH.D., ALEXANDER AGASSIZ
PROFESSOR OF BIOLOGICAL OCEANOGRAPHY, MUSEUM OF COMPARATIVE
ZOOLOGY, HARVARD UNIVERSITY
Mr. McCarthy. Thank you, Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member
Inhofe, and members of the Committee for your attention to the
important matter of climate change.
I wish today to talk about new evidence that we see in the
ocean for climate change and evidence of the ocean's response
to the changing conditions in the atmosphere as we are
increasing the insulation of the atmosphere with the addition
of greenhouse gases.
The first figure that we will show on the easel is a
checklist. It is a checklist that you might have imagined
assembling in the 1960s when people were first saying, well, if
greenhouse gases continue to increase, what would you expect to
be the indicators in climate. This was published in 2009, a
joint effort of NOAA and the American Meteorological Society.
If you could read those indicators, this is a figure that
is contained in my written testimony, it is Figure 1 in the
testimony as well; you would see that every indicator that you
would expect to change, and the direction it would change the
Earth through warming with the addition greenhouse gases is, in
fact, what we have observed.
Now, one of the interesting aspects of this that I wish to
spend a bit of time on today is how the deep ocean has changed.
The oceans are vast. The Pacific Ocean alone covers over 40
percent of the planet. The average depth is about 2 miles. And
so, as we hear a lot of talk about variation on land and the
measurement of land temperature, the ocean is sampled in a
different way. It has historically been sampled by ships, by
oceanographic vessels, but also by other ships that have done
routine measurements of ocean temperature and sometimes ocean
temperature at depth as well.
So, what was implemented in the early 2000s was a major new
effort to understand how the ocean heat content is changing at
great depth. If we could put up the second slide. This is also
from my written testimony; it is Figure 2 in the written
testimony.
What we now know from this array of about 3,500 buoys that
are moving around the oceans at all times covering all areas of
the ocean, areas that are not typically well sampled, is that
most of the heat that has been put into our Earth climate
system as a result of greenhouse gases is actually in the
ocean.
More importantly, these new sensing systems allow for
precise detection of how this is changing over time. And so
what we see is that the change over time in the deep ocean heat
content--and this is a graphic that I have in my written
testimony--has increased steadily over time, and we now know it
with increasing precision because of these buoys that are
moving about the world's oceans and constantly monitoring the
deep ocean heat content.
When I began my career in ocean science, most ocean
scientists could not have imagined that the deep ocean--which
we knew in many areas had been at constant temperature for
decades and even a century--would change in our lifetimes. We
now see it is everywhere.
Now, this has implications for sea level rise. It also
tells us, as we see this steady trend of increase in the ocean,
deep ocean heat content, that the noise and the signature on
land, and statements such as, well, it really hasn't warmed
much in the last 10 years, you can see that the ocean has
warmed steadily over the last 10 years. So, whereas on land
there are questions about where the observations are and local
variation, these get smoothed out in the ocean.
Now, I would like to turn to another subtle part of how
this all plays in. As the deep ocean warms, of course the ocean
continues to expand. As the mercury warming in the thermometer
rises, the ocean warms; it will rise.
If you look at the estimations of how sea level would rise
over time, estimations that would have been made a decade or
two ago, we did not have a really good understanding of how the
deep ocean was responding. We do now. So estimates of sea level
rise and projections of sea level rise are going to be much
more precise in the future.
Another term in sea level rise is the loss of ice from
glaciers in the Arctic and the Antarctic. Again, with satellite
measurements to inventory the amount of ice in Greenland and
Antarctica, we can now see very precisely how it is changing.
So this, in addition, gives us increased confidence and
understanding. You cannot project something, you cannot predict
a trend, unless you know what is causing it. But with these new
measurements now, in the ocean and with ice, we understand much
more than we did a decade ago about sea level rise.
We also note changes in Arctic sea ice are affecting
climate. Believe it or not, if you lose ice in the Arctic, you
can bring more cold air down into the center of the United
States. Papers published on this in the last couple of years
have shown the role of large undulations in the jet stream. You
have less ice in the Arctic, you lose the insulation. So the
ocean, the warm ocean, the moist ocean, loses heat and loses
moisture to the atmosphere. If that moves south to where we
are, we can actually get not only more snow but more cold
weather.
I would like to conclude then with a slide on sea level
rise. So 40 percent of the world's population lives about 60
miles from the coast. And we know that the rate of sea level
rise is increasing. We know that it is increasing now at a rate
of about three times what it did a century ago. And we know
that the projections made only a decade ago, very cautious
projections because we did not understand what was happening on
Greenland the way we do now, or the Antarctic, are going to
lead to higher projections of sea level rise going forward.
So, I would like to just conclude by pointing out that we
see that it is variable. The red area indicates where sea level
rising is occurring at the highest levels. And the reasons for
this have to do with ocean circulation.
Senator Boxer. If you could wrap it up.
Mr. McCarthy. I would just like to conclude by saying that
there is no debate that the Earth's temperature is increasing.
Over the last half-century, the atmosphere, land surface, ocean
surface, and deep ocean and ice loss in polar regions have all
confirmed this. And they can only be explained by the increase
in greenhouse gases. There is no scientific evidence that
refutes this conclusion.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McCarthy follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Boxer. Thank you very much.
I just want to say, on behalf of all of us, to all three of
you that we are so appreciative of your testimony today. Very
clear, I thought, and thought provoking.
So, we are going to start a series of questions, and then I
am going to keep the record open for a couple of days. Would
you all be willing to answer questions in writing? Because I
know I have so many I will not have time to ask them.
Senator Inhofe. Me, too.
Senator Boxer. And so does Senator Inhofe as well as
others. OK, so we will do that.
Mr. Christy, your written testimony cites a study by
Anthony Watts that claims to find bias in thermometer stations'
readings. Has this study been submitted to a journal for
publication or been through a peer review process?
Mr. Christy. Not to a journal yet.
Senator Boxer. OK. So, there has been a study, and you cite
it, that there is a bias in thermometer station readings. Do
you think people are lying about what they read, or are they
not presenting it right? That there is a bias in thermometer
station readings?
Mr. Christy. Right. The study simply put the category of
stations that have a lot of stuff around them in one category,
and a second category of uncluttered stations, they are rural,
and there is a significant difference between them.
Senator Boxer. OK.
Mr. Christy. There are other things that need to be done
yet.
Senator Boxer. So, who is guilty of this bias? Who is doing
this? Who is making a decision that leads to a bias?
Mr. Christy. I am sorry, of what?
Senator Boxer. You say that there is a bias in thermometer
stations' readings.
Mr. Christy. Oh.
Senator Boxer. Who is guilty of the bias? Who has the bias?
Mr. Christy. If the readings of the thermometers do not
take into account that clutter around the station, then there
is a bias in those----
Senator Boxer. By whom?
Mr. Christy. Thermometer readings are taken by the
traditional surface measurements up here.
Senator Boxer. Right.
Mr. Christy. Because those classification schemes have not
been applied to those----
Senator Boxer. How would you fix this problem?
Mr. Christy. Well, we are working on that right now.
Senator Boxer. OK.
Do you agree with that, Dr. Field, that there is a bias
here?
Mr. Field. NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, has a number of published studies on the
question of whether there any problems in the temperature
record from the U.S. weather stations and their studies have
consistently not been able to find any problem and consistently
indicate that the stations are accurately reflecting both the
underlying temperatures and the underlying temperature trends.
Senator Boxer. And has that been peer reviewed?
Mr. Field. Those are in the peer reviewed----
Senator Boxer. OK, so I think enough on that.
Mr. Christy. OK, there are no----
Senator Boxer. If I could just finish, then you can
respond.
When a study is not peer reviewed, you can understand why
some of us might be skeptical. Now, Dr. Christy, have you seen
this, Our Changing Climate 2012, Vulnerability and Adaptation
to the Increasing Risks from Climate Change in California? It
just came out. Are you familiar with it?
Mr. Christy. I am familiar with previous reports. I believe
I might have seen a draft of that.
Senator Boxer. This just came out yesterday. So, we will
make sure you see it. I am not going to ask you specifically
about what is in it. But I am going to tell you what it found.
What they say is the latest science on climate changes impacts
of California, dozens of scientists in over 30 peer reviewed
papers. It describes various climate change impacts including
increased temperatures, sea level rises, wildfire risk, and air
pollution levels.
Now, you live in California, in my State. Is that correct?
Mr. Christy. I am a native Californian.
Senator Boxer. All right. Where do you live now?
Mr. Christy. Alabama. I am the State Climatologist.
Senator Boxer. Oh, OK. So, you are there now. Well, I want
to tell you things are changing in our State if you do not know
that. Just your own eyes would tell you, the type of droughts,
the type of bark beetles, the types of problems that we are
having. And I am asking you, do you believe----
Mr. Christy. May I respond, Madam Chairman?
Senator Boxer. Do you believe that State and local
governments should ignore these overwhelming scientific
findings and stand idly by as the health and well-being of
their citizens are harmed when such a report comes out that is
peer reviewed?
And I will say to you, technical staff from all of the
agencies, outside scientific experts, 26 research teams and
other research groups produced 30 peer reviewed papers, and
they are warning the people of California what is going to
happen. And they are warning the agricultural industry and the
tourist industry. Do you think we should just say let us just
wait and see?
Mr. Christy. I suspect they did not include my peer
reviewed papers in there that do not show the changes in
snowfall and Central California temperatures and so on----
Senator Boxer. So you----
Mr. Christy [continuing]. Show the contamination in those
peer reviewed papers. I bet they did not use those.
Senator Boxer. Well, let me just say this. You stand with
about 2 or 3 percent of scientists, is that right, in your
conclusions?
Mr. Christy. The question, that comes from a study of 77
people. And I suspect, if I were asked the question, I would
have been on the majority because the question was very
milquetoast. It was, do you think climate change is occurring?
Do you think the world is warming? Well, virtually everyone
agrees with that, that climate change is always occurring.
Senator Boxer. So you think it is. You think it is. So, do
you think that we should take action since you do not doubt
that the planet is warming?
Mr. Christy. Well, as a scientist I would ask the question
what action do you want to take? I will test it to see if it
will make a difference. And as I have done throughout all of my
career----
Senator Boxer. OK, well that is a step forward that you
say----
Mr. Christy. Those changes will not make a difference.
Senator Boxer [continuing]. That global warming is
occurring. I think that is a very important point.
So, I really do want to be a little California-centric
here. We do represent 38 million people in our State.
My last question is to Dr. Field. In California in 2010,
agriculture had revenues of $37.5 billion, and tourism
supported nearly 900,000 jobs and $90 billion in direct
spending. That is why this type of peer reviewed report is so
critical to our people.
So, I am asking you if you believe, unless we can turn
things around, should we expect more frequent and intensive
extreme weather that could impact these types of key economic
sectors?
Mr. Field. Thank you, Senator Boxer. As I said in my
testimony, the conclusion from the latest IPCC report is really
clear. A change in climate leads to change in the risks of
extremes. We are already seeing increases in extremes, and we
are seeing increasing risks of the kind of extremes that can
lead to weather and climate disasters, the kinds of weather and
climate disasters that can have profound effects on
agriculture, on industry and on infrastructure.
Senator Boxer. So, in just concluding my discussion with
you, Doctor, I thought your testimony was clear. You said you
are sure about three things. You were not sure about
everything. But the three things, and I can to remember them,
was higher temperatures and higher sea level, and the third
one?
Mr. Field. We are seeing increases in the record so far of
increases in extremes related to high temperatures, increases
in the fraction of rainfall that is falling in the heaviest
precipitation events, and increases in extreme events that are
connected to high sea level, basically storm surge.
Senator Boxer. OK. Thank you very much.
Senator Inhofe.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Let me, first of all, ask unanimous consent to place into
the record an article that completely discredits the Perkins
Institute article that was referred to. It is from the New York
Times, entitled Number of Green Jobs Fails to Live up to
Promises. Part of the record, please.
Senator Boxer. It was the Brookings Institute, not the
Perkins Institute, but I will put it into the record.
[The referenced information was not received at time of
print.]
Senator Inhofe. The second thing I want to do, I think
everyone on the other side of the aisle referred to Richard
Muller, and I think it is important that we realize that
perhaps he has been somewhat discredited. Roger Pelkey, Sr.,
said it certainly appears that Richard Muller is an attention
getter which he has succeeded at, unfortunately he has
demonstrated a remarkable lack of knowledge concerning the
uncertainties in qualifying the actual long-term surface
temperature trend, as well as a serious incomplete knowledge of
the climate facts. The bigger issue is how the New York Times
let itself be conned into running Muller's op-ed.
Second, the one who is the darling of everybody to the left
of me right now, Michael Mann, he said it seems in the end
quite sadly that it is all really about Richard Muller's self-
aggrandizement.
Senator Boxer. We will put that into the record.
Senator Inhofe. Very good, very good.
Now, let me just briefly, because there is not going to be
enough time to get to everything I would like to, but as I
mentioned early in my opening statement there is a confidence
problem, crisis, in the U.N. IPCC. A lot of people are not even
using that anymore.
Yet it is important because, if you remember, as the Obama
administration said, the IPCC is the gold standard. So, we need
to recognize what has happened, and I would only ask, I think
everyone on this panel has said some things that it needs
reform, and a lot of reform efforts have taken place.
In my opening statement, we talk about the discrediting of
the IPCC which I have been talking about, quite frankly, for 10
years. So I would ask you, Dr. Christy, do you think now that
the changes that you are have seen, that are in the process of
being made, are going to clean up the credibility of the IPCC?
Mr. Christy. Well, I have not seen the 2013 report yet. But
I do not suspect much will change. When you collect a bunch of
people who have the same, pretty much the same view, about
climate change and exclude those who have different views, you
will get the answer you want.
Senator Inhofe. Yes. And I think you have probably looked
on my Web site and some of the talks that I have made on the
floor where we have actually had scientists calling in and
saying how they were rejected from the process because of their
views. So, I think it has been biased all along from the very
beginning.
A lot of people believe that today's hearing is an effort
to capitalize on the recent weather events of the summer in an
attempt to reignite the global warming hysteria. And I would
note that when I--put the igloo up. Now, to the right of the
igloo is a beautiful family. Those are six of my--I have 20
kids and grandkids, those are six of them. They were up here
stranded in Washington a couple of years ago because of extreme
weather, and all of the airports were closed.
But at that time I never said or implied anything, just
because it was a very cold winter, that that had anything to do
with discrediting global warming. And so, I think it is
important that if one scientist who was interviewed in response
to the igloo my family built called attempts to link single
weather events to longer term climate patterns complete,
ignorant nonsense. Nevertheless, there have been those on the
outside who have tried to say this is the pattern.
I do not think that there is, I have said this on the
Senate floor, I believe I would say to my good friend, Senator
Sanders, that one area where all scientists should agree, that
one pattern, or a cluster pattern, is not indicative of
anthropogenic gas, global warming. And I believe that to be
true.
So, Dr. Christy, do you have anything to say about this?
Because this is what is going on right now. As a matter of
fact, in an interview in my State of Oklahoma, they are saying,
we are having very hot weather. My wife even called in a
comment on that when I was on the floor with Senator Sanders.
So I would like to have you kind of explain what your feeling
is concerning weather versus climate.
Mr. Christy. I think the clearest way to answer that is to
look at a lot of stations and see when their record highs
occur. And if you look again at my written testimony, Figure
1.3, it is very clear that our record extreme high temperatures
are not increasing, that decades in the past had many more when
the stations are consistently used. Not just stations with 30
years of record, stations with 100 years of record that picked
up those heat waves of the 1920s and 1930s.
Senator Inhofe. Well, let me just ask you another question.
On the floor of the Senate on Monday I was doing this, and I
have done it so much I can do it from memory, but going through
the last hundred or so years, from 1895 to 1925 we had a period
of about 30 years where it was-- people were saying another ice
age is coming; we are all going to die. And that when hysteria
set in.
Then from 1925 to 1945 we went through a warming period,
and that is when the phrase global warming was actually coined,
at that time. Then from 1945 to 1975 we went into another ice
age, so-called. That is when the National Academy of Sciences
said.
No, you went an extra minute and a half so I am doing the
same thing.
Senator Boxer. I know, you are asking a question----
Senator Inhofe. I am asking a question. I will get an
answer in a minute.
And the interesting thing about all of these things, of
going through this, is that no one disagrees with the fact that
the greatest surge in the release of CO2 occurred
after World War II, around 1945. Why did that precipitate a 30-
year ice age as opposed to a warming period?
Mr. Christy. Well, about that I will say this. Our
ignorance of the climate system is enormous. And I think you
all need to understand that.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you very much.
Mr. Christy. We cannot predict much at all.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Boxer. I just want you to know I do remember when
you did that, and you invited Al Gore to come and live in that
house.
Senator Inhofe. It actually slept four people.
Senator Boxer. I remember it very clearly because the
headline the next day, ABC News, was Inhofe Uses Blizzard to
Refute Global Warming.
[Laughter.]
Senator Boxer. February 11, 2010. But that was a headline.
And I think it is important for us to realize that it is
absolutely true, it is not the weather; it is the climate.
Senator Inhofe. I do not think anyone at this table is
going to have a problem with a headline that some biased
reporter might use.
Senator Sanders. Madam Chairman.
Senator Boxer. Just a moment. OK? Just relax, Senator.
Senator Sanders. I am relaxed.
Senator Boxer. Well, you are not. You keep telling me this
one, that one. We will continue this in a civil way, and we
will not descend into saying one thing and then have the facts
disprove it, because you have to make a point if the facts
disprove what you say.
Senator Sanders. Thank you.
I wanted to, because I believe that my good friend, and he
is a good friend, and he is honest and he is sincere, Jim
Inhofe, is in a sense the ideological leader of the Republicans
on this issue, I am going to do my best to quote Senator Inhofe
on his views of this issue. And Jim, if I am misquoting you, I
want you to tell me. I am going to do my best to get you as
accurate as I can, and I want the members of the panel to tell
me whether Senator Inhofe is right or whether or not the
scientific community disagrees with him.
Now, Senator Inhofe has said repeatedly, recently just the
other day on the floor of the Senate and in his book, which I
am reading, I am reading it, he gave it to me very kindly, and
I am going to read every word of it, he said that in his view
global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the
American people.
Now, my understanding is that NOAA says that global average
surface temperatures have increased 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit
since 1900. NASA says the global average surface temperatures
of this planet have increased by 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit since
1880. Dr. Richard Muller recently wrote an article in which he
said that the planet has warmed 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit over the
last 250 years.
So either NASA, NOAA and many other scientists are correct
in stating that the planet is warming, or perhaps Senator
Inhofe is correct that global warming is a hoax.
Senator Inhofe. Just for a moment here. Stop the clock
because I do not want to use----
Senator Boxer. Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa.
Senator Inhofe. Well, he asked me the question, Madam
Chairman.
Senator Boxer. Would you like the Senator to yield for a
question?
Senator Inhofe. Yes.
Senator Sanders. I would ask unanimous consent, I am going
to yield. But I ask that it not be taken out of my time.
Senator Boxer. Absolutely.
Senator Inhofe. The original statement was that the notion
that anthropogenic gases are causing catastrophic global
warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American
people.
Senator Sanders. OK.
Senator Inhofe. So, it was, that is a little addition to
the definition.
Senator Sanders. OK, thank you.
OK, so here is my question, very briefly because we do not
have a lot of time, to the three scientists in front of us. Is
the scientific community correct in believing that global
warming is real? Or is Senator Inhofe correct in believing that
global warming is a hoax?
Dr. Field.
Mr. Field. The scientific community is as close to unified
as it is on anything ever in that global warming is
unequivocal.
Senator Sanders. Dr. Christy, is global warming real or is
it a hoax?
Mr. Christy. In the political context in which that was
stated, I think I understand that it is overstated as a
political issue.
Senator Sanders. Is global warming real or is it a hoax?
Mr. Christy. The world has warmed in the past 120 years.
Senator Sanders. Pardon me?
Mr. Christy. The world has warmed in the past 120 years.
Senator Sanders. It has warmed in the last 120 years?
Mr. Christy. Yes.
Senator Sanders. So, those of us who believe in global
warming, are we perpetrating a hoax?
Mr. Christy. I think the question is how much is due to
human effects, and can you do anything about it. That is the
question.
Senator Sanders. OK.
Dr. McCarthy, is global warming a hoax?
Mr. McCarthy. It is unequivocal the earth is warming, and I
think the evidence that humans are contributing to it is also
unequivocal.
Senator Sanders. OK, next question. And again, I do not
want to misquote my good friend. I would never do that. Senator
Inhofe, he is very sincere about this. But we cannot have a
debate unless we are being honest with each other.
Senator Inhofe said to NBC News in an interview in July
2010, ``We are in a cycle now that all the scientists agree is
going into a cooling period.'' Then, on the Senate floor on
July 11th, Senator Inhofe said, ``We went into a warming period
that went up to the turn of the century. Now it is actually
going down into a cooling period again.''
I believe Senator Inhofe just referred a few moments ago to
a recent period where we were going into an ice age. Question
to the members of the panel. Senator Inhofe has suggested that
we are in a cooling period since the year 2001. Others have
testified that we are seeing a significant increase in
temperature. Is Senator Inhofe right that we are in a cooling
period over the last 10 or 11 years?
Dr. Field.
Mr. Field. There is no indication of any change in the rate
of warming of the earth system over the last 10 years.
Senator Sanders. Are we getting warmer, or are we going
into a cooling period?
Mr. Field. Dr. McCarthy shared the conclusive evidence
about the increased heat that is being accumulated in the
oceans.
Senator Sanders. OK.
Dr. Christy.
Mr. Christy. It depends on what year you start and what
year you end, but basically----
Senator Sanders. Since 2001.
Mr. Christy. That has been pretty flat in terms of
temperature.
Senator Sanders. You do not--OK.
Dr. McCarthy.
Mr. McCarthy. This last decade is the warmest on record.
And if you look at the ocean cycles, particularly El Nino, you
can understand that indeed this decade is also warming at about
the same rate as earlier decades.
Senator Sanders. Dr. Christy, you disagree with Dr.
McCarthy?
Mr. Christy. Oh, yes. In fact, I showed it in the chart.
Senator Sanders. OK, thank you.
All right, next question. Getting back to the point that
Senator Inhofe just made----
Senator Inhofe. Could I just interrupt and ask you a
question at this point?
Senator Sanders. Could you let me--I would appreciate it if
you would let me ask my questions, then I would be happy to
take any questions----
Senator Boxer. Well, if I could just say, we still have
colleagues that have questions. We are not going to have any
more interruptions.
Senator Sanders. OK. Senator Inhofe says global warming is
the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people, and
he had some ideas about who the perpetrators are. In an
interview with this book, about his recent book, which was done
with Craig Bannister, this is what he says.
Mr. Bannister says, now why do you call the global warming
hoax a conspiracy? Senator Inhofe says, well, it is a hoax and
a conspiracy, Craig, because they try to make it appear that we
are all going to die if we do not line up and do what they
want, what they tell us to do, in terms of anthropogenic gases,
when in fact you have a bunch of people, you have the Al Gores,
the George Soros, the MoveOn.org, the whole Hollywood elite
group and all of them trying to run everyone else's lives.
And this is what their motivation is. To make people, for
the kids, for example, make little kids and school kids believe
that the world is coming to an end, and it is all man's fault,
and it is all the fault primarily of the wealthier nations, and
this is part of the hoax.
Question: Do you believe that global warming is a hoax
being pushed by the United Nations, Al Gore, George Soros, the
whole Hollywood elite and MoveOn.org?
Dr. Field.
Mr. Field. Global warming is certainly not a hoax.
Senator Sanders. Dr. Christy.
Mr. Christy. That question, I do not know how to answer. I
would just say the global warming issue is highly overblown
from what you look at real, hard core----
Senator Sanders. Do you think the U.N. is engaging, and the
Hollywood elite and Al Gore and all of these guys are pushing--
--
Mr. Christy. I am not going to go to the motives of these
people.
Senator Sanders. OK. Fine.
Dr. McCarthy.
Mr. McCarthy. There is no hoax. There is no conspiracy.
Senator Boozman. Madam Chair, point of order.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Boozman. Madam Chair.
Senator Boxer. Yes.
Senator Boozman. I was under the impression that if a
member in questioning mentions another member's name that he
does have the right to respond. Is that correct or not?
Senator Boxer. Well, we do not have any such stated rules.
But as you know, I did allow a couple of interruptions here.
And if Senator Inhofe wants to take another round, we can all
have another round.
Senator Boozman. But I do think that is fair, I mean, in
the sense that----
Senator Boxer. I will call on Senator Inhofe, but I would
like to say we do not have any rules. We try to do this in a
collegial way.
Senator Inhofe, I will give you 2 minutes.
Senator Inhofe. I do not need 2 minutes. I would only say
this. The key to the question which was corrected by Senator
Sanders is that anthropogenic gases is causing this. I would
hope that when you get to the chapter on the United Nations
that you read it very carefully, and then you and I can visit
about that.
I ask unanimous consent that we include in the record at
this point a statement that is by someone on your side of this
issue, Jim Lovelock, who made the statement that the world has
not warmed up very much in the millennium, 12 years is a
reasonable time. And he goes on to say yes, it has leveled off
now. So, there are other scientific opinions which are
expressed in this document.
[The referenced information was not received at time of
print.]
Senator Boxer. Thank you. Thank you very much. We are going
to try to get through this a little bit faster here if we can.
So we are going to turn now to Senator Sessions.
Senator Sessions. Let us go over this chart because we have
a desperate, an aggressive, let me say, attempt to take weather
difficulties and extreme events to paint a picture of climate
change occurring in an unprecedented degree.
Dr. Christy, if we are having extreme weather events, it
would seem to me that record lows and record highs would
indicate that. Is that correct? One of the implications?
Mr. Christy. Yes. If someone claims that, it is a claim
that can be tested. I have heard the claim.
Senator Sessions. Now, this chart that indicates clearly,
if you can see it, the blue represents record low temperatures;
the red represents record high temperatures since the 1890s.
And you have taken--you have looked at stations that have been
in existence for at least 80 years. Is that correct?
Mr. Christy. Yes.
Senator Sessions. Is it not true that if you take a station
that has been in existence for 25 years you could have a high
but it would be only within that, at that station, over a 25-
year period?
Mr. Christy. That was the fallacy of all of these reports
this year, that they used stations with only 30, 35, 40 years
of data that did not include the 1930s and 1920s. And so you
had all of these record highs.
Senator Sessions. So, in the 1930s, we did not have nearly
as much CO2 in the atmosphere as we have today?
Mr. Christy. That is right.
Senator Sessions. Would you just explain to me, this is
rather dramatic, since 1960 through today according to your
data which takes NOAA's temperature records State by State,
every single decade, this is not 1 year but every decade, there
have been more cold lows than there have been warm highs. Is
that correct?
Mr. Christy. That is not consistent with what someone would
want if warming were to occur. But as I say, and we talked
earlier, extremes are pretty poor metric to use to claim
something about climate change.
Senator Sessions. I would just want to say that that is a
cause of concern as we as policymakers are asked to invest
trillions of dollars of taxpayers' money. We need to consider
whether or not this event is actually occurring and whether we
just have more TV and weather channels that give more attention
to these storms. We see the forest fires on the television. It
does not mean we did not have forest fires previously. A forest
fire is no proof of global warming. Give me a break.
But this is more troubling. Senator Inhofe has been
attacked here. He said years ago--as a lone voice, frankly, I
remember him speaking out--that he had doubts about these
projections. And you expressed doubts about these projections--
climate computer models--in your testimony before the Committee
when I was on it years ago.
Would you explain what is happening in that chart and why
that is an important chart?
Mr. Christy. OK, this is about as simple as you can get.
The black line is the average of the 34 latest IPCC climate
models. The blue and red lines are two independent satellite
temperature data sets. So, we are comparing apples to apples by
starting in the same period and going forward in time. And you
see that the temperatures have leveled off in the past 12 or 13
years when you look at this average, significantly different
from what models say.
Senator Sessions. So the policy we have been asked to set
over the last 15 years in the Congress have been based on the
computer models, I would say. I mean, we have been told by the
IPCC and other climate experts that these computers were
predicting a dramatic increase in temperature. I would just say
that the dramatic increase in temperature has not occurred, it
seems to me, and I believe it calls on us all to be a bit
cautious.
Can CO2 increase temperature? I would think
there is some logic to that theory. It could be a blanketing
greenhouse gas. But how much can we hammer working Americans
with extreme electric bills and other costs for gasoline to try
to confront the issue? This is a question that all of us have
to wrestle with. And I believe Dr. Christy's testimony is
accurate. I believe Senator Inhofe, whose skepticism has been
courageously stated for a long time, has been proven more
accurate than a lot of the scientists who have produced these
models to date.
Thank you.
Senator Boxer. I will call on Senator Cardin.
He is not here, so I will call on Senator Lautenberg.
Senator Lautenberg. Thanks, Madam Chairman.
We are getting a semantic debate going here, as well as a
review of science. And I wonder, there is quite a difference
between a projection and a hoax. Projection is done in honest
form by reading from whatever instruments or data one receives.
But a hoax is a produced action to deceive people. None of you
teach English but I know that you speak it very well.
And so what happened around here is there has been an
attempt to discredit science, and it goes on continually to try
and make a case for disbelieving what is in front of you.
Dr. McCarthy, in 2009 a hacker stole a number of e-mails
from the climate change scientists. Conservatives, Republican
news media have seized upon these e-mails to attack efforts to
address climate change. Are you aware that anything was
uncovered in those e-mails that undermined the scientific
consensus on climate change?
Mr. McCarthy. Thank you, Senator. Indeed, there was a lot
of press as you described, and it prompted a number of
investigations. There were investigations conducted by
Parliament in the U.K. since that is where the server was
based, and that is where the theft presumably occurred.
There were investigations conducted by our National Science
Foundation in this country because the National Science
Foundation supported much of this work, through investigations
conducted by all the universities in which the scientists who
were involved in these exchanges of e-mail resigned. And none
of those investigations found that there was any reason to
question the science that was in play and discussed in these
various matters.
There were questions about access to the data, the
scientists were being harassed by people wanting their data,
wanting their code, and there were questions about some really
lousy papers that had been published and through the peer
review process would not have to be dealt with in a very, very
protracted way. But the science stands unaffected by any of the
investigations. No fault was found. The scientists were guilty
of bad manners.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you.
Dr. Christy, your research on satellite temperature has
often been used to challenge the reliability of climate change
models. However, your research was shown to be wrong.
Specifically, you failed to make the right adjustments for
satellite orbit and other factors when analyzing the
temperature data.
Once those errors were corrected, the satellite data
confirmed the warming trend. Did your personal views regarding
climate change affect your views of the research?
Mr. Christy. No. First of all, I disagree with his view of
Climategate, but we will go on to your question. Science is the
process of getting to the best answer through time. Our data
set changed by less than the error margin we had published
already. And so even today our data set has a more warming
trend than one of the other satellite data sets. So, that did
not change because the errors were relatively small.
Senator Lautenberg. Relatively small. Well, they seemed to
raise quite a degree of doubt in the scientific community that
your analysis that the changes were relatively small; I do not
think it is the popular view. So, you are entitled to your own
bias, if you will.
Dr. McCarthy, you do a lot with the ocean, obviously, and
its ability to encapsulate the information of change that we
are seeing. What has happened up in the Arctic and the
Antarctic? And has there been any effect of climate change in
these regions?
Mr. McCarthy. The Arctic has changed profoundly. I show
graphs in my written testimony of the loss of sea ice in the
Arctic. The data is only really precise since 1980, but we are
setting new records already in June and July of this year for a
low sea ice extent in the Arctic.
Also, you would expect this warming to affect ice on
Greenland, and it certainly is, not only by warming the
atmosphere but also warming of the ocean. The Petermann Glacier
slide that Senator Boxer showed, this is a tidewater glacier.
The glacial tongue sticks out into the ocean. And these are the
glaciers that are retreating most rapidly because the ocean is
warming.
So, yes, Greenland and Antarctica are both losing ice. The
warming ocean is eating away at the tidewater glaciers so they
are retreating very quickly, and sea ice is being lost in the
central Arctic because of a warmer atmosphere.
Senator Lautenberg. In a trip that I made with some of my
colleagues here to Greenland, and ultimately I went down to the
South Pole, and species mammals had radical changes in their
population over this period of time. And they are ocean
dependent. Are those real changes or are we imagining these?
Mr. McCarthy. The first slide I showed had 10 physical
indicators. We could have a whole other chart that showed
biological indicators. On every planet right now, every planet,
excuse me, every continent on this planet, we have one planet,
unfortunately, only one, every continent on this planet you are
seeing changes in the distribution of organisms which are
indicative of a change in climate. And the direction they are
changing, whether it is their range or their time of migration
or flowering, are consistent with the local changes which in
many cases are warmer, wetter, or drier. And we are seeing
similar trends in the ocean.
Senator Lautenberg. Madam Chairman, I did not mean to run
over, but I thought since the disputation that was going on
here took some time that I would have some license to do it.
Senator Boxer. You have your license, Senator.
Senator Lautenberg. One license more, and that is, how come
the things we are seeing are not really there? This is the
mystery that we are facing here.
Thank you very much.
Senator Boxer. Yes. That is interesting.
[Laugher.]
Senator Boxer. Senator Boozman, you have the last
questions.
Senator Boozman. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Again, Senator Lautenberg suggested that what we are seeing
is not really there. As scientists, you do not really think in
those terms, do you? In the sense of trying to correlate what
is going on this summer with a pattern? Is that correct?
Senator Boxer. Who are you asking it to?
Senator Boozman. Just whoever wants to jump in.
Mr. Field. The scientific method is a spectacularly
powerful tool for extracting inference, and on top of that the
process of doing these assessments is a wonderful way to sort
through all of the published literature. What we do is make
observations, interpret, sort through, and present through the
peer view process.
Senator Boozman. I guess my point is that is a lot hotter
in Arkansas this summer than it was last summer. Many centuries
ago it was a lot colder, during the ice age, whatever caused
that, than it is now. I guess what I am saying is that it is
dangerous to really infer, and you can correct me from just
what is going on this summer as compared to the whole deal.
One thing that bothers me a little bit is that there is
really a tendency, I am hearing, and we are not going to be
able to decide whether exactly what is going on today or who is
causing it or this or that, but I am bothered when I hear
scientists say it is this way or that way. OK? In the sense
that we can recount throughout history, and throughout recent
history, all kinds of times when the scientific community was
completely in agreement that this or that was that way and it
was not that way. So, I do think as scientists we really do
need to continually, the statements, it is this way or that
way, are not really helpful.
When I was in high school I was told that we would be out
of our natural gas in 20 years. We have got more natural gas
now than ever. OK? Y2K. I am sure that all of you adjusted your
computers, and the scientific community agreed completely that
if we did not adjust our computers at the time it was true that
we going to have all of this stuff gone. But the reality is no
computer any place caused any problem.
So I do think that as we discuss these things, it is
dangerous, it is this way, period. And I am really hearing some
of that from some of you all.
My question is, the dilemma that we have is if this is
manmade, how do we respond to that? In Arkansas, electricity
would rise by, if we went to cap and trade, which was suggested
by some here, electricity would rise $1,358 a year and $1.27
per gallon increase in gasoline prices. The question is, what
does that do to our single moms? What does it do to our people
on fixed incomes? What does it do to our economy?
And so what we are grasping with, and you all can be
helpful, even if it were true, that we are in a global warming
situation because of CO2, what could possibly be
done that would counter that in a sense especially with China,
India, places like that not going along with it, which they
have said they will not.
Yes, sir.
Mr. Christy. I would just say on the other side of that is,
would that have any effect on the climate anyway?
Senator Boozman. Yes, that is my point.
Mr. Christy. The answer is no, that is so minuscule as to
be so undetectable and unpredictable and unattributable.
Senator Boozman. And have you two, go ahead, sir, have you
done any research that says if we do this or that that this or
that is going to happen, and it is worth the $1,300 a year and
$1.27 in gasoline----
Senator Sanders. Would the gentleman yield? And contribute
time to him. Just for one question. Where do you get that,
where do those numbers come from? Those are not numbers that I
am familiar with nor do I agree with.
Senator Boozman. It is a study from David Kreutzer, Ph.D.,
Senior Policy Analyst in Energy, Economics and Climate Change,
and Karen Campbell, Ph.D., William W. Beach, Director of the
Center for Data Analysis Energy and Environment and Nicolas
Loris.
Senator Sanders. You have one study then, Senator, that
says that other studies would disagree?
Senator Boozman. But I have no reason to, I think everyone
during the discussion of cap and trade, energy trade would go
up significantly and that was the mechanism of controlling the
use of energy.
Senator Inhofe. And that is what the President said.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Field. Senator, thank you for the question. And it is a
great question. What is important to recognize is that what we
are trying to do is provide sufficient information for
policymakers to make good decisions, to try to figure out ways
to avoid the damages that come from the climate change without
providing unacceptable costs to the rest of society.
And we are really trying to find smart ways to move
forward, recognizing what is happening, recognizing what the
risks are, and that there are consequences of using the
atmosphere as a dump for greenhouse gases, just the same way
there are consequences of making changes in the economy that
are intended to alleviate those damages.
The estimates from the IPCC indicate that the cost of
stabilizing atmospheric CO2 at something like 550
ppm could be anywhere from a net benefit to the economy to
resulting in something like in 2050 that we would reach a level
of wealth 1 year later than we would otherwise do it.
Senator Boxer. OK. Wow. Very intense conversation. And I
want to thank colleagues.
I am going to ask unanimous consent to place in the record
a chart based on NOAA temperatures that directly refutes
Senator Sessions' chart. So then we will have two charts, one
that shows that since 1950, well, since 1990, there have been
more record highs than record lows, all the way to the present.
So, we will put that in and we can look at both of those and
see which one we agree with.
Senator Sanders. Madam Chairman, a unanimous consent----
Senator Boxer. Yes, go ahead.
Senator Sanders [continuing]. To place into the record,
just in response to my friend Senator Boozman, a study done by
McKinsey Consultants which says U.S. can meet entire 2020
emissions target with efficiency in cogeneration while lowering
the nation's energy bill $700 billion.
[The referenced information was not received at time of
print.]
Senator Boxer. OK. Well, I think what is important----
Senator Sessions. Madam Chairman.
Senator Boxer. Yes, sir.
Senator Sessions. I was just going to offer for the
record----
Senator Boxer. Yes, please go ahead.
Senator Sessions [continuing]. The recent Wall Street
Journal article by a number of respected scientists who say
that we should not be panicking about global warming and point
out many of the problems with the theory.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Boxer. OK. And I would just clarify for the record,
I am not panicked about global warming. I just feel that
Congress is the only place that seems to just shrug its
shoulders, and even though admitting that it is occurring, does
not really want to do much about it.
I will also place in the record several studies that
confirm that, in essence, at the end of the day our consumers
will save a lot of money once they have energy efficiency put
into place and we have, we are energy independent, independent
of the nations that do not like us very much. Once that
happens, we will see a reduction in costs for the individual.
[The referenced information was not received at time of
print.]
Senator Boxer. I want to thank all of you scientists for
being here. We greatly appreciate this. And we will call you
back because we are going to keep on this as long as it takes
to get some action here in the U.S. Senate.
And Senator Inhofe has something for the record.
Senator Inhofe. For the record, I would like to have the
report that shows, it came from a number of universities, that
if we were to do the cap and trade as has been described in
several pieces of legislation, the cost to the American people
would be between $300 billion and $400 billion a year, which is
10 times greater than the tax increase of 1993.
Senator Boxer. OK. And I would put into the record a direct
refutation of that.
So, we start off, unfortunately, where we left off, which
is the Republican side denying and saying even if they agree,
let us not doing anything about this----
Senator Sessions. Well, we could agree on something, Madam
Chair----
Senator Boxer. Yes, go ahead, tell me.
Senator Sessions [continuing]. And that is I have, and I
think most Republicans, have voted for mileage improvements and
efficiencies. Many of us have supported, at times, ethanol
expansion and those kinds of things because we can do those
scientifically, and it makes sense for everybody. So, here is
an area that we can agree. And if CO2 is causing an
increase in temperatures, all of these steps will help
alleviate it.
Senator Boxer. Absolutely.
Senator Sessions. It is just a question of how much we can
afford to spend, and that is where the dispute is. Thank you
for letting me say that.
Senator Boxer. Well, I like what you just said, and I think
there is room for it. So, why do we not continue that
conversation together, Senator Sessions. Are you willing to do
that, sit down and talk about those various energy
efficiencies, fuel efficiencies? All right, we will do it.
Thank you very much.
And thanks again to the panel.
We will go to our next panel. We are going to have to do
more about the gavel on this one.
Secretary John Griffin, Maryland Department of Natural
Resources, Dr. Margo Thorning, Senior Vice President and Chief
Economist, American Council for Capital Formation, Dr. Jonathan
Fielding, Director, Los Angeles County Department of Public
Health, National Association of County and City Officials.
We are going to have to move this quickly, so if our new
witnesses could take their seats. I want to thank them for
their patience.
I know Senator Cardin wants to introduce his witness from
his State, so why do you not go ahead, Senator Cardin.
Senator Cardin. Madam Chair, while they are getting
situated, let me welcome Secretary John Griffin. He has had a
long and distinguished career in our State. He has been one of
the architects of the Chesapeake Bay Program that this
Committee has heard me talk about on frequent occasions.
Maryland has been one of the leaders in developing sensible
plans to deal with our environment.
I particularly want to acknowledge the leadership of the
O'Malley administration. Secretary Griffin chairs the
Adaptation and Response Working Group for the Maryland
Commission on Climate Change. We believe that Maryland will
give examples of what we can use as a national model to deal
with the realities of the new norm on climate change and deal
with changes we need to make for public safety and for our
future. We are a coastal State, and we need to deal with the
risks. And our nation needs to have good policies.
I want to thank Secretary Griffin for being here.
Senator Boxer. Thank you very much, sir.
With that, we will open it up with Secretary Griffin. I am
going to use this gavel a little stronger because we have got
some meetings at 12:30. So, go ahead.
STATEMENT OF JOHN B. GRIFFIN, SECRETARY,
MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Mr. Griffin. Chairman Boxer, Senator Cardin, thanks for
that kind introduction, distinguished members of the Committee
of Environment and Public Works, I am pleased to be here today
to discuss with you the importance of taking precautionary, cos
effective, and common sense actions now to reduce our
vulnerability to the current and future impacts of climate
change.
I guess I should also say that I bring warm greetings from
Governor Martin O'Malley.
I was asked today to share with this Committee our efforts
in Maryland to respond and adapt to the impacts of climate
change. Before I do so, though, I wanted to highlight some of
the impacts that we are observing and dealing with right now in
our State.
Sea level rise. We have documented a sea level rise of 1
foot over the last century due to the combination of land
subsidence and global sea level rise, and an additional 3 to 4
feet is projected by the end of this century, increasing our
vulnerabilities to strong events, causing more frequent and
severe flooding, more shoreline erosion, saltwater intrusion
into our drinking water aquifers, and higher water tables.
A recent study you may have seen from the U.S. Geological
Survey identified the stretch of coast running from Cape
Hatteras to a little bit north of Boston as a hot spot for sea
level rise caused by global warming. Since 1990 USGS found that
sea levels along this stretch, which includes, obviously,
Maryland, are rising at an annual rate three or four times
faster than the global average.
Shoreline erosion. Maryland is currently losing
approximately 580 acres of land per year to shore erosion, and
alarmingly 13 Chesapeake Bay islands once mapped on nautical
charts have already disappeared beneath the water's surface. A
2008 report by the National Wildlife Federation calculated that
an additional 400,000 acres of land on Chesapeake's Eastern
Shore, that is basically Maryland and Virginia, could gradually
be submerged.
Waterfront property along our thousands of miles of tidal
shoreline put billions of dollars of public and private
investment at risk of loss. For example, approximately 450
State-owned facilities, and close to 400 miles of State
highways, are located in areas that are most vulnerable to
impacts from sea level rise.
Water temperature increases. Since 1960 the Chesapeake
Bay's water temperature has increased 2.8 degrees Fahrenheit.
One example of the impact of this change is a decline in
eelgrass, an underwater grass that provides critical habitat
for fish and juvenile crabs. Scientists expect that eelgrass
will very likely be eliminated in the not too distant future
from the Chesapeake and our seaside bays because of rising
water temperatures.
Impact on Chesapeake Bay restoration. We were also very
concerned about the consequences of climate change impacts on
the health of the Chesapeake Bay. As shorelines erode, marshes
are lost, and forests are flooded, the amount of nutrients and
sediments entering the Chesapeake Bay will increase and set us
back on our efforts to restore the health of the bay and all
the commendable work that Senator Cardin and this Committee
have done to help us in the bay region restore the bay.
What is Maryland doing to adapt? In 2007, shortly after he
was elected in his first term, Governor O'Malley established
the Maryland Commission on Climate Change. The commission about
a year later did its original report laying out factions to
address not only the drivers of climate change but also how we
will adapt and respond to those impacts. Our department, as was
mentioned by Senator Cardin, has been leading the adaptation
work.
Maryland enacted, in 2009, the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Act
which commits the State to reducing greenhouse gas emissions
over a baseline of 2006 by 25 percent by 2020. And the Climate
Action Plan produced by the Commission also has identified, in
two reports, a series of actions that ought to be taken by the
State and its local governments to prepare for and adapt to
climate change.
Let me just share with you a few of the changes that we are
doing at the moment----
Senator Boxer.Doctor, I am going to have to ask you to put
those into the record, because we will get to you with the
questions.
Mr. Griffin. That is fine. I would be happy to do so.
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Griffin follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Boxer. Now, I am very proud to welcome Dr. Jonathan
Fielding, Director, Los Angeles County Department of Public
Health, National Association of County and City Health
Officials.
Thank you, sir.
STATEMENT OF JONATHAN FIELDING, M.D., MPH, MBA, DIRECTOR, LOS
ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF COUNTY AND CITY HEALTH OFFICIALS
Dr. Fielding. Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member Inhofe, and
members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to
speak. I am Jonathan Fielding, Director of Public Health and
Health Officer for L.A. County, a professor at UCLA Schools of
Medicine and Public Health, and I am here also representing the
National Association of County and City Health Officials, which
is a membership organization comprised of the nation's local
health departments. We are the feet on the ground.
Senator Boxer, NACCHO and local health departments across
the country recognize and appreciate your leadership on the
issue of climate change and its impacts on public health. The
city, county, metropolitan, district, and tribal departments
work every day to protect residents from all health threats.
Some, of course, are very long standing: unsafe water, food.
These threats multiply when we have disasters, hurricanes,
tornadoes, earthquakes, and wildfires. Local health departments
also are responsible for protecting health and minimizing the
health effects of many types of acts of terrorism, bio-
terrorism, chemical terrorism, and dirty bombs.
We are here because our No. 1 job is to protect the
public's health, and it is our responsibility to adhere to the
precautionary principle. When we see threats, or threats are
very likely, we have to be ready to respond quickly and
effectively.
We are currently witnessing the effects of severe storms,
droughts, wildfires, and other extreme weather events that
cause severe trauma, lead to increases in number of diseases
like respiratory disease, to contaminated water and air, and
also to mental health. This disproportionately affects the
poor, the young, the elderly, and those with physical or mental
disabilities.
As you have heard, the past decade was the warmest on
record. In 2011 the lower 48 States set temperature records for
the warmest spring, the warmest year to date, and the warmest
12-month period since recordkeeping began in 1895. So, we
cannot ignore the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
conclusion that climate change threatens to ``increase the
number of people suffering from death, disease, and injury from
heat waves, flood, storms, fires, and droughts.''
And we cannot ignore the likelihood that climate change
will bring us serious vector-borne diseases, mosquitoes and
others, that give us dengue fever, Chagas' disease, and other
diseases we have not seen before here.
The Federal Government, States, and local health
departments all need to adapt to the new and growing risk to
critical infrastructure, precious resources, the natural
environment, and human health. These affect not only our
national health but our national productivity, our
competitiveness, and our standard of living.
It has been estimated the costs from six climate-related
events from 2006 to 2009 was more than $14 billion. And this
figure is an understatement because many of the health effects
continue to be felt years after the precipitating event, as
many survivors of Hurricane Katrina can attest.
Many health departments have already taken very specific
steps. In Los Angeles County, we have enhanced emergency
preparedness for increased frequent heat events, and we have
conducted vulnerability assessments to identify the most
vulnerable populations and are linking them to emergency
resources. The Tulsa County Health Department is conducting
focus groups after its hottest summer on record in 2011 to help
identify vulnerable populations related to respiratory disease,
vector-borne disease, and heat related illness, and to modify
its Metropolitan Area Health Improvement Plan.
Multnomah County in Portland, Oregon, has completed a
vulnerability assessment and is working with a State authority
to develop a heat vulnerability index and is testing a Heat
Warning and Events Communication Plan. Health departments from
all over, and we will put these in the record, East and West
Coast, north and south, have all taken action adapting to
changes.
So, we cannot afford inaction. I think the threats to
climate change effects are basic survival resources; food,
water, shelter, and health; and we as local health departments,
as your foot soldiers, have to be better prepared.
But despite the threat, preparedness funding for local
health departments has been declining. About 55 percent of
local health departments saw a decline in their resources in
the most recent survey. We need to expand the most recent
investment made by the Centers for Disease Control in this
area, not reduce it as has been proposed.
And the climate change bill championed by you, Chairman
Boxer, addresses the public health role in climate change and
the need for a clear action plan at all levels of government.
Action is needed now because inaction threatens our public and
our national competitiveness.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before
you. I would be happy to answer questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Fielding follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Boxer. Thank you very much, Doctor.
And now we hear from our last witness today, and that is
Dr. Margo Thorning, Senior Vice President and Chief Economist,
the American Council for Capital Formation, as a minority
witness.
Welcome.
STATEMENT OF MARGO THORNING, PH.D., SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT AND
CHIEF ECONOMIST, AMERICAN COUNCIL FOR CAPITAL FORMATION
Ms. Thorning. Thank you, Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member
Inhofe. I appreciate the chance to appear before you today to
discuss some of the challenges and some of the opportunities
that the business community has in adapting to the potential
climate variability or climate change.
First, some of the challenges. The climate models that we
have seen predicting change out over the next 50 to 100 years
vary greatly, not only in terms of where the change in
temperature or the change in precipitation may occur, but also
when. So, the climate models are not sufficiently precise to
allow business to make good plans for the future.
Second challenge is that the business community tends not
to plan more than 3 to 15 years in advance unless you are in a
business like utilities where your capital stock may last 40,
50, 60 years. So, the general business plans are not able to
make--take account of the fact that climate change may occur
but may not be significant for 50 or 100 years. So they will
tend to adopt what we call no regret strategies which are
changes that they would make in the normal course of doing
business.
A third barrier or a third challenge for the business
community to adapting to climate variability is regulatory
policy and permitting delays. For example, the regulations, the
EPA's regulation of greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act is
estimated to slow investment spending in 2014 by $25 billion to
$75 billion and reduce GDP significantly and also hinder job
growth, perhaps 500,000 to 1.4 million fewer jobs. That slows
economic growth, makes it more difficult for the economy to
provide the resources to provide for adaptation to climate
change.
Now, the opportunities for the business community to adjust
to climate change are certainly there. Many companies are
adopting no regrets strategies, as I mentioned, strategies that
they would do anyway. For example, in agriculture, figuring out
developing seeds that are more drought resistant or more
resistant to increased weather variability.
So, many industries are already adjusting suppliers and
thinking about what the potential impact is. But these are
changes they would do as a normal course of business. They are
not responding to threats that may be out there 50 to 100
years.
Other industries like utilities are beginning to do what we
call hard adaptation. They are beginning to change the way
they--change the installation of their transmission lines,
their distribution lines. For example, Intergy, the big
company, a big energy company on the Gulf Coast, is spending
$75 million to harden its transmission and distribution lines
to a major port because of experience with extreme weather. So,
they are actually going beyond no regrets strategies.
But the main thing that probably would assist companies in
adapting to the potential threat of climate change is making
sure we maintain strong economic growth because with that we
can afford to make the changes that may be necessary. One
component of maintaining strong growth is making sure that our
tax code continues to preserve strong capital formation
initiatives. As we debate tax reform, we need to be sure that
any reform that is put in place does not weaken the incentives
for new investment.
And even going beyond lowering corporate rates, as both the
Simpson Plan and others have suggested, we ought to be thinking
about switching to a consumed income tax. A joint tax committee
research, as well as research by Allen Sinai of Decision
Economics, shows that if the U.S. were operating under a system
where all savings is deductible and all investment is expensed,
we would have faster economic growth, more investment, faster
job growth, and it would enhance our ability to adapt to
climate change.
The last point is the need to reform our regulatory
process, to make sure regulations meet the cost-benefit test so
that they do not unduly burden our ability to invest and to
grow, and to reform the permitting process.
I also want to add that when you think about small and
medium-sized enterprises, if climate change does occur they
will face even greater challenges than do large scale
operations. So, we need to be very careful that we preserve the
kind of incentives that enable the U.S. economy to grow and
make the changes that might be necessary.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Thorning follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Boxer. Thank you.
I am going to take some time to ask Dr. Thorning a set of
questions. Then I am going to turn to Senator Inhofe. He can
ask whoever he wants, and then I will get back to the rest.
Dr. Thorning, I found your testimony really interesting
since you are a minority witness, and I just--I guess I need to
know what is your role in the American Council for Capital
Formation? What is your responsibility in that organization?
Ms. Thorning. Helping to guide the research that we
undertake, helping to explain to media, to the public, to
policymakers what the economic consequences of various policy
shifts might be.
Senator Boxer. And yet you said that--it seemed to me that
you were sort of saying that companies are getting ready for
the impacts of climate change already. Is that correct?
Ms. Thorning. My understanding is companies are taking it
into account. They are beginning to do no regrets strategies.
Senator Boxer. What does that mean, no regrets?
Ms. Thorning. That means, for example, if you are a seed
producer you would be trying to develop seeds that could
withstand drought or could withstand increased rainfall or
increased----
Senator Boxer. So that you will not regret the lost
opportunity to do this.
Ms. Thorning. And presumably whether the climate shifts
sharply or not, you still would be better off.
Senator Boxer. Great point. Great point.
Ms. Thorning. It is my understanding that they are
undertaking policies that will enable them to sustain their
business and also potentially be ready for what may come in
terms of climate.
Senator Boxer. Well, I am going to quote you from now on
because I think we need to do a no regrets strategy here. This
is a break through moment because what you basically said is
that--see if I am interpreting it right--you are not positive
when this happening, although I did read your testimony, it
looks like you have embraced the fact that changes are coming
and may not come for a few decades, but they are coming. But
instead of wasting this time, you are going to take steps in
case the worst happens. That is how I am looking at it.
Ms. Thorning. I think most prudent businesses would be
looking ahead. They try to anticipate the best they can what
the future may hold. But the main point of my testimony is that
most businesses do not really make hard investment decisions
beyond a 3- to 15-year time horizon, and the long, long term
projections for climate change are simply beyond what they
normally can incorporate in their business plan. But they will,
where they can, adopt no regrets strategies.
Senator Boxer. OK. Now, does the American Council for
Capital Formation have an opinion on climate change?
Ms. Thorning. We stick pretty much to the economics. I
defer to your expert panel on climate change.
Senator Boxer. OK, because I know some of your sponsors are
the Koch brothers, the ExxonMobil, other oil companies, the
American Petroleum Institute. But they are part of a long list
of businesses, is that correct?
Ms. Thorning. That is correct. We are supported by a wide
range of industries in the financial sector, insurance sector,
as you can see on our Web site.
Senator Boxer. Well, I want to thank you for your testimony
because to me, I think these businesses are being very prudent.
They are embracing a no regrets strategy. They see that this
could happen, it could accelerate, it may not, they say, but it
could and they are doing things right now to prepare.
And that is all I think we ought to do here as a nation,
prepare. Because, as you pointed out in your testimony, I
thought quite eloquently, Dr. Thorning, that the things that
you are doing are good, good for the businesses. If they do,
for example, create a seed that helps you get through a drought
period, we all know there are going to be drought periods even
if there is no intensification of that drought period. They are
going to be prepared.
So, I am going to take your lesson, this leadership in the
private sector, to address this problem and bring it here to
this Committee and see whether we cannot find some more support
for moving forward to have a no regrets type of strategy. I
really appreciate your bringing that terminology into this
debate.
Thank you.
Senator Inhofe. Well, thank you. First of all, I will have
to, I hate to do this but I will have to leave as soon as I ask
my questions because I told the Chairman I have a serious
problem outside.
Let me ask you to put four things in the record that I
think are important as a result from the testimony from the
first panel. One is the--from the NASA report that says that in
2011 saw 9,000 Manhattans of ice recovery, and we are talking
here about the Arctic. The second one would be a peer reviewed
paper, the American Geophysical Union found a doubling of snow
accumulation in the western Antarctic peninsula since 1950.
The third would be a reviewed article in the climate, the
Journal of Climate, that examines the trend of sea ice
extending the east Antarctic coast from 2000 to 2008 and finds
a significant increase of 1.3 percent per year. And last,
Greenland, since it was mentioned, even the IPCC recognized
that the ice sheet is growing at 2 inches a year.
So these four things I would like to have made a part of
the record.
Senator Boxer. We will in fact do that.
[The referenced information was not received at time of
print.]
Senator Inhofe. I would only say the last conversation, and
the questions that were asked of you, Dr. Thorning, that there
is a big difference between could happen and will happen. I
think a lot of companies--and I came from the private sector,
we do things, we try to anticipate. If something could happen,
we want to be ready for it. Not that it will happen. There is a
big difference.
Now, over the years you have testified that the costs of
cap and trade, and I would suggest after perhaps one of the
members to my left might want to introduce another cap and
trade bill because I can assure you that it would not pass. In
fact, less than one-third of the U.S. Senate would be voting
for it.
You have talked about the costs of cap and trade. I have
talked about the costs of cap and trade. Now, a lot of us are
anticipating and suggesting a carbon tax. Tell me,
economically, how that would affect our country, a carbon tax?
Ms. Thorning. Well, putting a tax on a commodity like
energy will certainly raise prices and probably negatively
impact U.S. competitiveness. If we are going to do any kind of
tax policy, as I said in my testimony, I think we should be
looking at switching to a consumed income tax where all
investment is deductible, and all saving is tax exempt, and
what is the tax base is consumption. That would be consumption
of everything, energy, food, high priced cars, et cetera.
So, I would suggest the best approach to helping the U.S.
economy grow, which will help it adapt to whatever comes down
the path, is to switch to a broad based consumption tax.
Senator Inhofe. All right. I can remember before this
Committee when Director Lisa Jackson was making her testimony,
and I asked the question, if we were to pass, at that time I
believe we were talking about the Waxman-Markey bill--but it
did not make any difference because cap and trade is cap and
trade--would this reduce, if we passed it, worldwide
CO2 emission, and she said, of course, no, it would
not. And I appreciated her honesty.
I also remember, I think it was either 2005 or 2006, is
when a change took place. We used to be a larger emitter of
CO2 than China. That all changed in, I think it was
in 2006. Today, and we have a chart that shows this, China has
gone up so that it now has doubled the CO2 emissions
than that of the United States.
So, I would like to ask you the question, economically, if
this trend continues, what is going to happen, what is going to
be--how does it affect us, our manufacturing base and our
economy in this country?
Ms. Thorning. Let me be sure I understand the question.
What happens if China's emissions continue to grow? Or what
happens if we try to cap our own emissions?
Senator Inhofe. Well, you would be capping our own
emissions if we do because we are talking about doing that,
either a carbon tax or something else.
Ms. Thorning. Oh, I see. Well, because of the global trend,
the rest of the world emissions growing so much faster, ours
actually declined from 2006, I think capping emissions here
will have virtually no impact on global concentrations.
In fact, EPA released a figure back when they were debating
the Waxman-Markey bill that showed that even if the U.S. met
the targets in the Waxman-Markey bill by 2050, it would make
almost no difference of GHGs.
So, I think measures like cap and trade in the U.S. would
be counter-productive, it would slow our growth, we would not
be able to make the changes that might be needed to adapt
because our growth would be so much slower. So it would be
counter-productive.
Senator Inhofe. And I appreciate that. That is essentially
what the director of the EPA said in response to the question.
The last question I have is, you mentioned that as a result
of the uncertainty caused by the EPA's greenhouse gas
regulations, business investment is expected to decline by 5 to
15 percent, and directly impact industries, which could result
in 476,000 jobs to 1.4 million fewer jobs in 2014. Is it fair
to say that eliminating EPA's authority to regulate greenhouse
gases would save these jobs?
Ms. Thorning. I think scaling those back would definitely
reduce some of the uncertainty faced by the business community.
The business community faces uncertainty from the healthcare
bill, Dodd-Frank, debt ceiling, tax reform, as well as
environmental regulations. So, anything we can do to reduce
uncertainty would tend to encourage investment. And investment,
non-residential investment, is still down about 6 percent
compared to the fourth quarter of 2007.
Senator Inhofe. Yes. And if you--I am sure that you have,
but you might share with us your thoughts on this. When we had
cap and trade legislation, they were talking about how much
greenhouse gas should, could, under those be reduced. However,
if you look at doing this through an endangerment finding and
doing it through regulations, that amount would actually have
to go down far below what was found in any of the cap and trade
bills to be consistent with the Clean Air Act. And that would
have been down to, I think, 25,000 as opposed to something,
what, 250,000.
How much greater effect would that have on our economy that
just cap and trade?
Ms. Thorning. Well, it would be significantly greater
because almost all facilities of any size at all would have
been impacted, and it would hinder investment and hinder even
continued operation for many, many companies.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you very much.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator.
So, here is the situation. I need to go to a leadership
meeting. I am going to put something in the record, I am going
to thank everyone, I am going to hand the gavel to Senator
Cardin, and he can call, after he is done, on Senator Sessions
and then if Senator Cardin can close this down.
I just want to put into the record late breaking news from
CNN, more than half of U.S. counties now disaster zones due to
drought. So, this no regrets strategy that Dr. Thorning has put
forward should be embraced by everybody--business, the Federal
Government, and I know, particularly, in States like Maryland
that are already seeing an impact.
[The referenced information was not received at time of
print.]
Senator Boxer. So, I am going to turn the gavel over. I
want to thank everyone from the bottom of my heart.
Senator Cardin [presiding]. Senator Boxer, thank you very
much.
I just really want to respond very briefly to Senator
Inhofe. The efforts that we have engaged in Congress with
Senator Lieberman and Senator John Warner, Senator Kerry and
Senator Boxer, in order to take responsible steps to deal with
climate change, was not aimed at what was happening in the
United States alone, but was aimed at joining the international
community so that the chart that we just saw in regards to
China, you could also put one in regards to India, that it
would be fair competition globally with internationally
efforts.
So I just really wanted to set the record straight as to
the efforts. It was aimed, yes, at the United States,
energizing our economy, energizing our business leaders to come
up with solutions to climate change, but also doing it in
context of the international community.
Secretary Griffin, I want to get to the issues of
adaptation, and I really do applaud Governor O'Malley and the
O'Malley administration for taking a real leadership position
on realities of adaptation, on dealing with the new norm, and
that is extreme weather. We cannot tolerate the type of
disruptions we had just a few weeks ago with the storms and
people being out of power for over a week in 100 degree
weather.
I know that Governor O'Malley has taken certain steps. The
consumers have a right to better information than they had
during this storm. It is not right to call a number and get a
recording saying that your power is going to be back that
evening and find out 3 days later that you still do not have
power. People needed to have good information.
So, is the Governor, in part of his work, working with our
utilities to establish a better service response to these types
of, now I think more frequent, storms?
Mr. Griffin. Yes, Senator Cardin. This actually started a
few years ago due to other weather related power outages around
our State. And he has been working with the Public Service
Commission. Just, I think last week, he issued another
Executive Order forming a team of government, science, and
utility experts to start to look at how we build more
reliability into our distribution systems for electric power.
So we are doing all that we can. It is not easy. Certain
issues we are looking at, such as the pros and cons of burying
utility lines, are fairly daunting and costly, but nonetheless
the Governor seems very committed to gradually improving in a
variety of ways the reliability of our distribution system.
Senator Cardin. And I would urge him also to get, to
require our oversight for better information so people know
what the likelihood is of restoring power.
I want to get to some of the challenges we have at sea
level, our State being a coastal State, and some of the action
that we have already taken. I have visited Smith Island. I know
what is happening at Smith Island and the loss of land and
people trying to save their homes and their businesses.
I was at the Naval Academy when we had the storm and the
flooding, and I saw the damage that was done. And I see the
projections if we go up sea level what is going to happen to
that type of facility. And it is not easy to retro do the type
of work that is necessary.
I know that you have made certain commitments as it relates
to the Tubman Park Visitor Center, to put it above the flood
plain which I think is the right type of policies we need to
have for adaptation. So we plan today, recognizing that sea
level is changing, and that we take steps to protect the
shorelines from that type of damage. We have done work in Ocean
City in order to protect against the increased flooding.
What do you see as coming out of the task force that you
are working with to deal with the unique problems we have being
a coastal State?
Mr. Griffin. Those are all very legitimate points, Senator
Cardin. I think I would view it in the largest sense as we are
on a continuum of learning and taking, I think, prudent
actions. An ounce of prevention now, certainly in my view,
history, in our view, history teaches us is far superior than
allowing these problems to build and build when the cost of
remediation is far greater.
I think we are doing, not only in Maryland but through
RGGI, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, with other States
and also an effort regionally with States from New York down
through Virginia called MARCA. The Governors of those States
signed a series of MOUs back in 2009 to start looking at ocean
policy, and one of the key issues there was climate change and
our ability regionally to adapt to it.
So, a number of things are unfolding. A number of our
coastal counties we have been working with with Federal
support, thankfully, are starting to do the sort of work we are
going statewide. We are assisting them with the tools. As you
alluded to, better building codes, identifying the most
vulnerable areas to try to reduce from the land use standpoint,
further major development and investments there.
So, those sorts of things are going on across the State
actually, particularly in our coastal areas which is where most
of our people live, reside.
Senator Cardin. Thank you very much. I appreciate that.
Senator Sessions.
Senator Sessions. Thank you.
As we wrestle with these issues I think we have to be
realistic or, I think, fair. With regard to drought and floods,
this morning we have had advocates say that floods are caused
by global warming gases and droughts are caused by global
warming. Whatever happens, the advocates say it is caused by
global warming.
Well, maybe both can be. But the data I have seen so far
does not indicate that. The chart I showed earlier indicates we
are not having more extreme highs or lows in the last 60 years
than we have had previous to that.
Also looking at a chart on U.S. drought, since 1900 the
patterns have not really changed. Last year was a pretty high
drought year, but the year before that was a very low drought
year, or 2 years before that, and it is pretty much the same
pattern that we have had.
Dr. Thorning, let me run a few things by you as an
economist. It seems to me that, in an economic sense, passing a
law that requires the business to community and private
homeowners to spend large amounts of money to ``go green'' is
no different than the Federal Government taxing the economy and
the Federal Government paying to fix up people's homes to make
them more ``green.'' Would you agree?
Ms. Thorning. Yes.
Senator Sessions. It may be slightly more efficient to let
the individuals figure out how to do it themselves, but in an
economic sense, we are burdening the economy when we ask people
to do things that are not in their economic interest, correct?
Ms. Thorning. Yes, I agree. I would like to add to that. In
previous testimony, I noted that States that have renewable
portfolio standards, which I believe 30 States do have, tend to
have household and industrial electricity prices that are about
30 percent higher than States without renewable portfolio
standards.
So, that is something to think about because that is a
mandate that probably is not going to do much to slow global
warming, but yet it imposes a very real cost, especially on
low- and middle-income people.
Senator Sessions. I remember a number of years ago we were
losing our chemical industry in Alabama, and I know Ohio and
other States were losing that industry, too, because of high
natural gas prices. Natural gas prices have dropped
dramatically, and I believe it is providing an incentive to the
economy in creating jobs as a result of lower cost energy
making us more competitive. Would you agree?
Ms. Thorning. Yes. And in fact, if you look at the recent
new plants being installed by our chemical industry, by the
steel industry, and other industries that are dependent on
either low feedstock prices or low electricity prices, you can
see the positive impact that our increased production of
natural gas in the U.S. has had on the overall economy.
Senator Sessions. Now, we want to have higher wages, as
high wages as we can possibly afford for our workers. But if we
burden our workers with unnaturally high energy prices, it not
only hurts the business, but it hurts the employees who are
part and parcel of that commercial enterprise, correct?
Ms. Thorning. Well, if you are spending more on electricity
and energy you have less money to spend on other things, which
means the economy, there is a contraction there. And
productivity is not enhanced by raising energy prices.
Senator Sessions. Now, Alabama has had some success in
attracting investment: foreign investment, automobiles, steel,
chemical, as examples. And when an industry looks at a State,
is it not a fact that they consider energy prices very much in
deciding where they might place a plant?
Ms. Thorning. It certainly is an important factor.
Senator Sessions. So, the extent to which we raise
artificially energy costs, higher than they would be based on
the normal market forces, we diminish the growth potential in
our economy, do we not?
Ms. Thorning. Yes. And in fact, studies that the ACCF has
sponsored over the years on Waxman-Markey and the Kerry-
Lieberman bills demonstrate a significant impact on job growth
and competitiveness compared to the baseline forecast.
Senator Sessions. I just have to say that I am excited
about low cost natural gas. I think that has provided us an
infusion of money to our manufacturing sector and is going to
create jobs. And if we can keep prices down, we will be better
off. And to mandate costs that are not justifiable can create
financial impacts on the people that are subject to the
mandates. And that does hurt us economically. There is just no
doubt about that in my mind.
So, we try to strike the right pattern, Mr. Chairman, in
which some of the regulations can actually make us be leaner,
more efficient, more productive, while some of them add costs
and make us less efficient, less productive, and cost jobs.
Thank you.
Senator Cardin. Thank you, Senator Sessions. And thank the
second panel for your patience and your testimony.
As was pointed out at the beginning of this hearing, this
was going to be a lively discussion, and it was a lively
discussion. And I agree with Senator Inhofe. I would hope that
we would have more of these opportunities to debate these
issues.
So, I really want to thank you for adding to today's record
as we look at not just the science, but what steps are
necessary for adaptation as we go through different weather
patterns and climate patterns here in America.
We can argue the cause, we can argue a lot of issues. But
the facts are the facts, and we need to take the appropriate
steps in order to protect the public safety and the economy of
America.
I want to acknowledge Mitch Hescox with the Evangelical
Environmental Network and the Young Evangelicals for Climate
Action who are also here with us today. We welcome you here.
And with that, the hearing will be adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:45 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[all]