[Senate Hearing 112-622]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 112-622
SEA LEVEL RISE
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
TO
RECEIVE TESTIMONY ON THE IMPACTS OF SEA LEVEL RISE ON DOMESTIC ENERGY
AND WATER INFRASTRUCTURE
__________
APRIL 19, 2012
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Printed for the use of the
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources
_____
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
76-897 PDF WASHINGTON : 2012
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES
JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico, Chairman
RON WYDEN, Oregon LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska
TIM JOHNSON, South Dakota JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington MIKE LEE, Utah
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont RAND PAUL, Kentucky
DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan DANIEL COATS, Indiana
MARK UDALL, Colorado ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire JOHN HOEVEN, North Dakota
AL FRANKEN, Minnesota DEAN HELLER, Nevada
JOE MANCHIN, III, West Virginia BOB CORKER, Tennessee
CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware
Robert M. Simon, Staff Director
Sam E. Fowler, Chief Counsel
McKie Campbell, Republican Staff Director
Karen K. Billups, Republican Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS
Page
Abdalati, Waleed, Chief Scientist, National Aeronautics and Space
Administration................................................. 3
Berry, Leonard, Director, Florida Center for Environmental
Studies, Florida Atlantic University, Jupiter, FL.............. 15
Bingaman, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator From New Mexico................ 1
Freed, Adam, Deputy Director, Mayor's Office of Long-Term
Planning and Sustainability, New York, NY...................... 21
Janetos, Anthony C., Director, Joint Global Change Research
Institute, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory/University of
Maryland, College Park, MD..................................... 11
Murkowski, Hon. Lisa, U.S. Senator From Alaska................... 2
Strauss, Benjamin H., COO & Director, Program on Sea Level Rise,
Climate Central, Princeton, NJ................................. 8
APPENDIXES
Appendix I
Responses to additional questions................................ 43
Appendix II
Additional material submitted for the record..................... 63
SEA LEVEL RISE
----------
THURSDAY, APRIL 19, 2012
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Energy and Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:34 a.m. in room
SD-366, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Jeff Bingaman,
chairman, presiding.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF BINGAMAN, U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW
MEXICO
The Chairman. OK. Why don't we get started? Thank you all
for coming. Today we have a hearing on the impacts of sea level
rise on domestic energy and water infrastructure.
Over the past century a tremendous amount of high value
infrastructure has been built along the coastlines of the
United States. This infrastructure serves the needs of coastal
communities and is the foundation for developing much of our
abundant coastal energy resource. Much of that infrastructure
has been built in low lying areas that were already prone to
flooding from extreme weather. That's become even more at risk
as sea levels have risen.
About 5 million Americans now live in coastal areas that
are less than 4 feet above sea level. There are nearly 300 high
value energy facilities standing on land below that level.
These energy facilities include power plants, oil and gas
refineries, and natural gas infrastructure.
Recent history has shown that not only is this
infrastructure already vulnerable to extreme weather but also
that when coastal energy assets are compromised the energy
disruption affects the entire economy. Sea level rise takes the
current level of vulnerability and multiplies it. When sea
levels rise the storm surge associated with extreme storms gets
even worse and even an average storm can have above average
consequences. Water systems that were designed based on a lower
sea level may not function properly. Salt water intrudes on
fresh water resources that communities have depended on for
years.
These impacts from sea level rise are not theoretical and
they are not disputed and they are not in the distant future.
They are being confronted today in places such as Louisiana and
Florida. The affected communities there are already paying
substantial cost to try to address them.
As the planet has warmed from human emissions of greenhouse
gases, the rate of sea level rise has accelerated. It's
expected to continue doing so. Improved scientific
understanding of ice sheets and glaciers has led to higher
projections of sea level rise for this century with the highest
estimates indicating that several feet of rise are possible.
When placed in the context of the continued rapid
development along the coast, these increased projections of sea
level rise are cause for concern and merit consideration by
this Congress. It's no secret that the discussion of climate
change, of which sea level rise is just one aspect, has become
highly politicized here in the Congress. Outside the halls of
Congress though, entities that depend on infrastructure at risk
of sea level rise are taking the threat seriously and are
incorporating the best science into their long term plans.
The Department of Defense, in its 2010 Quadrennial Defense
Review Report, highlighted the more than 30 U.S. military
installations that are already facing elevated levels of risk
from rising sea levels.
The integrated energy company, Entergy, carried out a Gulf
Coast adaptation study to assess and manage risks to its energy
assets from climate change.
Today we have a witness from Mayor Bloomberg's office in
New York to discuss the efforts that New York City is
undertaking to prepare for elevated sea levels.
These examples are evidence that those that will be most
directly affected by climate change do not have the luxury of
delaying their planning process until the politics are more
favorable.
The discussion we're having today is an important one.
Witnesses will be testifying about real world impacts. I hope
that the hearing contributes to restarting a national
conversation on this important issue.
Let me turn to Senator Murkowski for any comments she has
before introducing the witnesses.
STATEMENT OF HON. LISA MURKOWSKI, U.S. SENATOR
FROM ALASKA
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome to each
of you this morning.
Back in 2008 we held a useful hearing on this same topic.
It's good to see some new faces at the witness table. I thank
you for sharing your time and your expertise with the committee
this morning.
We pay a lot of attention to the issue of what is happening
with our coastline in Alaska. We have about 6,640 miles of
general coastline. The figure that I use is about 33,000 miles
if you go around every little island that we have and add it
up. It's really quite remarkable. You compare that to just
under 5,000 miles of coastline in the lower 48.
So we're paying attention to what is going on with water in
the State of Alaska and rising levels. Ice that is receding
that is causing greater erosion of our coastline. The Chairman
mentions Florida. I was down there not too many weeks ago. When
you fly over the delta areas there and recognize that whether
it's rising sea levels or land that is basically sinking in
many areas, how we deal with these challenges are really quite
considerable.
I mention Alaska. I think most say well, you don't have
much in terms of population up there. You have limited
infrastructure. That is true. But we certainly have our share
of energy development. We certainly have some major challenges
as it relates to the coastal erosion impacting many of our
native villages all along the coastline.
So I'm glad to not only hear about predictions of what the
future holds, but hopefully some proposals for how we deal with
the challenges that sea level rise will create as well. We face
so many different issues within the committee here. It seems
like every day we're presented with something. An electric grid
that is pushed to its limit, rising gas prices that we talk
about quite frequently and extremely costly reliance on foreign
Nations, it's a long list of perils of crisis that we deal
with.
So I think often times it's easy to forget about these
longer term issues that confront us. Taking time this morning
to have this discussion about what is going on with our rising
sea levels and how we may deal with those impacts is important.
So I appreciate you taking the time to join us here this
morning and look forward to the testimony.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Let me introduce our witnesses.
Dr. Waleed Abdalati is the Chief Scientist with NASA. We
appreciate you being here very much.
Dr. Ben Strauss is the Chief Operating Officer and Director
of the Sea Level Rise Program at Climate Central. We appreciate
you being here.
Dr. Anthony Janetos is the Director of the Pacific
Northwest National Laboratory's Joint Global Change Research
Institute.
Dr. Leonard Berry is the Director of Florida's Center for
Environmental Studies.
Mr. Adam Freed is the Deputy Director with the New York
City Mayor's Office of Long Term Planning and Sustainability.
We appreciate you all being here. If each of you could take
5 or 6 minutes and sort of make the main points that you think
we ought to understand on this issue. We will include your full
statement as part of our record. Then we'll have some
questions.
Dr. Abdalati, why don't we start with you and just go
across the table?
STATEMENT OF WALEED ABDALATI, CHIEF SCIENTIST, NATIONAL
AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Abdalati. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the
committee, it's my pleasure to appear before you today to
discuss the topic of sea level rise.
Sea level rise is really one of the most readily
recognizable manifestations of our changing climate because its
effects are very visible without the aid of instrumentation.
You can actually just see it. Moreover sea level rise evolves
relatively slowly and steadily presenting a clear expression of
the integrated elements of our changing climate.
Since the late 19th century measurements of sea level rise
have been made using tide gauges in coastal regions. Because
their measurements are only relative to the adjacent land
rather than a global reference frame, and because their limited
distribution grossly under samples the ocean, the picture they
provide of past sea level rise--and current--is incomplete.
Since 1993 NASA and its partners have been monitoring sea
level continuously from space using satellite altimetry which
provides more complete and representative information on the
changing sea level. Data from these satellites indicate that
sea level has risen at a rate of about 3.1 millimeters per
year. Not much, but when you stack that up year after year,
decade after decade, it's quite substantial.
Estimates based on tide gauges prior to the satellite
record offer rates of approximately half that amount. These
values represent global averages. On a regional scale, which
really is of greater concern to those who have to deal with the
effects of rising seas, sea level can vary significantly from
place to place.
Some ocean areas including parts of the Eastern Tropical
Pacific have experienced a lowering of sea level since 1993,
while others such as the Western Pacific exhibit sea level rise
rates several times greater than the global average. Since
approximately one-third of all Americans live in counties that
immediately border the Nation's ocean coasts, understanding
this regional variability is very important.
Projections of sea level rise have a large uncertainty as a
result of our limited but emerging understanding of the factors
that contribute to it. These projections range from a low of
two-tenths of a meter (or about 9 inches) by the end of the
century to a high of two meters (or about 6 and a half feet).
Values near the low end are, the scientific community believes,
quite a bit less likely than some of the others because they
don't account for some potentially significant contributions
for Greenland and Antarctica that have been revealed and better
understood in recent years.
However values at the high end are based on the warmest of
the future temperature scenarios that we typically use to
assess change and make these projections. So more likely we're
somewhere in between. But those represent the major bounds.
The expansion of oceans in response to warming
temperatures, which is responsible for about a third of the
recent sea level rise, is pretty well understood as we look to
the future and try and make our projections. Glaciers and ice
sheets, which contribute pretty much the remaining two-thirds,
are more complicated. Scientists have a good understanding of
their melting and accumulation characteristics, the input and
the output by melt. But the movement of ice which controls the
rate of discharge into the surrounding seas is less clear.
Recent observations from satellites and otherwise show that
a number of key outlet glaciers that drain the Greenland ice
sheet and drain the Antarctic ice sheet have sped up
dramatically in recent years. What's not clear is whether these
accelerations are a precursor to much greater ice loss in the
future or whether these changes may be self correcting as these
glaciers adjust to their new shapes in ways that reduce the
forces that drive that rapid discharge of ice. We just don't
know and we're working to figure that out.
Current and planned investments in missions like ICESat-2
which measures ice elevation change, the GRACE follow on which
measures mass change of ice, airborne observations of ice
topography and the geometries of the sub-glacial bed will
provide insights into the underlying mechanisms of these
changes and indeed, already have. Satellite data from our
international partners allow us to examine the variations in
flow rates of outlet glaciers and track the magnitude and
character of their acceleration. The information gained from
these and other complementary endeavors is incorporated into
ice sheet models designed to predict how ice sheets will
contribute to sea level rise in the next one to two centuries.
The modeling activity is an integrated effort jointly
carried out by NASA and the National Science Foundation and the
Department of Energy. These observations, along with sustained
observations of ocean elevation, temperature and circulation
characteristics, and global water transport, will inform models
and improve our understanding of the physics, carrying us
closer to a more complete and robust sea level rise prediction.
The consequences of a one meter globally averaged rise in sea
level by the end of this century would be very significant in
terms of human well being and economics and potentially global
sociopolitical stability. Because the ocean and in part the ice
has significant lag in response to temperature changes, the
rise in temperatures over the last century has already set an
inevitable course for this century. As a result the effects of
sea level rise in the coming decades should inform coastal,
economic and political planning today.
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before this
committee today. I'll be pleased to answer any questions you
may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Abdalati follows:]
Prepared Statement of Waleed Abdalati, Chief Scientist, National
Aeronautics and Space Administration
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, it is my pleasure to
appear before you today to discuss the topic of sea level rise. Sea
level rise is one of the most readily recognizable manifestations of
climate change, because it is directly observable without the aid of
instrumentation, with very visible effects. Sea level rise is not as
rapidly variable as many of the other indicators of climate change,
such as temperature or precipitation. Rather it evolves relatively
slowly and presents a clear expression of the integrated elements of
our changing climate.
Since the late 19th century, measurements of sea level rise have
been made using tide gauges in coastal regions. These gauges provide
tremendously valuable information on local changes in ocean height
relative to their adjacent land. However, they provide an incomplete
picture of the absolute and global rates of sea level rise because (1)
their measurement is relative to the ground surface in which they are
mounted, so they do not account for the upward or downward movement of
that surface itself, and (2) their distribution is limited, making
sample measurements in a few places rather than over the global ocean.
These gauges reflect a bias toward the regions in which they are
located, grossly undersampling the global ocean; thus they do not offer
a picture of sea level rise's considerable regional variability. Since
1993, NASA and its partners have been monitoring sea level continuously
from space using satellite altimetry. Satellite altimetry has the
advantage of being able to measure globally, for a more complete and
representative sampling of the oceans. Moreover, it works in a global
terrestrial reference frame rather than a local relative one, making
its measurements independent of the local movement of the underlying
surfaces.
Since the beginning of the satellite record in 1993, sea level is
estimated to have been rising at a rate of 3.1 0.4 mm/yr (see
attached figure)*. Estimates based on tide gauges prior to 1993 are for
rates of approximately half that amount.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Figure has been retained in committee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These values represent global averages. Of greater concern to
coastal managers and those who have to deal with the effects of sea
level rise, are the regional values referred to earlier, which can vary
significantly from place to place. Some ocean areas, including parts of
the Eastern tropical Pacific, have experienced a lowering of sea level
since 1993, while others, such as the Western Pacific, exhibit sea
level rise rates several times greater than the global mean. This
difference is related to: the rising or sinking of parts of the globe
in response to the loss of the great ice sheets that blanketed much of
North America roughly18,000 years ago; the global wind patterns, which
distribute the water differently around the globe by pushing water
toward land in some areas, and away from land in others; and the
rotation of the Earth, which also changes the distribution of water.
According to the U.S. Global Change Research Program report Global
Climate Change Impacts in the US (2009), ``Approximately one-third of
all Americans live in counties immediately bordering the nation's ocean
coasts,'' and similar scenarios are true--often in greater
proportions--for other nations. For this reason, it is very important
to understand variations in sea level not just on a global scale, but
on a regional scale as well.
Looking toward the future, the projections of sea level rise have
large uncertainty as a result of our limited--but emerging--
understanding of the factors that contribute to sea level rise. These
projections range from a low of 0.2 meters by the end of the century to
a high of 2 meters. Values near the low end of the range are less
likely than others, since they do not account for some potentially
significant contributions for the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Sheets.
At the same time, the highest values are based on warmest of the
temperature scenarios commonly considered for the remainder of the 21st
century.
To understand the current state of sea level rise, and estimate the
future rates, it is important to understand the elements that influence
it. In the simplest terms, sea level is the combined effects of the
following components:
Ocean thermal expansion is the increase in ocean volume as
it warms.
Input from the world's glaciers and the Greenland and
Antarctic ice sheets can either raise sea level, when the
glaciers and ice sheets are shrinking and dumping their mass
into the ocean, or it can lower sea level, when they are
growing, and taking mass out of the ocean.
Terrestrial storage in groundwater, dams and reservoirs,
etc. can either raise or lower sea level.
Our current estimates indicate that about a third of the sea level
rise over most of the last three decades is coming from the expansion
of the warming ocean, while two thirds is derived from the world's
shrinking glaciers and from the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. The
amount attributable to terrestrial storage is currently negligible.
While sea level is simple to conceptualize, it is difficult to
predict, as major contributing factors involved are very complex and
not well understood. The biggest wild-card in the sea level equation is
the Earth's great ice sheets. With the equivalent of about 7 meters of
sea level in Greenland, and 60 meters in Antarctica, their potential
for contributing to sea level rise is large. To understand how ice
sheets contribute to sea level rise, one first has to understand their
mass budget. As with sea level rise, the budget is the difference
between the mass input to the ice sheet, which comes mainly from snow
accumulation, and the output, which is mainly a combination of melting,
discharge or calving of icebergs, and sublimation (direct transition
from snow to water vapor). If global average air temperatures continue
to increase along the trends observed over the last 100 years, all of
these components--accumulation, melting, and discharge rates--are
expected to increase.
Analysis of satellite, aircraft and in situ observations, coupled
with models of the accumulation and precipitation, make clear that the
Greenland ice sheet has been losing mass at a rate that contributes
about 0.6 + 0.01 mm/yr to sea level rise, and Antarctica is losing ice
that translates to the equivalent of 0.45 + 0.2 mm/yr of sea level
rise. What has the attention of the scientific community, however, is
that a number of key glaciers in both Greenland and Antarctica have
dramatically accelerated their flow to the sea in recent years. Some
have more than doubled their speed in just a few years. This is in
response to the warming of surrounding seas, which causes the floating
ice at the ends of the outlet glaciers that drain the ice sheet to
melt, which then reduces their restraining force on the glaciers
upstream, causing the ice to accelerate. In the simplest terms, the
warmer the seawater gets, the less resistance to flow there is in the
outlet glaciers, and the more rapidly they dump their ice into the sea.
This phenomenon is of particular concern in the West Antarctic ice
sheet (WAIS), an area about the size of the states of Texas and
Oklahoma combined. WAIS contains the equivalent of 3.3 m of sea level,
and all that ice rests on a soft-bed that lies below sea level. In this
configuration, as warm seawater melts the floating ice shelves, causing
them to retreat and the glaciers that feed them to speed up, there is
no mechanism to stop the retreat and associated discharge, if warming
continues. Thus the WAIS exhibits great potential for substantial and
relatively rapid contributions to sea level rise.
In Greenland, the situation is not as dramatic, since the bed that
underlies most of the ice is not below sea level, and the potential for
unabated retreat is limited to a few outlet glaciers. In Greenland,
however, summer air temperatures are warmer and closer to ice's melting
point, and we have observed widespread accumulation of meltwater in
melt ponds on the ice sheet surface. The water from these melt ponds
often drains rapidly to the bottom of the ice, where it lubricates the
interface between the ice and the underlying bedrock, and causes a
rapid acceleration of the ice toward the sea. Both the acceleration due
to ice shelf retreat, and the acceleration due to meltwater
penetration, represent potential instabilities and can lead to rapid
sea level rise. To be clear, ``rapid'' in terms of sea level rise means
on the order of about a meter or two in a century. There is evidence
that during some periods over the last 18,000 years, oceans have risen
by as much as 5 cm/yr (5 meters in a century), which is roughly fifteen
times the current rate. Such rapid rates of sea level rise are a result
of rapid discharge of ice from the Earth's great ice sheets, which,
during the last glacial maximum, were much larger than today.
These past high rates amplify the importance of understanding the
underlying mechanisms and their likely behavior in the future. The
importance is underscored by the vulnerability of coastal populations
and infrastructure. Unfortunately, while we have the ability to observe
changes in ice sheets, sea level, and ocean characteristics, our
ability to predict these phenomena is very limited, and requires a
greater understanding of the physical processes at work.
The expansion of oceans in response to warming temperatures is
fairly well understood, as are some aspects of ice sheet changes--
specifically the loss of ice through melt, and the accumulation of ice
through precipitation. But the motion of ice sheets, which control the
rate of discharge to the surrounding seas, are not well understood and
cannot at present, be predicted with confidence. The speed-up I
described earlier may constitute a sustained, enhanced discharge
keeping rates of sea level rise high; it may be a precursor to a more
substantial discharge through increased acceleration; or it may be
self-correcting, as these glaciers adjust to their new shapes in a way
that reduces the forces that carry the ice out to the sea.
With the development of satellite and airborne remote sensing
capabilities, coupled with ever-advancing field measurements and
modeling efforts, we are beginning to understand current changes and
gain insights into what the future may hold for the Greenland and
Antarctic ice sheets. Our satellite and airborne capabilities are
providing observations of glacier flow rates, ice topography (which is
indicative of the underlying processes that affect change), mass
change, and depth and topography of the bedrock that lies beneath the
ice. This last point is particularly important because it is the
geometry of the bed, in conjunction with surface elevations, that
determine the extent to which glaciers will continue to accelerate or
will slow down.
Current and planned investments in missions such as the Ice, Cloud
and Land Elevation Satellite 2 (ICESat-2--measuring elevation change)
and the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) follow-on
(measuring mass change) and airborne observations of ice topography bed
geometries provide insights into the underlying mechanisms of ice sheet
changes. NASA also works with data from its international partners to
examine the variations in flow rates of outlet glaciers, tracking the
magnitude and character of their acceleration. The information gained
from all of these projects is incorporated into ice sheet models
designed to predict how ice sheets will contribute to sea level rise in
the next one or two centuries. The modeling activity is an integrated
effort jointly carried out by NASA, the National Science Foundation,
and the Department of Energy (DOE). NSF also invests in basic
observations and process studies that are either directly coordinated
with or are complementary to NASA's activities, and DOE is building
dynamical models of Greenland and Antarctica, where future sea level
rise projections take advantage of observations provided by NASA and
NSF. Through these investments and activities, the scientific community
is making progress toward addressing the wild-card of the sea level
rise equation, but we are still a ways off from a level of
understanding that would allow us to predict future changes accurately.
Sustained observations of ocean elevation from satellites, in
particular with the Jason satellite series operated by NOAA in
collaboration with our European partners, combined with tide gauges
will provide an ongoing measurement of current rates of sea level rise.
Continued observations of ice sheets and glaciers will provide
necessary insights into the physical processes that govern their
contributions to sea level rise. Ongoing measurements of ocean
characteristics will continue to inform our assessments of temperature
and circulation characteristics, which affect the rate of expansion.
Continued observations of the movement of water throughout the Earth
will provide important insights into the characteristics of land-water
storage. All of these data are critical inputs used to inform models
and improve our understanding of the physics, carrying us closer to a
more complete and robust sea level rise prediction.
A complementary method for predicting future sea level rise is to
compare past temperatures to past sea levels reconstructed from the
geological record of Earth's climate history. There is a fairly robust
relationship between the two, and by using this relationship or
correlation, one can predict values of sea level rise for estimated
values of future temperatures. This method is a statistical, rather
than a physical approach, and when applied to future warming scenarios,
this method provides the highest estimates (2 meters of globally-
averaged sea level rise) for the end of the century. It has the
advantage of not requiring a detailed understanding of the complex
physics in order to make a prediction, and it produces results
consistent with recent history. However, because it does not directly
incorporate underlying physical processes, this method provides limited
insight into mechanisms and characteristics of future sea level rise.
In summary, we can say with confidence that sea levels have been
rising at a rate of approximately 3.1 mm/yr over the last 30 years.
About a third of this rise is attributed to thermal expansion and about
two thirds comes from the melting, retreat, etc. of glaciers and ice
caps. The projections for the future are very uncertain, and range from
a low of 0.2 meters by the end of the century to a high of 2 meters.
This large uncertainty is a result of our currently limited
understanding of instabilities in flow rates of outlet glaciers on the
Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. Moreover, some coastal areas will
experience perhaps little or no rise in sea level, while others may
experience rates that are far greater than this globally-averaged
value. The consequences of a 1 meter rise in sea level by the end of
this century would be very significant in terms of human well-being and
economics, and potentially global socio-political stability.
Finally, because the ocean and in part the ice have a significant
lag in response to temperature changes, the rise in temperatures over
the last century has already set an inevitable course for this century.
As a result, the effects of sea level rise in the coming decades should
inform coastal, economic, and political planning today.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Dr. Strauss.
STATEMENT OF BENJAMIN H. STRAUSS, COO AND DIRECTOR, PROGRAM ON
SEA LEVEL RISE, CLIMATE CENTRAL, PRINCETON, NJ
Mr. Strauss. Good morning Chairman Bingaman, Senator
Murkowski and other distinguished members of the committee.
Thank you for your attention to this important topic.
I'm Dr. Ben Strauss, co-author of several recent reports
and peer review papers assessing sea level risk to the lower 48
States. I'm also Director of the Program on Sea Level Rise at
Climate Central, a New Jersey based, non-profit research
organization that conveys scientific information to the public.
We take strictly new climate or energy policy positions.
My testimony will address two topics.
First, how sea level rise is amplifying risk from coastal
storm surges.
Then, the communities and infrastructure exposed at the
lowest elevations.
The nearest term sea level projections I will share in
inches may sound small but they are dangerous. The key problem
is that rising seas raise the launch pad for coastal storm
surges and tilt the odds toward disaster. Just a few extra
inches could mean the difference to flood and disable New York
City's subway system as an example. You might think of it this
way. Raising the floor of a basketball court would mean a lot
more dunks.
In the long term we are likely to see many feet of sea
level rise and be forced to redraw the map of the United
States. The high end of projections for this century would be
enough to turn Miami-Dade County, Florida into a collection of
islands. But in the nearer term we will mainly experience sea
level rise as more and more coastal floods reaching higher and
higher. In fact, according to our analysis sea level rise due
to global warming has already doubled the annual risk of
extreme coastal flooding across widespread areas of the Nation.
Global average sea level has risen about 8 inches since
1880. This means that warming is already contributing to the
damage caused by any coastal flood today. Studies back an
additional global rise likely this century between one and 7
feet.
In some areas, especially for Louisiana, Texas and the Mid-
Atlantic States, sinking land will add to the total effective
rise. Taking such local factors into account we made mid range
projections for sites around the lower 48 of one to 8 total
inches increase by 2030 and 4 to 19 by 2050 depending upon
location. All along the Pacific from Seattle to the Oregon
coast to San Francisco to Los Angeles, the part of past and
projected sea level rise from global warming more than triples
the odds of century floods by 2030 in our analysis as you can
see from the display to my left.
The places with asterisks have a more than 3 times ratio
between the red bar which gets the odds of a century flood by
2030 with global warming projections. The blue bar gets the
odds in a world without sea level rise from global warming. The
same is true inside the Chesapeake and Delaware bays and many
sites to the north, a 3 x or more ratio.
These increases are likely to cause a great deal of damage
at over half of the 55 sites where we studied flood risk. Storm
surges on top of sea level rise have better than even chances
to reach more than 4 feet above the high tide line by 2030. Yet
nearly 5 million U.S. residents live in 2.6 million homes on
lands below this level. Multiplied by the national average
sales price of existing homes in 2010 this stock comes roughly
to more than $500 billion of residential real estate.
An enormous amount of infrastructure also lies in the same
zone from airports to waste water treatment plants and
including almost 300 energy facilities as you can see in the
second display along with subtotals for some States and some
populations figures. The facilities shown are mainly natural
gas, oil and gas, and electric facilities. More than half are
in Louisiana, the vast majority of those unprotected by levies.
In 285 municipalities more than half the population lives
on land below the 4 foot mark. 106 of those places are in
Florida, 65 are in Louisiana and 676 towns and cities spread
across every coastal State in the lower 48, except for Maine
and Pennsylvania, more than 10 percent of the population lives
below the 4 foot mark. Maps and statistics for 3,000 coastal
towns, cities, counties and States are name and zip searchable
at sealevel.climatecentral.org and I urge you and your
colleagues and staff members to explore the places important to
you.
In conclusion the risks from sea level rise are imminent
and serious. This is not a distant problem only of concern for
our children. Escalating floods from sea level rise will affect
millions of Americans and threaten countless billions of
dollars to buildings and infrastructure.
I look forward to answering any questions you may have
regarding this data and being a resource in any way I can to
you and your offices. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Strauss follows:]
Prepared Statement of Benjamin H. Strauss, COO and Director, Program on
Sea Level Rise, Climate Central, Princeton, NJ
Good morning, Senator Bingaman and colleagues. Thank you for your
attention to this important topic. I am Dr. Ben Strauss, coauthor of
two recent peer-reviewed papers making an assessment of sea level risk
to the lower 48 states, as well as the summary report* submitted with
my written testimony. I am also Director of the Program on Sea Level
Rise at Climate Central, a nonprofit research organization that conveys
scientific information to the public. We take no policy positions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* See Appendix II
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In my testimony today as in my research, I will address two topics:
first, how sea level rise is amplifying the risk from coastal storm
surges, and then, what communities and assets are exposed at the lowest
elevations.
The nearest-term sea level projections I will share, in inches, may
sound small. But they are dangerous. The key problem is that rising
seas raise the launch pad for coastal storm surges, and tilt the odds
toward disaster. Just a few extra inches could mean the difference to
flood a family's basement--or New York City's subway system, disabling
it for months. You might think of it this way: raising the floor of a
basketball court would mean a lot more dunks.
In the long term, we are likely to see many feet of sea level rise,
and be forced to redraw the map of the United States. The high end of
projections for this century would be enough to turn Miami-Dade County,
Florida into a collection of islands. But in the near term, we will
mainly experience sea level rise as more and more coastal floods,
reaching higher and higher.
In fact, according to our analysis, sea level rise due to global
warming has already doubled the annual risk of extreme coastal flooding
across widespread areas of the nation. Global average sea level has
risen about 8 inches since 1880. This means that warming is already
contributing to the damage caused by any coastal flood today. Diverse
studies bracket additional global rise likely this century between 1
and 7 feet.
In some areas, especially for Louisiana, Texas, and mid-Atlantic
states, sinking land will add to the total effective rise and compound
problems. Taking such local factors into account, we made mid-range
projections for sites around the lower 48 of 1-8 total inches increase
by 2030, and 4-19 by 2050, depending upon location. All along the
Pacific, from Seattle to the Oregon coast to San Francisco to Los
Angeles, the component of past and projected sea rise from global
warming more than triples the odds of ``century'' floods by 2030 in our
analysis, as you can see from the display. The same is true inside the
Chesapeake and Delaware Bays, and many sites to the north.
These increases are likely to cause a great deal of damage. At over
half the 55 sites where we studied flood risk, storm surges on top of
sea rise have better than even chances to reach more than 4 feet above
the high tide line by 2030. Yet nearly 5 million U.S. residents live in
2.6 million homes on land below this level. Multiplied by the national
average sales price of existing homes in 2010, this stock comes to more
than $500 billion of residential real estate, in a rough estimate. An
enormous amount of infrastructure also lies in the same zone, from
airports to wastewater treatment plants, and including almost 300
energy facilities--as you can see in the second display, along with
population figures. The facilities shown are mainly natural gas, oil
and gas, and electric facilities. More than half are in Louisiana, the
vast majority there unprotected by levees.
In 285 municipalities, more than half the population lives on land
below the 4-foot mark. One hundred and six of these places are in
Florida and 65 are in Louisiana. In 676 towns and cities spread across
every coastal state in the lower 48 except Maine and Pennsylvania, more
than 10% of the population lives below the 4-foot mark. Maps and
statistics for 3,000 coastal towns, cities, counties and states are
name-and ZIP-searchable at sealevel.climatecentral.org, and I urge you
and your colleagues and staff members to explore the places important
to you.
In conclusion, the risks from sea level rise are imminent and
serious; this is not a distant problem only of concern for our
children. Escalating floods from sea level rise will affect millions of
Americans, and threaten countless billions of dollars of damage to
buildings and infrastructure.
Thank you for your attention.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Dr. Janetos.
STATEMENT OF ANTHONY C. JANETOS, DIRECTOR, JOINT GLOBAL CHANGE
RESEARCH INSTITUTE, PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL LABORATORY/
UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND, COLLEGE PARK, MD
Mr. Janetos. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the
committee, thank you very much for the opportunity to come and
speak with you this morning. I want to make several points
drawing on my written testimony.
One, which we've already heard some of, is that there is--
there are known vulnerabilities of the current energy
infrastructure to the conditions under which they exist today.
Current sea levels, the rate of rise of sea level, however
modest in today's world and variability in the climate system,
frequency and intensity of storms as we know them now.
But these vulnerabilities are being increased as sea levels
inexorably continue to rise with risks of damage, service
interruption and longer term service reduction of vulnerability
of that infrastructure.
Third, while we immediately think of the Gulf region, for
understandable reasons, it is not by far the only part of the
U.S. with infrastructure that's potentially vulnerable. In
addition to the exhibit that we just saw, I show in my written
testimony a map drawn from a very recent scientific assessment
showing energy facilities, production facilities, in the State
of California that are potentially at risk of inundation from
reasonable levels of storm surge.
Fourth, the risk in any particular location depends very
strongly on local conditions, subsidence, the status of barrier
islands. Barrier islands turn out to be particularly important
because they tend to absorb wave energy. As they erode that
energy is simply transmitted to the infrastructure and to the
coastline. In many parts of both the Gulf and the Southeast and
further up the eastern seaboard, including places closer to
here in the Newport News, Hampton Roads area, both NOAA and the
USGS have identified those areas as being highly sensitive to
the impacts of sea level rise including their energy
facilities.
As Senator Murkowski noted in her opening statements,
Alaska is also seeing very large and rapid changes both due to
sea level rise, but also due to the loss of ice and
dramatically increased erosion which has the capacity to effect
energy development patterns.
We've already seen both short term interruption and longer
term reductions in service as a consequence of extreme storms.
While Hurricane Katrina is the best known example, it's by no
means the only one. Important to keep in mind is that the
physical vulnerability of the energy infrastructure itself is
not the only issue to keep in mind.
The delivery of energy services, after all, is primarily
what we care about in both the short term and the long term.
That also depends quite critically on the status of the
transportation sector, roads and rails, on communications, on a
whole host of other aspects of infrastructure. There was,
within the last 5 years, there was an excellent scientific
assessment done by the Department of Transportation and the
U.S. Geological Survey, for example, to look at the
transportation infrastructure in the Gulf which showed clearly,
and this is also illustrated in my written contribution, that
literally thousands of miles of roads and rails that are below
4 feet of elevation.
It's worth keeping in mind that the storm surge of Katrina,
when it made landfall, was over 25 feet. So there's substantial
transportation infrastructure that's already at risk.
While we do know these things about the current state of
vulnerabilities of both energy and transportation
infrastructures, the scientific assessment literature and the
risk assessment literature on these topics is really very
recent. Most of the major assessments have been done,
scientific assessments, have been done within the last 5 years.
The two major reports coordinated in the--by colleagues at Oak
Ridge National Laboratory, were literally done and submitted
within the last 6 weeks. So we are still, I think, at a very,
very early stage in trying to assess the depth and the
confidence that we have in our knowledge base.
The primary literature itself is still rather sparse. This
is an area where research is poised to make significant
contributions to our understanding of this risk and what might
be done about it as we move forward. In that respect, siting
decisions, we've talked mostly about current infrastructure.
But siting decisions for future infrastructure are almost
completely unexplored. How all the factors that will go into a
whole set of siting decisions are really relatively unexplored
in today's world.
So this is, in closing, this is an area where our ability
to balance known risks and vulnerabilities with our still
developing understanding of potential adaptations and actions
that might be taken. Our relative lack of knowledge that would
contribute to better siting decisions for the future makes this
an area where research contributions could make a substantial
difference. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Janetos follows:]
Prepared Statement of Anthony C. Janetos, Director, Joint Global Change
Research Institute, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory/University of
Maryland, College Park, MD
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. Thank you
for inviting me to testify this morning. I am very pleased to be able
to speak briefly on the topic of the vulnerability of the energy
infrastructure to sea-level rise, and more broadly to climate
variability and change.
a concise summary of current knowledge
Other witnesses on this panel will speak to the scientific issues
behind rising sea-levels. The figure below, drawn from the last
scientific assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,
shows mean global sea-level changes over the past century (figure
provided by V. Burkett)*.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* All figures have been retained in committee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By the year 2100, global sea-level could rise somewhere between an
additional 20 cm and 60 cm, depending on what emissions trajectory the
world ends up on, and how sensitive the interacting processes of
thermal expansion and glacier ice dynamics are to rising temperatures,
both globally and regionally. The science in this area is quite
dynamic, and some of the physical uncertainties are large, making
detailed predictions difficult.
In any particular coastal region, sea-level rise is governed not
only by the dynamics of the global ocean, but by the particular
physical forces at work in that region itself. So, for example, local
bathymetry is important on the ocean side, and so are the dynamics of
the land itself--whether it is subsiding, as in much of the Gulf Coast,
for example, or rising, as in parts of the Pacific Northwest. Examples
from several locations in the Gulf are shown below (figure provided by
V. Burkett).
But regardless of the particular rates of sea-level rise in any one
place, it is clear that there is always some degree of concern about
potential impacts of infrastructure to rising sea-level, for many
reasons. This concern can be divided into two parts. The first aspect
is the degree to which infrastructure is exposed to current or
increased physical impacts of rising seas.
One of the biggest concerns in this respect is storm surge, the
risk of which increases as sea-level rises for the simple reason that
there is more water to be transported by winds, tides, and waves. So
even without changes in frequency or intensity of storms, rising sea-
levels will lead to greater storm surge, and therefore greater risk to
existing infrastructure. An example of why storm surge is of such
importance is shown by Hurricane Katrina, whose initial surge was more
than 25 feet at the time of landfall. Katrina's effects included a
reduction in oil production of roughly 19% for the year through
disruption of energy infrastructure, and linked transportation
infrastructure (summarized in Wilbanks et al 2012a).
The presence or absence of barrier islands can make a very large
difference in the amount of physical energy that near-shore or on-shore
infrastructure is exposed to. Barrier islands can absorb a large amount
of wave energy by acting in effect as natural seawalls, and thereby
reduce (but not eliminate) the exposure of infrastructure to the
effects of waves and storm surge (figures below from V. Burkett).
If storm frequency or intensity were to change as a consequence of
longer-term changes in the physical climate system, that would also
have an effect on exposure to physical impacts. The science is mixed on
these points, with recent scientific assessments from the US Global
Change Research Program (2010) suggesting that increases in tropical
storm frequency is not well-supported by the science, but that tropical
storm intensity is likely to increase over the coming decades.
The second major component of the potential impacts of sea-level
rise and climate variability and change on energy infrastructure is the
intrinsic vulnerability of the existing infrastructure. Infrastructure
that is already situated in coastal waters, or energy generation,
transportation, or grid infrastructure that is on the coasts is
variously vulnerable to storms, erosion, temperature extremes, and
other aspects of the physical climate system. Some of this
vulnerability comes simply from location. Several scientific
assessments and papers identify the locations of major collections of
energy and other infrastructure in the Gulf region, for example
(Burkett, Wilbanks, CCSP study). These clearly are vulnerable to the
effects of tropical storms and the rising sea-level of the Gulf. But
the Gulf is not the only region with infrastructure that is potentially
vulnerable. The Hampton Roads/Newport News region of Virginia, for
example, has been recognized both by NOAA and USGS as being potentially
quite vulnerable to sea-level rise impacts, and there are power plants
in coastal regions of California that have been identified as
potentially vulnerable (figures below from Wilbanks et al 2012a and
2012b).
Operators of equipment in the Gulf already recognize, and have
operational policies in place to deal with the existing stresses caused
by the physical environment in the Gulf. But it is not clear yet what
additional procedures might need to be put in place to adapt to
changing conditions, in large part because of the difficulty in
projecting climate variability and sea-level rise on regional scales.
Burkett (2011) identifies six primary drivers of vulnerability of
coastal (both on-shore and off-shore) energy infrastructure:
Increased ocean and atmospheric temperature
Changes in precipitation pattern and runoff
Sea-level rise
More intense storms
Changes in wave regimes
Increased dissolved CO2 and ocean acidity
This list of physical drivers of vulnerability recognizes that both
changes in the ocean environment and the near-shore terrestrial
environment (e.g. runoff) as well as the climate system itself have
potentially important implications for energy and other infrastructure.
Wilbanks and colleagues (2012a,b) point out that the vulnerability
of the energy sector's physical infrastructure is also linked to the
vulnerability of other societal infrastructure--in particular, the
condition and vulnerability of the transportation sector to similar
physical stresses. Likewise, the vulnerability of the grid itself to
changes in the physical climate system is important. There are both
well-documented case studies from particular events (with an emphasis
on the impacts of severe storms), and concerns about the potential for
both average conditions and extremes to change over time. A major
contribution of these assessments is the recognition that the delivery
of energy services is a multi-sectoral phenomenon, and thus
considerations of the linked vulnerabilities of major infrastructures
should be part of an analysis of potential adaptation options. The
figure below (Wilbanks 2012a) illustrates the complexity of sectoral
interactions that affect the response of energy infrastructure to
climate variability.
A particular example of known vulnerabilities of closely related
sectors to energy comes from a major scientific assessment of the
vulnerability of the transportation sector in the Gulf Region, jointly
conducted by the US Department of Transportation and the US Geological
Survey (CCSP 2008). One illustration of their results, the distribution
of road and rail networks vulnerable to long-term inundation, is shown
below.
what can additional research contribute?
While the scientific community and both the public and private
sectors are assessing what is known about current risks and
vulnerabilities, there are many knowledge gaps that make assessing
future risks and vulnerabilities difficult. These gaps provide an
opportunity for additional contributions from both fundamental and
applied research.
In order to help identify some of the knowledge gaps, we provide an
overall framework based on a research project in our own laboratory,
supported by SERDP, that will do a vulnerability analysis of military
installations (Moss, personal communication).
overview of research approach for vulnerability assessment of dod
installations
When adapted to the needs of the energy sector, and particularly to
issues associated with understanding the vulnerability of that sector
to sea-level rise and other changes in the physical climate system,
this framework provides a guide to several potentially important
interdisciplinary research topics.
We clearly need to improve our understanding of the
interactions of energy demand and supply with other sectors,
including land-use and water, but also transportation. Along
with this integrated understanding should come the ability to
model integrated systems on regional scales.
At the same time, determine the sensitivity of the energy
sector to other stresses and forcing agents, e.g. changes in
population, in demand for energy services, in cooling
technologies, in the productivity of terrestrial and coastal
ecosystems, in the availability of alternative renewable
sources of energy such as hydropower and biofuels.
Understanding and quantifying regional climate change, and
other regional changes in the physical environment, such as
sea-level rise and storm surge, is also a very high priority.
The relationships between global changes in these physical
systems and regional changes are complicated, but the scaling
questions must be resolved so that decision-makers can analyze
different possible scenarios of the future at scales that
matter to their decisions.
It is critically important to understand the potential
magnitude of changes in the climate system, including the
oceans, for several decades. But just as important will be
fundamental research on other modes of variability in the
climate system, including seasonal-to-interannual variability
and any potential changes in storm frequency and intensity or
other extreme events.
And as important as it is to understand the changes in the
physical environment, their forcing agents, and the processes
that control how they affect important features of climate, or
important aspects of sensitivity of natural systems, it is just
as important to understand the human dimensions of change. A
much better understanding, and the ability to model adaptation
decisions must be sought in order to understand how different
potential futures might be addressed in reasonable and
thoughtful ways.
Thank you very much for your attention.
References
Burkett, Virginia. 2011. Global climate change implications for coastal
and off-shore oil and gas development. Energy Policy 39:7719-7725.
Burkett, Virginia. Personal communication (figures).
CCSP. 2008. Impacts of climate change and variability on transportation
systems and infrastructure: Gulf Coast study.
Moss, Richard. Personal communication (figure).
USGCRP. 2010. Global Climate Change Impacts on the United States. US
Global Change Research Program. Washington, DC.
Wilbanks, Tom et al. 2012a. Climate change and infrastructure, urban
systems and vulnerabilities. Technical Input Report to the US Dept. of
Energy in support of the National Climate Assessment. Oak Ridge
National Laboratory. 119 pp.
Wilbanks, T.W. et al. 2012b. Climate change and energy supply and use.
Technical Input Report to the US Dept. of Energy in support of the
National Climate Assessment. Oak Ridge National Laboratory. 90 pp.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Dr. Berry.
STATEMENT OF LEONARD BERRY, DIRECTOR, FLORIDA CENTER FOR
ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIVERSITY, JUPITER, FL
Mr. Berry. Mr. Chairman, Senator Murkowski, thank you. As
we've learned the sky is not falling but the water is rising.
That's a problem for Florida.
It's a special problem. I know Florida is always a special
case if you read the newspapers. But sea level rise is a
special problem for Florida for 3 or 4 reasons.
One, Florida is flat.
Second, many of those people Ben is talking about live
within 3 feet above sea level and more are coming there year by
year.
Unfortunately Florida is limestone. Limestone is porous. So
we're not just dealing with the question of water rising. We're
dealing with the question of water infiltrating into our
subsurface, polluting, already polluting, our aquifers and
potentially bringing real dangers to our water supply with high
energy risks.
So those 3 or 4 things are at risk for all of Florida. In
some of my remarks I focus on the Southeast. That's because the
risks are very heavy there. But all of Florida is impacted, not
so much the Gulf Coast, but every other part.
It's not a future problem for us in Florida. At high tides
we get flooding. That didn't happen 20 years ago. Drains back
up with unfortunate consequences in some houses. I won't go
into the details.
The canals which were planned 50 years ago and built 50
years ago are beginning not to function. That 8 inches of sea
level rise that we heard about is the difference. The country
is so flat that even that 8 inches allows the canals not to
drain by gravity.
Water backs up. People get flooded. So we're either dealt
with drought or flood.
But that's a current problem. What we're more concerned
about is the projections for the future. We're looking at
projections locally where we're focusing, not on 2100 because I
think people's eyes glaze over at 2100.
We're focusing on 2030 and 2060. Those two dates are well
within the planning arisance of most of the agencies. Planning
roads, planning airports, planning energy facilities, 2060 is
tomorrow.
We're looking at the potential for 3 to 7 inches of rise by
2030, 9 to 27 by 2060. Those are big numbers for us in Florida.
The impacts for 2060, we estimate 400,000 square miles of
Florida would be impacted, directly or indirectly.
Billions of dollars, with a B, of real estate, problems
from schools, hundreds of schools would be impacted. Most
importantly and we're worrying about current energy facilities.
If we're going to deal with the new water facilities, we're
going to deal with the pumping.
We're going to deal with adjusting to this level of impact.
A lot more energy is going to be needed. So we're not
worrying--we are worrying about current energy.
But we're also worrying about how we deal with future
energy. We're going to have to look at the Gulf Stream maybe.
We've already got some research efforts there, solar energy as
well as our conventional sources.
At the ground level people are responding. I think the
example of the Four County Compact in Southeast Florida is an
important one. Four counties that normally fight like,
whatever, to compete with one another are actually working
together on a sea level rise plan because they feel that what
happens in one county is going to happen--is going to impact
the others.
They, in a brilliant effort, managed to get through the
State of Florida legislature some legislation last year that
said we are going to form Adaptation Action Areas. They are
going to be able by law be able to define areas where special
adaptation might be experimented with. That process is
beginning.
I'd have to say the universities are working pretty hard on
this topic. The Federal agencies on the ground, particularly in
association with Everglades National Park and its problems are
working on this topic. We realize that inaction is not a
permissible response.
We propose, I think, 5 things.
That further effort to be made to identify areas at special
risk.
That we should use the Special Adaptation Areas to identify
planning and removal and reconstruction efforts which would
incorporate sea level rise into all of our future planning,
future meaning more than 5 years.
We should look at the Everglades Comprehensive Restoration
Plan in the light of sea level change.
Last, but not least, we should look at the future energy
impacts that sea level rise will need for the State and for the
Nation.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Berry follows:]
Prepared Statement of Leonard Berry, Director, Florida Center for
Environmental Studies, Florida Atlantic University, Jupiter, FL
My name is Dr. Leonard Berry. I am the Director of the Florida
Center for Environmental Studies, Distinguished Professor of
Geosciences at Florida Atlantic University (FAU) and the Co-Director of
the Climate Change Initiative at FAU.
introduction
Florida is a special case for sea level rise; it is very flat with
millions of people living along the coast. A large portion of the
population relies on subsurface water which is being compromised by
salt water intrusion due to the porous limestone underlying much of
Florida. Sea level rise is also complicated by the threat of hurricanes
and storm surge. Water management in Florida is highly organized, but
will need major adjustments to accommodate our changing circumstances.
Most adaptation responses will require a substantial increase in energy
usage, which will test our already limited resources.
people and sea level rise
Florida has a population of nearly 19 million people and this is
projected to double in the next 50 years. Approximately 14 million
people live along the coast. Most of our coastal assets are in low
elevation areas where water supplies, roads, storm sewers, power grids
and other infrastructure are at risk from storm surges and flooding at
high tide. In view of the current sea level rise projections, the areas
most at risk include: the Florida Keys, coastal and inland Miami-Dade
County (the City of Miami is the 7th largest city in the country),
coastal and inland portions of Broward County, the Florida Everglades,
and the cities, Fort Lauderdale, Cape Canaveral, Charlotte Harbor,
Cedar Key, and Pine Island Sound. All of these have elevations below
two feet (Annex C)*.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* See Appendix II for Annexes A-C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Florida has recorded 5-8 inches of sea level rise in the past 50
years, and this intensifies existing water management issues. Future
projections suggest 3-7 inches of additional rise by 2030 and 9-24
inches by 2060 (Figure 1)**.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
** Figures 1-4 have been retained in committee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
florida geology and sea level rise
The porous limestone underlying much of Florida resembles Swiss
cheese and makes the state particularly vulnerable to sea level rise.
Due to this geological structure, building barriers to prevent sea
level rise is often impractical and financially prohibitive. The coast
is also vulnerable to periodic tropical storms and hurricanes with
related storm surge: Hurricane Andrew had storm surges above 17 feet.
Every increment of sea level rise adds to the devastation of storm
surge. The combination of sea level rise, intense rainfall, and storm
surge creates the on-going potential for major flooding.
impacts already identified
Sea level rise is already creating multiple complications in
Florida.
1) Coastal Flooding
Even though Florida has experienced only a few inches of sea level
rise, we are already seeing flooding at high tide due to the backup of
drainage systems. This new phenomena occurs regularly at lunar high
tides and is an indicator of future problems as sea level continues to
rise.
2) Flood Control Issues in Miami-Dade County
Sea levels were lower when South Florida's flood gates were
constructed in the 1950s and 1960s. With the few inches of sea level
rise that we've seen in the past decades, several of these flood gates
are unable to discharge storm water at their design capacity during
high tides.
There is already a multi-million dollar need to retrofit or rebuild
many South Florida flood gates and a recent report finds that only six
more inches of sea rise may cripple almost half the area's flood
control capacity.
3) Salinization of Aquifers
Many coastal wellfields that withdraw freshwater from the
productive Biscayne limestone aquifer are located along the coastal
belt of the Lower East Coast. These wellfields are extremely vulnerable
to saltwater intrusion due to rising sea level and drinking water
extraction
For example, because of sea level rise and salt water intrusion
into fresh water wells, officials in the City of Hallandale Beach are
spending $16 million to upgrade their storm water system and to move
the city's entire drinking water supply westward. City officials
understand that this is a temporary solution to a problem that will
worsen in the coming decades.
future projected impacts
1) Water Management
Much of the coastal flood protection infrastructure designed and
built by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 50 years ago will lose its
design capacity if the projected sea level rise for South Florida
becomes a reality.
2) Vulnerable Real Estate
There are 4,315 square miles of vulnerable areas that include
agricultural land, developed land, forests, mangroves, marsh and tidal
flats, other swamp and forested wetlands, pastures, sandy beaches,
scrub, grasslands, prairies, and sandhills. Also included are the
southern parts of Everglades National Park, billions of dollars of
residential real estate, hundreds of schools, hospitals, and hotels, as
well as two nuclear reactors and hundreds of hazardous material sites.
3) Transportation Readjustment
A recent study emphasized the need for a detailed assessment of the
implications for roads and other transportation taking into account
2060 projections for sea level rise. Local studies of South Florida and
the West Central Coast show that some communities and major
metropolitan areas such as Fort Lauderdale will lose parts of their
transportation networks at this level of sea level rise.
4) Coastal well contamination
Coastal well contamination will extend further inland as sea level
rise continues.
Most coastal communities in South Florida depend on wellfields that
tap underground freshwater aquifers for their water supply. Saltwater
intrusion into these aquifers is due to the current sea level and
concentrated coastal development already threatens the region's water
supply. Between the years 1995 and 2000, a compilation of data resulted
in an approximate location of the freshwater/saltwater interface on the
Lower East Coast (Figure 4). The heavily populated area from the
Florida Keys to Palm Beach County is considered especially vulnerable.
Many coastal wellfields which withdraw freshwater from the productive
Biscayne aquifer are located along the coastal belt of the Lower East
Coast and will be highly vulnerable if saltwater intrusion is
accelerated due to rising sea level. A more detailed analysis is needed
to identify the impact of projected sea level rise on selected utility
wellfields that are at risk of saltwater intrusion.
implications for energy, water, and resource management
Water is already heavily managed in Florida with extensive canal
systems. These will need major retrofitting and reconceptualizing as
sea level rises. Energy needs will grow rapidly with additional pumping
needed both for water supply and drainage, desalinization (which is
considerably energy intensive), and with increased cooling needs due to
higher temperatures.
Power demands for additional water treatment cannot be supplied by
the current grid infrastructure or installed capacity. The results of
the current water/energy nexus evaluation suggest the possibility of
conflicts over water supplies in the near future. To reduce this
potential, resolution of water rights, water quality, and other laws
will be important.
Due to the projected increase of energy demands, Florida will need
to continue to explore alternative as well as traditional energy
sources. There is widespread, long term potential in alternative energy
sources such as solar energy, biofuels, and harnessing the readily
accessible Gulf Stream as an ocean energy resource.
Table 1: Initial Estimates of Energy Adaptation and Costs (source:
personal communication with Dr. Frederick Bloetscher, Florida Atlantic
University.)
Responses
Many of Florida's decision makers are aware of these problems and
are beginning to respond to them.
1) Organizations
Counties and cities are organizing to respond to sea level rise at
the local level. The Southeast Florida Climate Change Compact is a
unique partnership of four diverse counties and was formed precisely
for the purpose of responding regionally to the impacts of sea level
rise and other climate related phenomena. This organization has a
detailed action plan and needs statement that is summarized in Annex A.
One important contribution of this group is that they have identified
the need for special adaptation action areas. Legislation incorporating
this language was passed by the Florida legislature and signed into law
in 2011. Federal adoption of similar legislation would not only benefit
Florida but also other states vulnerable to sea level rise.
Coastal cities such as Punta Gorda, Florida, have invested in
detailed adaptation plans to monitor and respond to sea level rise.
Regional planning councils across the state have undertaken initiatives
that will in part address sea level rise issues. Florida's Department
of Economic Opportunity has established a multi-agency, multi-
disciplinary focus group to address sea level rise future planning. The
South Florida Water Management District is conducting extensive
hydrological modeling and scenarios, along with collaborating with
other organizations and agencies.
2) Research and Education
The Florida State University System is undertaking significant
research programs and state and local projects on sea level rise
monitoring and adaptation. These include the Florida State University
System's Climate Change Task Force, the National Science Foundation-
funded Coastal Areas Climate Change Education Partnership, the CLEO
institute, the Resilient Tampa Bay Project, and a large-scale NASA/
Florida Atlantic University project. The Florida Climate Institute is
currently expanding to multiple universities and will continue and
build upon the previously mentioned research and projects. Several
state and federal agencies have on-going sea level rise studies, these
agencies include: the Florida Department of Transportation, the Florida
Department of Economic Opportunity, the Florida Division of Emergency
Management, US Fish and Wildlife, NOAA, US Army Corps of Engineers,
National Park Service, the US Geological Survey (USGS), the South
Florida Water Management District and the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection. The USGS and other agencies have on-going
programs on the implications of sea level rise and Everglades'
restoration. A major summit on the risk and response of sea level rise
in Florida is scheduled for June 2012 (Annex B).
3) Data Gathering and Monitoring
There is an on-going need for a thorough vulnerability assessment,
particularly for communities affected by sea level rise. Comprehensive
data gathering is necessary. Monitoring environmental changes is vital
to understanding the impacts of sea level rise. The USGS, in
coordination with other local agencies, will need to establish a
region-wide, formal saltwater intrusion monitoring network. Federal
agencies will also need to develop and implement computer models to
understand and predict both saltwater intrusion and flooding under
future sea level rise scenarios.
the cost of inaction
It is important to note that:
1. For every dollar spent on hazard mitigation, society saves
four dollars in the long term
2. When the mitigation efforts have been on flooding hazards,
it is a five to one return on investment
3. The largest return on investment occurs when mitigation
projects focus on reducing business interruption from loss of
utilities. Most of Florida's utility infrastructure is
underground, situated directly on the coast, and at risk.
4. Building resilience now will pay off tomorrow.
5. New coastal infrastructure and large scale, long term
restoration projects (i.e. Everglades Restoration) may not be
successful and may be a waste of resources and time if sea
level rise is not accounted for in the planning and
implementation.
6. There will be long-term societal costs as people move from
their homes to inland areas.
what should we be doing now
1. We need to further identify areas and communities at
special risk using the State of Florida Adaptation Action Area
legislation. Efforts should be made to align Federal
legislation with these critical state level policies.
2. There is an urgent need to incorporate sea level rise
projections into all infrastructure and water management plans,
including the Everglades Restoration. We can evaluate and
better understand the value and utility of restoring freshwater
flow. We need increased motoring activities, including
additional National Water Level Program Networks (NWLON), which
will be important in understanding and tracking changes in sea
level rise for the state. Establishment of a state-wide
saltwater intrusion monitoring network is also recommended.
3. We should be identifying future energy needs, including
the cost of adaptation, for the coming decades, and moving
towards traditional and alternative energy forms to meet these
needs.
4. In addition, we need to utilize our past response to
extreme events to create more sustainable community systems.
Florida emergency management is already successfully working
towards such initiatives.
conclusion
The impacts of sea level rise are already a reality in South
Florida and, as sea level rise continues, they will further impact all
parts of Florida. The actions outlined above need to be taken now to
increase our resilience and prepare for and minimize these impacts.
People and organizations on the ground are already responding. We are
delighted that, through this hearing, the US Senate is also responding.
The people of Florida are already concerned about sea level rise as
local awareness through major efforts has increased significantly. A
larger role for the Federal Government is clearly warranted.
additional resources and references
Florida Center for Environmental Studies: http://www.ces.fau.edu/
Florida Climate Institute: http://floridaclimateinstitute.org/
South Florida Water Management District: http://www.sfwmd.gov
Four County Compact: http://www.southeastfloridaclimatecompact.org/
Climate Central: http://www.climatecentral.org/
University of South Florida, Resilient Tampa Bay: http://sgs.usf.edu/
rtb/index.php
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Freed.
STATEMENT OF ADAM FREED, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, MAYOR'S OFFICE OF
LONG-TERM PLANNING AND SUSTAINABILITY, NEW YORK, NY
Mr. Freed. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Senator Murkowski
and members of the committee. On behalf of Mayor Michael
Bloomberg, thank you for the opportunity to testify on the
impacts of sea level rise in New York City. The steps we are
taking through PlaNYC, a long term sustainability plan to
increase our climate resilience.
As a city with more than 520 miles of coastline, New York
City faces real and significant climate risks even without sea
level rise. Today, more than 200,000 New Yorkers live within
the Federal Emergency Management Agency designated 1 in 100
year flood zone. These zones contain vibrant neighborhoods,
critical infrastructure, natural areas, historic landmarks and
approximately 200,000 jobs including Wall Street in Lower
Manhattan.
Our current vulnerability was tested by Tropical Storm
Irene which resulted in the first mandatory evacuation in New
York City affecting approximately 370,000 residents. The New
York City Panel on Climate Change, convened by Mayor Bloomberg,
found that New York City sea levels have risen about an inch a
decade over the past century. This rate is increasing. Our sea
levels could rise by more than 2 feet by mid century and by as
much as 4 and a half feet by 2100. This will significantly
increase the size of our flood zones and lead to greater
impacts in areas subject to flooding.
The consequences of sea level rise in New York, if not
addressed, could have a significant ripple effect throughout
the U.S. economy. The city generates over $600 billion a year
in economic activity, roughly 4 percent of the Nation's GDP.
New York Harbor is home to the Nation's second and third
largest trade gateways handing over $350 billion in exports and
imports, over 11 and 20 percent of the Nation's waterborne and
air freight, respectively.
Sea level rise will significantly impact our energy and
water infrastructure, the subject of today's hearing. New York
is one of the most reliable, densest and extensive energy
networks in the country including over 90,000 miles of
underground power cables, over 200 substations and 17 in-city
power plants. Many of our power plants are located near the
water to allow fuel deliveries, the use of water for cooling
and steam generation and water discharges.
Today, 10 of our 17 in-city power plants are in the 1 in
100 year flood zone. By the 2050s modest rates of sea level
rise will increase this number to 13, double the number of
substations in flood zones, and increase the miles of power
cables, steam and natural gas pipes vulnerable to coastal
flooding.
In terms of our water infrastructure the city's drainage
and waste water system consists of over 7,000 miles of sewers
and 96 pumping stations. Our 780 combined sewer and storm
outfalls and 14 waste water treatment plants are located on the
water so that gravity can drain the sewer system and treated
waste water can be discharged into the harbor. A change in sea
level could substantially limit the ability of these systems to
drain or discharge requiring system wide and costly system
upgrades.
Addressing these risks in a dense urban environment poses
significant challenges. It is not feasible, desirable or cost
effective to pick up and move New York City to higher ground.
Instead PlaNYC includes over 30 initiatives to increase the
city's climate resilience, our ability to prepare for,
withstand and recover from extreme events and environmental
changes. This includes working with FEMA to update the city's
flood insurance rate maps which have not been significantly
revised since 1983 when sea levels were 3 inches lower.
The FIRMs however, only incorporate historic information
and do not and will not reflect future sea level rise. To
ensure sea level rise is incorporated into the design and
operation of our critical infrastructure, we launched a task
force composed of 26 city, State and Federal agencies and 15
private infrastructure operators to identify the impacts of
climate change on our infrastructure and to develop coordinated
strategies to mitigate these risks. As a part of this effort,
we are working with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, a
critical partner in these efforts, and academic institutions to
evaluate a variety of coastal protection strategies. An effort
funded in part by HUD's Sustainable Communities Program.
Finally, we are building city projects today to better
manage these risks. Several waste water treatment plants
include flood gates and plans to rise critical infrastructure
above future flood heights. Parks such as Brooklyn Bridge Park
on Governor's Island, include shoreline treatments and salt
resistant plantings that can accommodate periodic flooding. The
entire 60 acre Willets Point's development site in Queens is
being elevated out of the coastal flood plain.
Local governments, however, cannot meet this challenge
alone.
The Federal Government can assist us by providing
information, decisionmaking tools, flexible policies and
funding that support local resilience.
FEMA should regularly update its FIRMs and provide flood
elevation data for the 1 in 500 year flood zone. They should
also include overlays that show where flood lines could be in
the future as the buildings and infrastructure we build today
are likely to last through the end of the century.
Federal agencies could also provide localities with high
resolution LiDAR data which is the most accurate topographical
data available.
In addition Federal agencies must recognize the need for
regulatory flexibility in urban areas like New York City where
we do not have room to retreat from the shoreline. Regulatory
flexibility may also be needed for the water supply system as
climate events could increase turbidity.
Funding should be allocated to the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers to conduct risk reduction studies in high risk
communities, the starting point for decisions regarding major
coastal protection measures. If substantial investments in
coastal protections are needed Federal funding will be
necessary both for these measures and to adapt our aging
infrastructure.
We must recognize the seriousness of the challenge posed by
sea level rise and our responsibility to meet them. Climate
risks should be addressed through an informed, decisionmaking
based on the latest scientific information and a thorough
understanding of the cost and benefits of action and inaction.
New York City is implementing a flexible risk based approach
that emphasizes those initiatives that have tangible benefits
today and will have even greater benefits as our sea level
rise.
But we cannot do this alone. We need the active and ongoing
support of our Federal partners. I thank you for the
opportunity to testify today.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Freed follows:]
Prepared Statement of Adam Freed, Deputy Director, Mayor's Office of
Long-Term Planning and Sustainability, New York, NY
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. I am Adam
Freed, Deputy Director of the New York City Mayor's Office of Long-Term
Planning and Sustainability. On behalf of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg,
thank you for the opportunity to testify on the impacts of sea level
rise on New York City and the steps we are taking through PlaNYC, our
long-term sustainability plan, to increase our climate resilience.
As a city with more than 520 miles of coastline, New York City
faces real and significant climate risks, even without sea level rise.
Today, more than 200,000 New Yorkers live within the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA)-designated 1-in-100 year flood zone. These
zones contain vibrant neighborhoods, critical infrastructure, natural
areas, historic landmarks, and approximately 200,000 jobs. Our current
vulnerability was tested by Tropical Storm Irene, which resulted in the
first mandatory evacuation in New York City effecting 370,000
residents.
The New York City Panel on Climate Change, convened by Mayor
Bloomberg, projects that the city's sea levels could rise by more than
two feet by mid-century and by as much as four and a half feet by 2100.
This will significantly increase the size of our flood zones and lead
to greater impacts in areas subject to flooding.
The consequences of sea level rise on New York City have national
significance. The city is the hub of the largest regional economy in
the U.S., generating over $600 billion a year--4% of our nation's GDP.
New York Harbor is home to the nation's second and third-largest trade
gateways, handling over $350 billion in imports and exports--over 11%
of the nation's waterborne freight and over 20% of air freight. We are
home to the headquarters of 45 Fortune 500 companies. Thus, sea level
rise impacts in New York, if not addressed, could have a devastating
ripple effect throughout the U.S. economy.
Sea level rise will significantly impact our energy and water
infrastructure. New York City has one of the most reliable and
extensive energy networks in the country, including over 90,000 miles
of underground power cables, over 200 substations, and 17 in-city power
plants. Many of our power plants are located near the water to allow
fuel deliveries, the use of water for cooling and steam generation, and
water discharges. Today, 10 of the 17 power plants located within the
city are in the 1-in-100 year flood zone. By the 2050s, modest rates of
sea level rise will increase this number to 13, double the number of
substations in flood zones, and increase the miles of power cables and
steam and natural gas pipes vulnerable to coastal flooding.
In terms of water infrastructure, the City's drainage and
wastewater system consists of over 7,000 miles of sewers 95 pumping
stations. Our 780 combined sewer and storm outfalls and 14 wastewater
treatment plants are located along the shoreline so that gravity can
drain the sewer system and treated wastewater can be discharged into
the harbor. A change in sea level relative to outfalls could
substantially limit the ability of these systems to drain or discharge,
requiring costly, system-wide upgrades.
Addressing these climate risks in a dense urban environment poses
challenges--it is not feasible, desirable, or cost-effective to pick up
and move New York City to higher ground. Instead, PlaNYC includes over
30 comprehensive initiatives to increase the city's climate
resilience--our ability to prepare for, withstand, and recover from
extreme events and environmental changes.
This includes working with FEMA to update the city's Flood
Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), which have not been significantly revised
since 1983 when sea levels were three inches lower. The FIRMs, however,
only incorporate historic information and do not reflect the impacts of
sea level rise. To ensure sea level rise is incorporated into the
design and operation of the city's critical infrastructure, we launched
a task force, composed of 26 city, State, and Federal agencies and 15
private infrastructure operators, to identify the impacts of climate
change on the city's critical infrastructure and develop coordinated
strategies to mitigate these risks. As part of this effort, we are
working with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers--who remain a critical
partner in addressing the risks posed by sea level rise--and academic
institutions to evaluate a variety of coastal protection strategies--an
effort funded in part by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban
Development's Sustainable Communities program.
Finally, we are building city projects to better manage these
risks. Several wastewater treatment plants include flood gates and
plans to raise critical equipment above future flood heights. Many
parks, such as Brooklyn Bridge Park, include shoreline treatments and
salt-resistant plantings that can accommodate periodic flooding. The
entire 60-acre Willets Point development site in Queens is being
elevated out of the floodplain.
Local governments, however, cannot meet this challenge alone. The
Federal government can assist us by providing critical information,
decision-making tools, policies that support local resilience, and
funding for flood studies and infrastructure. FEMA should regularly
update its FIRMs and provide flood elevation data for the 1-in-500 year
flood zone, so that we can be better informed to take action. FEMA
should also include overlays that show where the flood lines could be
in future years--as the buildings and infrastructure we build today are
likely to last a century. Federal agencies could provide localities
with high-resolution LiDAR data, which is the most accurate
topographical data available. They could also issue guidance on the
differences between Federal storm surge models, such as SLOSH and
ADCIRC, and when it is appropriate to use them. A model for the
provision of many of these tools is the United Kingdom's Climate
Impacts Programme (UKCIP), which is funded by the national government.
While we all share the objective of protecting and restoring
coastal wetlands, federal agencies must recognize the need for
regulatory flexibility in urban areas like New York City, where we do
not have room to retreat from the shoreline in response to rising sea
levels. For example, a recent rule prohibiting the use of Clean Water
Act Section 320 funds under the National Estuary Program for certain
actions in or near open water or wetlands significantly limits our
ability to use these funds to protect our coastline.
Regulatory flexibility may also be needed for water supply systems
as climate events could increase turbidity. Funding should be allocated
to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to conduct storm damage risk
reduction studies in high-risk communities, the starting point for
decisions regarding major coastal protection measures. If substantial
investments in coastal protections are needed based on a thorough cost-
benefit analysis, federal funding will be necessary for these measures
as well as to adapt our aging infrastructure. We have received funding
from the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Sustainable
Communities program--a critical program that enables cities to reduce
barriers to achieving affordable, economically vital, and sustainable
communities--to identify and evaluate flood resilience strategies and
design standards that may be compromised by climate change. For FY13,
the President has again requested $100 million for the program, which
was funded in FY11 but was zeroed out in FY12. I urge Congress to
continue this innovative program.
We must recognize the seriousness of the challenges posed by sea
level rise and our responsibility to meet them. Climate risks should be
addressed through informed decision-making, based on the latest
scientific information, and a thorough understanding of the costs and
benefits of action and inaction. New York City is pursuing and
implementing a flexible, risk-based approach that emphasizes the most
effective initiatives that have tangible benefits today and will have
even greater benefits as our sea levels rise. But we cannot do this
alone. We need the active and ongoing support of our Federal partners.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify.
The Chairman. Thank you very much. Thanks to all of you for
the excellent testimony.
Let me start with 5 minutes of questions. Then I'll defer
to the others here to ask their questions.
I think the testimony Mr. Freed just gave is particularly
focused on what we need to be trying to understand here in the
Congress. That is what are the actions the Federal Government
could take to assist local areas, communities, and States to
deal with this sea level rise, which has already occurred, but
is expected to increase over the next decades.
As I understand everyone's testimony, I don't think there's
any disagreement that we're going to see increased sea level
rise in future decades, increased over what we've already seen.
I think the figure one of you mentioned a was 9- or 10-inch
increase since 1880? Is that accurate?
Mr. Strauss. Eight inches.
The Chairman. Eight inches since 1880. But that's expected
to be increased in future decades.
Mr. Strauss. Yes, we'll probably get another 8 before 2050.
The Chairman. So the expectation is that another 8 inches
of sea rise is likely before 2050?
Mr. Abdalati. I think it's well within the range. I'm
comfortable with that number. It's well within the range of
possibilities. It actually may be at the low end.
The Chairman. OK.
Let me just ask if there are other suggestions? Several of
you have mentioned things.
Dr. Berry mentioned a couple of things--I think Mr. Freed
did--that the Federal Government should be doing to try to help
local and State governments deal with this thing. Also to make
sure that the decisions that are made at the Federal level with
regard to siting and design and construction of infrastructure
take into account this information that you've all described to
us.
Are there things that we ought to be doing that we're
falling short on at this point?
Dr. Abdalati, did you have any more thoughts on that point?
Mr. Abdalati. I think as scientists and as people who deal
with the effects of sea level rise there is always the interest
and need, frankly, for more information. The challenge, as you
are well aware, is balancing that against the resources
available.
I think the implications that you have heard have made
clear that the risks are great. I shouldn't say the risks, I
should say more the vulnerabilities--are quite substantial.
Because we don't know--we can't tighten up that range for the
future--we have to make plans, I would say, that exercise
prudent judgment in the face of that uncertainty.
So, you know what the Federal Government can do, and
frankly is doing, is invest. I won't speak to the specifics of
adaptation and what supports those approaches. I think that
they've been outlined quite nicely.
Where I come from is the information. Trying to get that
uncertainty down, trying to understand what's likely on our
horizon so that we can plan better. In that sense we are
actually making substantial investments in monitoring the ocean
characteristics and monitoring the ice sheet and modeling these
capabilities.
So what I believe the Federal Government can do and is
working to do in terms of information is support the activities
that NASA, the National Science Foundation, the Department of
Energy, our international colleagues, frankly, are undertaking
to tighten those numbers, better understand what's happening so
that the policy levers we need to pull can be addressed or
utilized more effectively.
The Chairman. Dr. Strauss, do you have suggestions for
things we ought to be doing at the Federal level that would
respond to this situation?
Mr. Strauss. Yes, I think if we want to reduce the risk and
the vulnerability, the actions the Federal Government can take
can be divided into a few simple categories. I'll just stop at
that high level.
One is to preserve, restore, protect natural defenses like
barrier islands, salt water marshes, beaches. Those things form
a front line of defense against storm surge. That's being made
riskier by sea level rise.
A second area is to build artificial defenses where that is
appropriate and efficacious.
A third approach is not to build more in harm's way.
A fourth approach is to consider a planned retreat from
places that cannot be effectively protected.
The Chairman. That sounds like a logical set of options.
Any of the rest of you want to add?
Dr. Berry, did you have something to say?
Mr. Berry. Picking up on earlier comments, I think we need
2 kinds of information.
I think we need, as was said, that we need information
about, better information about what's going to happen in the
future.
But I also think, taking a slightly pessimistic view that
sea level will go on rising, we need much more detailed
information on areas at risk. That needs more specific air
photography, more specific mapping.
I think as we, in areas like the Gulf Coast in Florida,
which are susceptible to hurricanes, it's not the exact amount
of sea level rise. It's the storm surge and the associated
flooding. That is not just a coastal issue. It's inland too. I
think understanding the risk to communities particularly at
some of the disadvantaged communities that are most at risk is
really an important part of planning for the future.
The Chairman. My time is expired on this first round. But I
wanted to acknowledge Rafe Pomerance who is in the audience. He
has been urging we have a hearing on this subject for some
time. I appreciate his persistence on that.
Let me defer to Senator Murkowski.
Senator Murkowski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'll continue on with your line of discussion here, because
I think all we need to do is look to Alaska to see what it is
that we have been doing to identify those areas at risk.
We've done an inventory of those coastal villages that are
at risk of literally dropping into the ocean. We have done
that.
We have looked to evacuation plans.
We have looked to how we can build out revetments along the
sea wall.
But our reality is that with the Federal agencies that
exist, they are there to help after the disaster has happened.
FEMA will only respond once the crisis has occurred. Once
you've dropped off the edge.
The Corps of Engineers, we learned, was very limited in
terms of what it is that they can do to provide assistance. So
Mr. Freed, I listened with interest to your comments about the
protection plans. In reality we are not set up well to adapt,
to have an adaptation plan in place where you then can take
Federal dollars and State dollars, local dollars, to provide
for a path forward.
We can help on the mitigation end. We can help with
cleaning up the crisis. But we're not very good envisioning and
being proactive. I think this is something that we need to look
critically at.
I was in Louisiana a few weeks ago, as I mentioned. I think
that is one of the most graphic examples that we have in this
country of the impact to our energy infrastructure. Because
that's what this hearing is about, due to sea level rise, is
Highway 1 or Louisiana Highway 1, that narrow little skinny
corridor that's nothing but a road connecting you to Port
Fouchon that hosts the energy infrastructure truly for the
Nation in terms of what is coming in, what is going out, how we
service off shore.
It's a pretty phenomenal community, if you will, that is
connected by a road that is at or below sea level. The effort
to raise that up so that we avoid wiping out the road is one
that has been a many year effort, many billions of dollars.
They've made some progress to it. But it is a perfect example
of our vulnerability. We just kind of close our eyes and hope
we make it through the next hurricane.
Senator Landrieu isn't here today to speak to it or she
would be, I'm sure, passionately pounding the desk here. I'll
do so on her behalf in recognizing that we've got an obligation
here with energy infrastructure that we have committed to. Yet
we've got one way in. It is truly at risk.
So the question I would have to all of you is on the budget
side. The President has sought $769 million in his 2013 budget
request to pay for what the Administration is calling Climate
Finance. It's my understanding that well over $5 billion to
date has been spent and this has been to direct funding
overseas to assist.
The question that I have coming from my coastal villages
when they find out that it's going to be $150 million to move a
village of 350 people and they're told that can't happen. Then
they find out that we're spending money, billions over the
years, to help overseas. The question is what are you doing to
help us at home?
I know that the people of Louisiana ask the same thing.
They probably ask you, Dr. Berry, down in Florida. What are we
doing here to help?
Can you speak to the issue of how we can better prepare the
map that was presented up there in terms of the number of
communities that are below 4 foot? I think this should be a
real wake up call to us that we've got some obligations that
are pending now. What do we do with them?
We'll start with you, Mr. Freed.
Mr. Freed. Yes, thank you for the question, Senator
Murkowski.
I think the most critical action or one of the most
critical actions the Federal Government can do is ensuring that
the FEMA flood maps are up to date and updated regularly.
Senator Murkowski. They're lousy right now, by the way.
Mr. Freed. We know New York City's has a plus or minus 3
foot margin of error which is well within the bounds of what we
expect for sea level rise toward the end of the century, so a
significant risk. That's our current exposure. So ensuring
they're regularly updated, ensuring they're updated with the
latest available technology, LiDAR data and ensuring that they
are forward looking because the flood maps don't just dictate
flood insurance but our building code in the city where we
require certain flood protections.
How infrastructure and where infrastructure are sited and
to what level is all dependent on the flood maps which by their
nature and definition only look at historic storms, only look
at historic flooding. We know that that environmental baseline
has shifted and is not as relevant as it was looking at future
risks. So ensuring those are up to date and regularly updated
is critical.
I think when you look at the cost of adaptation it's very
hard to think about because much of what needs to be done will
be incorporated into existing planning. So as you're upgrading
a facility, as you're building a waste water treatment plant,
which you would do even without sea level rise, what is the
incremental addition that sea level rise and future projections
play a role into that. So it's not as if there is a single
price tag for these set of projects that absent sea level rise
we wouldn't do.
How do you incorporate that into the ongoing infrastructure
investments that are necessary to upgrade our aging
infrastructure throughout the country and in urban areas? What
is that additive that's needed to address for climate risks?
Senator Murkowski. Others want to speak to that?
Dr. Janetos.
Mr. Janetos. Thanks very much. I would like to move forward
on this line of discussion. One of the things that the Federal
Government is doing but could continue to do is the creation of
a set of tools that actually enable the sort of analysis of
potential futures. There are 3 elements of those tools.
One is understanding the energy sector and the investment
in infrastructure itself. What is a sector actually vulnerable
to, not just with respect to sea level rise but with respect to
changes in demand, to the availability of new technologies, how
sensitive is it to changes in the up shore, onshore,
environment that after all controls how we manage that land,
controlled runoff, controls the availability of water,
sedimentation.
Second, those integrated tools need to be able to move from
the sorts of global observations of which we have many to
actually being able to simulate local conditions, to take into
effect local subsidence or rising of the land, either sinking
or rising, the existence or changes in barrier islands. But
changes in the local geography and physical forcings that
determine, that help determine, that vulnerability and how it
will evolve in the future.
Then the last element that these integrated tools really
need to incorporate are aspects. The ability to model different
potential consequences of adaptation actions because one of the
things that will determine how decisions are made is what
options are actually available to local institutions, to
cities, municipalities and towns. Without knowing what options
are available to them after all, how are they to decide whether
one is more effective or more desirable than another?
We really do need to have the development of integrated
tools that allow us, with the best fundamental science that we
can muster, but then allow us to put that in the service of
these decisionmaking institutions and individuals.
The Chairman. Senator Franken.
Senator Franken. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I noticed that
there are very few colleagues from the other side of the aisle
here in this hearing. But ironically there's an elephant in the
room.
[Laughter.]
Senator Franken. Climate change is the elephant. Climate
change induced sea level rise is clearly impacting the health
and security of our Nation. But this is a fact of life that's
going unnoticed by too many Americans because science has taken
a back seat to politics.
We saw this on the Senate Floor shortly after the EPA came
out with its scientific finding that greenhouse gases endanger
public health and welfare. Yet this scientific question turned
into mostly a party line vote here in the Senate. Unfortunately
this measure to overturn the scientific finding of the EPA did
not pass, but underscores the difficulty to address this
challenge when we are so divided on the issue of climate
change.
I'd like to go right down the list of panelists. Can each
of you tell me whether you agree or disagree with the EPA
finding that the rise in greenhouse gases endangers public
health and welfare?
Mr. Abdalati. I certainly agree with that. It does so in
many ways. Sea level being--particularly getting at the welfare
component--sea level being the topic we're discussing today,
but also in terms of air quality, pollution, the effects of
water distribution associated with that. Where there was a
reference to a 100-year flood zone; well, those 100-year zones
based on historical data don't really apply today because
things are different now. So vulnerabilities: the availability
of water resources, the kinds of crops that can grow in one
place are now better suited for others, and so on and so forth.
So there is very strong scientific consensus on what is
happening and why, and strong consensus on--not as strong
because opinions vary--but on the effects associated with
climate change. But I do want to be clear, you know, science
needs skeptics. When we stop questioning ourselves and when we
stop questioning each other, science suffers for it and society
suffers for it.
So any respectable scientist welcomes constructive debate
and discussion, but on the matter of climate change and its
associated impacts, the consensus is strong. It doesn't mean we
stop questioning ourselves or each other, but the consensus is
strong, and I absolutely agree with the EPA finding.
Senator Franken. OK. I encourage skepticism, but I don't
encourage cynicism and denial that's paid for.
Mr. Abdalati. I totally agree. I appreciate your saying
that.
Senator Franken. Dr. Strauss.
Mr. Strauss. I agree with EPA's finding. I agree with Dr.
Abdalati. There is a strong scientific consensus about what is
happening.
On the subject of this hearing, I would like to point out
again. That under our noses is the fact and it's been budgeted
and detailed and accounted for that we have 8 inches of global
sea level rise, more in some places locally, but 8 inches of
global rise which has been caused by global warming over the
last century. So if your basement was flooded because a 5 inch
wall of water came pouring down your stairs you were a victim
of climate change.
That's happening with coastal floods today. It's unlabeled.
It's unrecognized. But it is, in fact, a current and ongoing
impact.
Senator Franken. Dr. Janetos.
Mr. Janetos. Senator, I've had the privilege of either
participating in or leading a number of the impact scientific
assessments of climate impacts in the U.S. over the last
decade. Every one of them has come to the same conclusion. That
for natural resources and as we've seen today, for major parts
of our existing infrastructure, the impacts of changes in the
climate system are not some theoretical thing that will happen
to our children and grandchildren.
Things are happening now. They're well documented. I was
actually a reviewer of the underlying scientific assessment
that EPA did to support its finding. I agreed with it then and
I agree with it now.
Senator Franken. Is it OK if we go through all the
witnesses?
The Chairman. Go ahead.
Senator Franken. Dr. Berry.
Mr. Berry. Yes. I'll be brief. I agree.
But I also think that from a practical point of view
instead of too much debate about global warming focusing on the
issues like we are today is a very productive way forward. But
I agree totally.
Mr. Freed. Thank you, Senator. I unequivocally agree with
that finding. I think there are very few elements of our lives
that will not be impacted to some degree by climate change.
Just want to add and thank for the opportunity to be here
because while there are national and international debates
about whether climate change is happening and what are the
impacts from things like sea level rise, it's often the State
and local governments who are left to deal with the real
impacts that are already occurring. So greatly appreciate being
included in today's discussion.
Senator Franken. OK. My time is up. Thank you to all the
witnesses.
I just want to say something I've said before that we are
paying the price already for this. That part of our debate on
what kind of energy we go forward with and what kind of energy
we use and what kind of energy we develop. Part of the cost
benefit analyses of all of that has to take in account, into
account, what we're talking about today.
If we don't we're sticking our head in the sand. Now I've
had an ostrich and an elephant in my testimony.
[Laughter.]
Senator Franken. Thank you.
The Chairman. Senator Wyden.
Senator Wyden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I can't possibly
compete with Senator Franken for purposes of analogies, but I
very much share your concerns, Senator. I appreciate your
making the point.
Gentlemen, you all have raised some important issues. Dr.
Strauss, Senator Cantwell and I were just commenting that you
kept looking at the two of us, Oregon and Washington. So we
understand what the stakes are in terms of storm surges and
tsunamis.
My judgment with respect to some of these key questions
about rising sea levels also now factors in the fact that I
went to Fukushima last week, about a week or so ago. Of course,
there they had the triple whammy. They had the earthquake. They
had the tsunami which destroyed most of the site's backup
generators for the plants even one of their emergency battery
banks. Then we had the hydrogen explosions as well.
Now, Dr. Strauss, you noted in your testimony something
that I think really hasn't gotten a lot of debate. It certainly
should after Fukushima and with the latest evidence. That is
that a rising sea level raises the launch pad for storm surges.
It is going to raise the launch pad for tsunamis as well.
Now what I'm thinking about on the basis of what I saw a
little bit ago at Fukushima, unit four, you know, in
particular, particularly damaged one. Just the inventory of the
essentially, the hottest, you know, materials. You have another
earthquake/tsunami kind of rupture with these spent fuel, you
know, rods in these pools. The spent fuel rods are going to
melt. They could catch fire.
That's going to release a lot of radioactivity. All of this
is compounded by the testimony that you gave essentially this
morning with respect to the rising sea level raising this, you
know, launch pad. So I believe the question that I'd like to
ask and maybe start with you, Dr. Berry.
We've got a lot of nuclear plants located along the coast
all over the world because of the need for, you know, cooling
water. On the basis of these rising sea levels and also what
was seen at Fukushima, what I've tried to outline just in a
minute or so. Is it your view that it's time for us to do some
rethinking with respect to the location of vulnerable plants?
Plants that are near to catastrophic, you know, flooding that
was, for example, caused by a tsunami that Dr. Strauss, all but
stared down Senator Cantwell and I and kind of talking about?
This is not abstract issues for us in the Pacific
Northwest. These are very, very real. So what is your thinking
with respect to that point, Dr. Berry?
Mr. Berry. Florida has the, I think, unique distinction of
having two nuclear power stations on barrier islands. Barrier
islands are by definition fragile environments. There were good
reasons to locate them there.
But as a colleague of mine says, 3 feet of sea level rise
would be a problem for Turkey Point. For example, that nuclear
power station because Turkey Point when out of commission for a
few hours with Hurricane Andrew and the storm surge associated
with that, 3 extra feet and with a storm that was a longer
duration. Hurricane Andrew was very fierce, but it went through
very quickly.
I would recommend very importantly that the NRC begin to
look very closely at the implications of sea level rise on our
nuclear facilities and our other energy facilities that are
near the coast.
Senator Wyden. One last question if I might for you, Dr.
Strauss. Can you amplify a little bit on this question of the
rising sea level serving as a launch pad because for us in the
Pacific Northwest that is going to be a very real issue? I
juxtaposed what I saw at unit 4 and these, as you know, these
facilities are right next to the ocean.
There's what amounts to a makeshift bag of rocks that
constitutes a sea wall. It just takes your breath away at the
thought of sort of what you've outlined in terms of rising sea
levels, tsunamis triggered by earthquakes. I mean, give us a
little bit more analysis of the implications of an elevated
launch pad and what that means in terms of trying to our think
through public policies to deal with them.
Mr. Strauss. Thank you, Senator. I lived in Seattle for a
couple of years and Portland for a summer, maybe that's why I
was directing my gaze.
Let me start with something a little different, quickly.
The Pacific Northwest seems to get an enormous earthquake
magnitude, about 9.0, every 300 to 500 years. The last one was
in 1700.
One that that those earthquakes do besides creating a lot
of direct damage is lower the elevation of the land sometimes
dramatically, very suddenly. The forecast would be for maybe
one or two meter drop at the next 9.0 earthquake along portions
of the coast. So while a lot of areas in the United States are
slowly subsiding that's not very much the case in the Pacific
Northwest.
In fact, parts are lifting up slowly because of the tension
between tectonic plates. But the earthquake is when that
tension relieves, the plate drops. So you could have places
that are suddenly a meter lower which is another way of raising
the launch pad once you get past the damage from the quake.
The other point is that all along the Pacific sea level
rise from climate change is making a big difference--is along
the Pacific sea level rise is converting century storms into
decade storms or annual storms faster than anyplace else in the
United States. That's because while you don't have hurricanes.
So the difference today between a 1-year storm and a storm that
happens only once in a hundred years is relatively small.
Because that difference is relatively small, a small amount
of sea level rise converts what's today a once a century storm
into an annual storm fairly quickly. Now if you have steep
slopes it may not be a great problem. But in flatter areas or
where there are critical facilities, it is.
So what all that means is that on the Pacific Coast you'll
start to see water in places where it wasn't more quickly than
in other places.
Senator Wyden. My time is up. But I want to thank you for
your work and your scientific expertise.
Dr. Strauss, I think this is going to help provide a wakeup
call for us to put in place policies to start dealing with
this. I thank you.
The Chairman. Senator Cantwell.
Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you Dr.
Strauss and panelists for bringing up these issues.
I would just note that my colleague, Senator Collins and I
worked on an adaptation bill several years ago. We got this
bill out of the Commerce Committee, but not all the way through
Congress. I also must tell you that we're seeing the impacts of
climate change right now in the Pacific Northwest, on ocean
acidification levels, and the related negative affects on the
shell fish industry. So we're really seeing economic impacts
today.
In regard to your statement about the impact of storms, I'm
not so sure we haven't already had those 200-year events back
to back in the last few years when we saw major damage. But now
you're talking about a century flood more than triples by 2030.
I am concerned about these threats because we have so much
vulnerable property in the Puget Sound. We have something like
$27 billion worth of structures that could be impacted by this
rise in sea level.
So, to me, the issue is what do we do now? Do you think
that this is partly an issue of getting maps established? Some
verification of these maps at local levels? When you think
about what we've been doing for emergency response and things
of that nature, we have to get the information and develop a
plan.
We have to get people to understand what the impacts are
and then we can support communities in trying to plan around
them. We know this already because of the general threat of
tsunamis. But what you're saying is get ready.
We're going to see a lot more of this. It's going to have a
very, very dramatic economic impact, much greater than people
realize.
Mr. Strauss. Thank you, Senator.
Yes. I expect there will be a significant economic impact.
That we're already experiencing one, although we may not label
it as such.
I agree with my colleagues that we will be able to deal
with this problem much more efficiently if we have better
information. One side of that better information is improved
maps, improved elevation maps at a very fine scale in coastal
areas. I know a lot of progress is being made on that front
with laser, LiDAR elevation mapping.
I think the more difficult area is actually around
understanding storm surge and the water dynamics. You know, our
analysis--so our analysis of elevation, in my research, covers
all of the area, all the coastal area in the lower 48. But our
analysis of storm surge focuses on 55 water level stations that
NOAA maintains around the coast. One is in Seattle. But they're
scattered.
So understanding in detail what the storm surge patterns
are in between those 55 stations involves a lot of scientific
fire power, a lot of computing, a lot of simulation of
different storms from different angles, at different tides. So
there is a tremendous amount of work that I think we could do
to improve our understanding of how sea level rise will
interact with storm surges and progressively reach new areas
posing new risks.
Senator Cantwell. I can tell you I plan on introducing
legislation to make sure that we implement what is necessary to
become a weather ready Nation. The notion that we have
information that could be helpful to the American public about
storms but we just don't have the dedicated computing time to
take all the algorithms and run the scenarios is a mistake. We
must move forward.
The fact that NOAA now has almost hand held devices that
can communicate within an instant of an earthquake what the sea
level rise would be in a geographic area--that's the kind of
technology we need to have in first responders' hands. So I
think we just have to figure out how to be much more aggressive
about outlining these maps and scenarios for people, so that we
can start planning.
Obviously, we need to do more. I mean, you're talking about
effects that are going to take place regardless of whether we
do anything about climate change or greenhouse gas emissions
through climate change legislation. These are things that are
going to happen.
So now the question is if we keep making it worse, what are
the scenarios that are going to happen? I believe that this is
worth a lot of prevention. To do this, we need the computing
time.
Just as an example, we were without a Doppler system in the
Northwest. Now we have that state-of-the-art Doppler system on
the coast, and it can tell us much more about storm intensity.
It can say exactly where that water level is going to be. It
helps us communicate this to people.
But, first, we have to get the information to local
governments, to individuals, to first responders, so that they
can understand what the scenario really is. I think today's
hearing, Mr. Chairman, really goes a long way in highlighting
how critically important this is to our economy. We just can't
sustain this kind of level of sea level rise without a plan.
We need a plan.
Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you.
Let me ask, you know, I think the way we've been talking
about it and the way I've thought about it most of the time is
that we need to have good information in order to make good
decisions about investment in infrastructure. But it seems to
me that we also need good information in order to make good
decisions about investment in protection.
That we have sort of an article of faith here in Congress
that we want to help protect wetlands, coastal wetlands and
there are a lot of coastal wetlands that are very much at risk.
We saw some of the damage to them with the various hurricanes
in the Gulf Coast.
What does this expected sea rise tell us about what we
ought to do with regard to protection of wetlands. I mean, do
we need to be hardnosed about which areas are in fact worth
protecting because they are sufficiently resistant to this kind
of thing that they can make it? What areas can we just not
expect to protect?
Maybe that's too hard or too subjective a question to
answer very well. But I don't know if anyone wants to take a
shot at it.
Dr. Berry.
Mr. Berry. I think the Fish and Wildlife Service is putting
a good deal of effort in Florida and in the Southeast and
generally looking at this very issue. One of the strategies,
maybe, that you decide which wetlands are able to migrate
inland and which are not. Try to make decisions about the value
of protecting coastal wetlands.
The ideal circumstance is to have that wetland migrate
inland as the sea level rises. If that can happen and there's
space for it. We're actually looking at corridors of protected
areas that could be used for natural and people assisted
migration, not only of wetlands, but of animals and other
characteristics.
But we are in danger of losing 30 to 40 percent of our
coastal wetlands through the sea level rise process. That is a
very unfortunate view of the future. But it's likely to happen.
The Chairman. Dr. Freed.
Mr. Freed. Mr. Freed, but thank you for the promotion.
The Chairman. Mr. Freed, excuse me.
Mr. Freed. You're making my Jewish mother very proud of me
now.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. Great.
Mr. Freed. You know, New York City already has over 6,000
acres of wetlands. Many people don't think of New York City
with the vast natural earth that we have. We have a number of
projects working with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers with the
bi-State Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to restore
those wetlands for the ecological value that they have.
However, as was just pointed out, you often can't migrate
the wetlands back when you have sea level rise, when you have
densely populated, already built up areas. What we want to do
is look at what is the ecological value of the wetlands that we
may lose to the wetlands that we have. Figure out where it
makes the most sense to make investments to protect them and
preserve them.
One of the strategies we're looking at is creating a
mitigation banking system where we can actually use economic
growth and development to create a mitigation bank to then
preserve those areas and those wetlands that have the greatest
ecological value, contiguous areas. I think looking for those
strategies where you can pinpoint and really maximize the
investments in which you're making are critical to address the
issues that we have. Use the ecologically based adaptation
strategies, the natural systems that know how to protect us
against the risks that we face.
The Chairman. Dr. Janetos.
Mr. Janetos. Senator, we understandably focus on the
effects of the physical effects of inundation of sea level rise
when we talk about coastal wetlands. But there are two other
factors to also keep in mind as we start to think about what
affects their ability to survive in place.
One of those is the actual acidity of the ocean water
itself. The extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has actually
had the effect of raising the acidity of the ocean, coastal
oceans, as well. While we don't understand everything we would
like to understand about the sensitivity of plants and aquatic
marine plants and animals to that increase in acidity, for many
of the species that we do know something about we're starting
to see adverse impact.
So that's one thing to keep in mind.
The second is that the survivability of wetlands on the
coast also depends, in large part, on what happens upstream.
The availability of sediment coming down river, simply the
availability of water flow coming down to the coast depends
critically on how or if we manage lands upstream. So an
integrated knowledge and the integrated strategies of
protecting or continuing to value those coastal ecosystems or
their ecological value also depends not only on knowing about
the sea level rise itself, but on what's happening in the near
shore environment upstream on solid land.
The Chairman. Dr. Strauss, did you want to make a comment?
Mr. Strauss. Yes. I, just briefly, I'd like to expand on
Dr. Berry's comments to say some salt water marshes will be
able to migrate at least within a certain range of rates of sea
level rise. But they'll only be able to migrate if there is
available adjacent land.
So one possible step that we can take if we want to
maximize the ability of marine wetlands to protect us from
storm surges is to protect the adjacent land that is available
for migration and expand our idea of what the footprint of a
wetland is from, you know, the current wetland to the potential
future wetland.
The Chairman. Very good.
Senator Franken, did you have questions?
Senator Franken. Yes, I do. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Abdalati, Minnesota is OK for now, right?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Abdalati. You're doing fine for now.
Senator Franken. OK. Good. We have Lake Superior in
Minnesota. A little known fact is that the Great Lakes?
coastline is twice as long as the Atlantic seaboard. Almost 3
times the length of the Gulf of Mexico. So you can see why
we're thinking about water too.
But the issue is complex and the international upper Great
Lakes study has shown there are major differences between
climate impacts on sea levels and on Great Lake levels. We
know, for instance, that because of increasing evaporation over
the past 60 years, Lake Superior levels have been dropping. But
lake levels can rise or drop quickly and the possibility of
higher levels at times cannot be dismissed.
These uncertainties impact commerce, recreational uses and
water and sewage and sewer infrastructure. If we are going to
have sound management of the Great Lakes coast we ought to have
a better understanding of the factors impacting those lakes.
The study called for a collaborative effort among Federal,
State and local agencies on Great Lake management and
decisionmaking.
My question, Dr. Abdalati, is, is NASA aware of this
collaborative, adaptive management process being developed for
the Great Lakes?
Mr. Abdalati. I would certainly have to check with the
Director of our Applications Division in Earth Science for
specifics on that. But I will say, you know, you touched on
some very important points. The mechanisms that are affecting
the levels of the lakes are different. But they are no less a
manifestation of our changing climate.
You referred to the increased evaporation. There's also the
flip side of that, the ability of the atmosphere to carry more
water vapor leads to larger precipitation events as well. The
movement of lake water from one shore, you know, as the winds
circulate pushing the lake up on one side, lowering it on
another and vise versa, happens, is also associated with the
complex weather and climate patterns that occur.
So, you know, I agree--or what you put your finger on is--
there are multiple manifestations of our changing climate.
While the mechanisms of sea level rise and the mechanisms of
lake changes are different, they are interconnected in that
way.
I think partnerships, as was referred to at all levels of
our government, are essential for success because each brings
to the table a different perspective, a different element and
different capabilities.
Senator Franken. What resources, such as NASA's climate
modeling capacity or hydro-climatic data collection abilities
can you provide to this Great Lakes Management Process?
Mr. Abdalati. Certainly our insight to climate prediction,
our insight to water movement and water transport--what a lot
of people don't realize is we have satellites, a pair in
particular called GRACE (Gravity Recovery and Climate
Experiment), that measure the movement of water. They get a lot
of visibility because they're tracking changes in the ice
sheets and their contributions to sea level rise.
But they also track changes in lake volume for lakes that
are large enough. Terrestrial water storage, you know, when
soil becomes moist that has a gravity signal that these
satellites observe.
There are certain space based capabilities. There are
higher resolution, visible imagery that can look at the
characteristics in coastal regions, the erosion processes, the
exposure processes, the health of the surrounding vegetation.
Actually I was glad to hear about the LiDAR mapping
application because that was actually pioneered by NASA. We've
used it to track elevation changes in glaciers, but one of the
activities when I was a post-doc at Wallops Flight Facility was
doing beach mapping using LiDAR to track--or measure--the beach
characteristics before a hurricane and then after a hurricane
to assess--or quantify--the erosion characteristics and get at
the underlying physics.
That has been transitioned largely to commercial
enterprises. But certainly that capability, those tools and our
expertise in that area, I think would be of tremendous value
for the vulnerability assessment: management input, or
capabilities, or input to management practices, and so forth.
So the satellites, the aircraft, the models, our
relationships with industry in making these kinds of
observations, and finally the context and the broader climate
Earth system characteristics, are all elements that would
support a strategy that integrates State functions, Federal
functions as well as the local municipalities.
Senator Franken. I would like to ask you or urge you to
work with my office and to pursue this aggressively. I think
it's a good opportunity.
Mr. Abdalati. I'd be more than happy to do that.
Senator Franken. Oh, thank you. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Abdalati. I actually have to because my wife is from
Minnesota and I owe it to her. I have to pay back.
Senator Franken. I understand that.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. You have that same situation.
Senator Franken. My wife is from Maine.
The Chairman. Oh.
Senator Franken. So I have to do certain things regarding
Maine.
The Chairman. I see. I see.
Senator Franken. But I understand the dynamic.
[Laughter.]
The Chairman. I see, general dynamic.
Senator Franken. Yes.
The Chairman. Alright. Let me ask about a specific issue.
My impression is that private insurance companies are not
anxious and rushing forward to provide insurance against the
kinds of flooding that we're talking about in these coastal
areas. So it falls to the Federal Government to provide that
insurance.
Do we know if the information you folks have been
testifying on this morning is adequately incorporated into the
projections for what it's going to cost the taxpayer, the
Federal Government, to cover the cost of these expected future
climate changes? Is that something that is factored in or is it
just we're sort of flying blind here? We don't have any idea we
just pay the bills when they come in?
Don't have any expectation as to what--as I've understood
the way insurance companies operate they do pretty
sophisticated projections of what their liabilities are going
to be going forward. Only by doing that are they able to set
the premiums at a level that allow them to make money. At the
Federal level I don't know if we're doing that.
Have any of you looked at this question or have any
information about it?
Mr. Freed.
Mr. Freed. Certainly. In New York City there's a large
disconnect, I think, between the information we have and know
is coming and what is provided. There are large parts of the
city and Long Island where you simply can't buy flood or wind
insurance that the private insurance market has abandoned those
areas because they view the risk as too great.
Those areas are larger than the 1 in 100 year flood zone.
Because they recognize that the risk has migrated out of those
zones and is beyond that which then leaves the National Flood
Insurance program on the line to provide insurance as a last
resort. In many cases the property values are capped at
$250,000 in the flood insurance program which can often exceed
the full value of the homes that they're insuring.
Therefore there's a large unmet risk that you either need
to try to seek the private market to fill or the property owner
themselves is left to fill after an emergency which then
increases the cost beyond the flood insurance program to
disaster aid and recovery. So I think there's an enormous
disconnect. You're seeing the private insurance markets
reacting by simply not providing insurance to those areas.
The State, local, Federal Government will have to fill that
unmet need.
The Chairman. Dr. Berry.
Mr. Berry. Very similar situation in Florida. We have
Citizen's Insurance which I pay into which is a State
insurance. That is not backed by a great deal of reinsurance.
It's not backed by the amount of reinsurance that would
enable us to deal with a major hurricane. As time goes on it's
going to be more and more difficult, I think, to get insurance.
We do have a meeting in June in which this is an important
component. We're looking at it as a specific issue and getting
some of the insurance companies at the table.
The Chairman. Good.
I think this has all been very useful. We appreciate the
excellent testimony. We will try to take some of your
suggestions for actions we can take here at the Federal level
and urge those on our colleagues here.
Thank you. That will conclude our hearing unless you had
another question, Senator Franken?
If you did, go ahead.
Senator Franken. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Basically I wanted to ask about addressing climate change
in the long term. I think it requires that we grow clean energy
sources. But many of our Federal incentives that had been in
place like the Wind Energy Production Tax Credit are expiring
which is a serious blow to clean energy and to tens of
thousands of jobs including, Mr. Abdalati, in Minnesota.
So this is a little pressure on you. We actually found a
way to extend these incentives. It would require closing a few,
well it's not loop holes, it's subsidies that we give to big
oil and gas companies. It's the top 5 that made $137 billion of
profits in 2011.
I think that if you make $137 billion, if you're those 5
companies, you really don't need tax subsidies from the
taxpayer. So the Senate recently voted on the measure to close
$2000 billion, $2 billion worth of these subsidies to help our
alternative energy sector and that measure failed largely
again, along party lines. I find that really troubling.
This means that those who voted against the measure said no
to growing our clean energy economy simply because they don't
want the profits of big oil to go down $2 billion, I guess, or
they argued that this would increase the cost of gas at the
pump. Although we had experts on what was causing the price of
gas. My question on that they said that eliminating these
subsidies would have either a non-existent effect on the price
of gas or negligible.
My question is that Minnesota has reached a goal to reach
25 percent renewable energy as early as 2025. We're already
ahead of pace on that. Hopefully that's just the starting
point.
Could you talk about the importance of expanding clean
energy globally as a way to address climate change and rising
sea levels?
Mr. Abdalati. I'll comment because you brought up a very
important point. I won't comment specifically on what should be
done to increase the development of renewable energies or
alternative energy sources. But what I will say is we're well
aware the climate is changing. I don't think there's, in the
scientific community, any dispute about that.
The climate has always changed. It always will for various
reasons. But the success of society in the face of those
changes really depends on 3 things:
It depends on how big the changes are.
How rapidly they come.
Our ability to anticipate and prepare for them.
So when you're talking about alternative energy sources
you're tackling two of those 3 elements. You're tackling the
potential magnitude of the change, not just of climate but
ultimately sea level as well. You're tackling the rate of
change.
So in my view, if that is not motivation--if the success of
society in the face of these changes--is not motivation, I'm
not sure what is. You know, there are some who challenge even
the assertion--or the assessment--that climate is changing, and
for these reasons. But if you look at the fact that we mention
insurance companies, those whose economies--or economic
models--depend on data and accurate data, are among the biggest
users of climate data, are taking this seriously.
Our military charged with the safety of our Nation,
protecting our citizens, are taking this very seriously.
So it's clear there are changes coming.
It's clear that the way we use energy is contributing to
those changes.
I think it should be equally clear that our success in the
face of those changes really depends on slowing them down,
keeping them as small as we reasonably can. I'm not talking
about going crazy and reeking economic havoc. Although I don't
know what it would take to do that.
But investments in alternate energy are, I think, essential
for a successful future.
Senator Franken. Dr. Strauss.
Mr. Strauss. Thank you, Senator.
I'd like to elaborate for a moment on the big picture, sea
level wise. Dr. Abdalati made two excellent points. We have
some ability to influence the speed of change and the amount of
change. Both of those things are critical.
We can turn to long term history for some guidance about
what might be possible like the mutual fund ads say, past
performance does not guarantee what will happen in the future.
But it is some indicator.
The last time that it was about as warm as it is today,
before the last, the warm period before the last ice age, about
125,000 years ago. It was about 4 degrees warmer Fahrenheit.
Four degrees of warming Fahrenheit from where we are now is for
the scientific community about a best case scenario of what we
might limit ourselves to with an aggressive transition to
renewable energies.
At that time, when it was 4 degrees warmer, sea level was
very likely at least 20 feet higher than it is today. You
wouldn't recognize the United States map with 20 feet higher
sea levels.
We also know that in the warming, since that time, there
was a period when sea levels rose more than one foot per decade
for more than 2 centuries. So that's ten feet a century, very
fast. So either that amount of rise or that speed of rise would
be very crippling.
We don't know that we're headed to either of those things.
But we do know that the global ice sheet system is capable of
delivering them under some circumstances. So I think it is very
prudent for us to look.
You know, it's very important to look at reducing
greenhouse gas emissions if we want to reduce the chance of
high speed sea level rise or the chance of long term extreme
sea level rise.
Senator Franken. Yes. I mean, is that OK, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Janetos. Senator, one of the activities that we had
underway in our institute for, literally, for a couple of
decades is the development and use of models that actually look
at the affect of the evolution of the energy mix, the
technology mix and how what affect that can have on where you
end up on climate forcing, where you end up in terms of
atmosphere concentration of greenhouse gases and ultimately
affects on the climate system.
As we heard at the beginning of the testimony which sea
level rise gets realized over the 21st century depends, quite
critically, on which scenario the world ends up on. We don't
pretend to predict the future because all those scenarios
depend on a whole host of economic and political decisions. But
one thing we can say with some confidence is that transition to
a mix of energy technologies that produce enough energy as
demand rises, but do so in a way that minimize and begin to
reduce the actual emissions of greenhouse gases to the
atmosphere is a transition that really has to happen rapidly if
there's going to be a good likelihood of stabilizing both
concentrations and the forcing of the atmosphere within this
next number of decades.
Senator Franken. This just seems like such an important
hearing for in terms in subject matter, in terms of our future.
I think that's sort of an understatement. I think it's
something that in this committee, we need to talk about.
I think economically it will only help us to develop these
renewable energy sources of solar and wind and biomass. I think
that we're going to be competing with the rest of the world
because it's going to be so obvious where we're headed and what
we need to do.
I just feel that it's our responsibility here in the Senate
to be addressing this and addressing it head on and not be
afraid to do that. Have the conversation lead us to be the best
stewards of this planet for our children and our grandchildren
and other generations. So I want to thank the Chairman for
calling this important hearing. I want to thank all the
witnesses.
Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Thank you very much for being here and being
so involved in the issue and the committee work. Thank you all
again for testifying. I think it's been very useful.
That will conclude our hearing.
[Whereupon, at 11:15 a.m. the hearing was adjourned.]
APPENDIXES
----------
Appendix I
Responses to Additional Questions
----------
Responses of Benjamin H. Strauss to Questions From Senator Bingaman
Question 1. There are many questions about how reliable sea level
projections are. Can you describe in more detail the strengths and
limitations of the models and also how best decision-makers should use
the information that is available for future planning.
Answer. Sea level projections include a wide range of uncertainty,
but there are many reasons for decision-makers to take the high end of
current projections very seriously.
Scientists take two main approaches for projecting future sea
levels: physical models and semi-empirical models. Physical models have
the strength of building directly from known physical processes
affecting sea level. However, the scientific community has not yet
found a way to model Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets close to
accurately, and these are by far the most dangerous factors
(representing about 200 feet of sea level rise potential in total, as
compared to about 2 feet in total potential from small glaciers, and
about one foot per century potential from the expansion of ocean water
as it warms). Physical models have generally left out aspects of ice
sheet response, and model projections (for example, projections given
in the last two reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, or IPCC) have been low compared to observed sea level rise
since 1900.
By contrast, semi-empirical models have been able to match historic
sea levels over the last 100 years, and even 1,000 years, with great
fidelity. Semi-empirical models use historic relationships between
global temperature and the rate of sea level change to make their
projections. This approach implicitly captures all factors that have
contributed to recent sea level changes (including all contributions
from ice sheets), and implicitly incorporates all of them into
projections. Physical modelers criticize semi-empirical models because
they do not tie directly to physical processes, and because the whole
approach relies on extrapolation. As temperatures reach farther into
new heights not seen in the record on which a model is based, it
becomes less clear whether historic relationships will continue to
apply.
On the one hand, semi-empirical models probably exaggerate the
contribution of glaciers in the future, because the stock of glacial
ice will dwindle and disappear (something the model can't ``know''
based on the last century). On the other hand, the models may well
underestimate the contribution of ice sheets--which hold 100 times the
water that glaciers do--because ice sheets appear to have only just
begun exerting their influence. If ice sheets decay in new ways in the
21st century, compared to the 20th century, big surprises are possible.
During the last Ice Age, sea levels bottomed out about 400 feet lower
than today. But during the great thaw from about 20,000 years ago until
about 8,000 years ago, the sea rose faster at certain times than one
foot per decade, a rate much greater than the darkest contemporary
projections.
Semi-empirical models generally project more sea-level rise this
century than physical models do, but there is a real possibility that
both approaches underestimate what could happen. Greenhouse gases are
increasing in the atmosphere today at a rate many times faster than
anything the planet has seen in at least the last 55 million years, so
it is reasonable to expect surprises. This is why, for example, New
York State and City have decided to use two sea-level rise scenarios, a
traditional one and a fast-melt scenario--one kind of approach
decision-makers might consider. (The fast-melt scenario assumes an
extra 3+ feet of sea level rise per century, based on the overall
average sea level rise rate during the long thaw from the last Ice
Age.)
Both physical and semi-empirical models rely on projections of
future greenhouse gas emissions, and on global climate models that
translate those into temperature projections. It is a common (although
not universal) practice to present a range of sea-level projections
based on a range of possible emission scenarios in one bundle. Whenever
this is the case, it is important for decision-makers to recall that so
far, we are on a path close to the highest of all major emission
scenarios used. Continuing on such a path would point toward the higher
part of any range of sea level projections.
The deep historical record also points toward higher projections.
Before the last Ice Age, there was a warm period, about 125,000 years
ago, with global temperatures perhaps slightly warmer than today, and
certainly cooler than the temperatures projected this century under the
higher emissions scenarios. During that last warm period, sea level
peaked 20-to-30 feet higher than today. The planet was in a different
orbit then, so the warm period is not a perfect analog to today, but it
certainly points toward caution about how high we might ultimately
drive sea levels.
The international scientific community, as reflected by the IPCC,
has a demonstrated track record of underestimating sea-level rise.
Based on personal observations, I'd also add that for many climate
scientists, it can feel safe, reflexive, or ``conservative,'' to
emphasize projections that deviate relatively little from present
conditions (despite--or perhaps because of--accusations of
``alarmism''). Such projections generally incorporate less novelty, and
ask less of their audiences. However, for a decision-maker with
responsibilities for public safety or economic wellbeing, ignoring
high-end projections would seem to be the opposite of conservative.
One more note about sea level projections is critical for future
planning. Most projections are given as a range to be achieved by a
given year--say, by 2050 or 2100. This can lead to the impression that
the rise would then stop. In fact, under the higher projections, the
rate of sea level rise continues to accelerate so it is rising faster
than ever at the end date. Both the speed and amount of sea level rise
contribute to the dangers it poses, but ultimately, high speed would
threaten social stability the most. So the high-end sea-leve rise
projections include a double threat.
In conclusion, decision-makers would be well served by taking the
high end of model projections for sea-level rise very seriously--for
semi-empirical as well as physical models.
Question 2. Opponents of policies to reduce carbon emissions often
cite the costs and economic burden of such policies as a main reason
for their opposition. Your testimony here today would indicate that the
costs of inaction, and also of not planning for a certain level of
climate change that we have already committed to, are quite high. Are
there studies that effectively quantify these costs, and if so, how do
they compare to the costs of being proactive?
Answer. A recent peer-reviewed study by James Neumann and
colleagues estimated the value at risk from sea level rise by 2100 for
the contiguous US, and also estimated total costs with proactive
adaptive measures. For a ``mid SLR scenario'' of 2.2 feet by 2100 (in
fact, this is toward the lower end of most recent projections), the
authors found just over $1 trillion at risk ($600 billion with 3%
discounting) if no action were taken. By contrast, the estimated total
cost plus damages under an optimized program of defense and retreat was
estimated at $236 billion under the same scenario ($64 billion
discounted). This finding suggests enormous costs and exposure for
failure to plan and respond to sea level increases. Under a ``high SLR
scenario'' of 4.1 feet, the estimated total cost plus damages under an
optimized program was $324 billion ($75 billion discounted).
A global analysis by Robert Nicholls and colleagues estimated $7
vs. $70 billion in annual coastline defense costs for North America by
2100, for 1.5-foot vs 6.5-foot sea-level rise scenarios. Under the
high-rise scenario, the study assumed abandonment of 25% of vulnerable
land. The study did not estimate damages, only the cost of defenses--
which the Neumann study suggests are many times less than the damage
potential.
A third recent study, by Ross Hoffman and colleagues, found 7-9%
increases in overall annual storm damage costs along Gulf and Atlantic
coasts of the U.S., through 2030, assuming essentially linear
continuation of recent historical trends in sea level rise (in other
words, a very low sea level rise scenario not allowing for
acceleration--although accelerated sea level rise has recently been
detected from Cape Hatteras to Boston). Locally, increases of 20% or
more were common. Factoring in potentially warmer sea surface
temperatures (and thus aggravated storms), the overall annual storm
damage increase grew, and ranged from 18-20%.
These studies all focus on direct potential damages and the cost of
defenses. The literature on the economics of sea-level rise so far does
little to address potential broader negative indirect impacts on
economy-wide growth and welfare, although these are regarded as
possible. However, the studies cited above do showcase recent thinking
and highlight the very large costs of failing to reduce heat-trapping
pollution, and of failing to plan for the increasing amounts of sea
level rise to which we are already committing ourselves.
At a smaller scale and from a more practical, less theoretical
perspective, my answer to question 1a from Senator Cantwell throws some
light on costs being scoped by local governments as they contemplate
putting defenses in place today.
Overall, the costs of inaction are poorly understood, and very
likely underestimated. As a prime example, we are not even counting the
cost of the roughly 8 inches of global sea level rise we have already
experienced due to warming over the last century. Today, every single
coastal flood is wider and deeper due to sea level rise. Therefore, a
fraction of the economic damage from every coastal flood can already be
linked to climate change. However, no one is yet doing the accounting
or labeling required to count this cost.
Values used in this answer are 2010 dollars.
Question 3. From the maps that you submitted with your testimony it
appears that the nation's energy infrastructure in Louisiana is
particularly vulnerable to sea level rise. What impacts do you expect
that could have on the country as a whole?
Answer. The Department of Homeland Security has estimated that
having Louisiana Route 1 and Port Fourchon, which it serves, out of
service for 90 days would lead to a long-term reduction of 120 million
barrels of oil and 250 billion cubic feet of natural gas production,
and would have up to an $8 billion negative impact on the US economy
(GDP). Rising seas increase this risk.
More broadly, the Gulf coastal region, including low-lying coastal
areas of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama, has about $500
billion in oil and gas assets, plus $300 billion in electric utility
assets, expected to grow to $930 billion combined by 2030, according to
a study by Entergy. The region is responsible for roughly half of the
nation's natural gas and oil production, and half the oil imports.
Entergy estimates $2.7-4.6 billion in annual extra damages and costs
from climate change in the region, by 2030, depending upon climate
scenario.
Entergy's research also suggests $0.5-1.1 billion in increased
annual impacts in Louisiana, alone, with $0.4-0.7 billion of this
directly from increases in flooding and storm surge (aggravated by sea
level rise), and the balance from increased wind and rain and business
interruption.
Question 4. Are there particular power plants or other pieces of
energy infrastructure that are of primary concern? Is it feasible to
protect them, or will they simply need to be retired or replaced?
Answer. The analysis I presented is best suited for assessing
aggregate exposure (e.g. totals per state or nationally), and not the
risk to individual pieces of infrastructure. Certainly there are
individual facilities of primary concern--for example, facilities that
might pose important dangers if damaged (e.g. nuclear plants), or
assets that contribute significantly to the national energy supply
(e.g. Route 1 in Louisiana, which serves a large proportion of oil and
gas extraction facilities in the Gulf of Mexico). For the most accurate
risk assessment, the danger to such vital facilities should be examined
on a case-by-case basis using best available elevation data (ideally
laser-based LiDAR data) and physical hazard modeling (e.g. simulated
storm events), incorporating a wide range of future sea level rise
scenarios, including high-end. Individual circumstances will determine
the feasibility and economics of protection vs. retirement in each
case.
That said, in the long run, I have no doubt that retreat will be
the only practical recourse for many sites. The main questions are
when, and whether facilities can complete their useful lifetimes first.
Responses of Benjamin H. Strauss to Questions From Senator Murkowski
tools for fixing the problem
Question 1. In Congress, it has become apparent that cap-and-trade
lacks the support needed to pass, and internationally, the U.N. has
failed to develop a treaty that all nations are willing to ratify. What
we are left with at the moment are regulations by the EPA under the
Clean Air Act, which many of us oppose due to our concerns about their
economic impact.
a. How much of a difference will CAFE standards and New
Source Performance Standards for power plants actually have on
projected sea level rise?
Answer. According to many projections, strong reductions in global
total greenhouse emissions would make a large difference for sea level
rise by the end of the century. CAFE standards and New Source
Performance Standards would contribute toward such reductions, but I am
not aware of any analysis that would let us assess what effect those
measures alone might have on sea level rise.
By the end of the century, strong reductions could make the
difference between keeping or losing South Florida; a defensible or
indefensible problem in most coastal areas; and stabilizing or
accelerating rates of sea level rise. It is important to note, however,
that due to momentum built into the physical system, it may already be
too late to slow down sea level rise over the next four decades; and we
may already be committed to considerable sea level rise over the long
run. A recent study, for example, projected we might see about five
feet of rise by 2300 even if all global greenhouse gas emissions
permanently stop in 2016. (On the other end of the spectrum, five feet
this century--a possibility if we make no cuts in emissions--would be
vastly more difficult to adjust to. Like a bullet, the faster sea level
rise moves, the more dangerous it is.)
setting priorities
Question 2. A New York Times article from 2007, entitled ``Feel
Good vs. Do Good on Climate,'' brings up a number of interesting points
on this subject. Using New York as a case in point, the article states
that ``The warming that has already occurred locally is on the same
scale as what's expected globally in the next century.'' Bjorn Lomborg
is also quoted as saying, ``No historian would look back at the last
two centuries and rank the rising sea level here as one of the city's
major problems.''
a. In comparison to malaria, famine, and other global
problems that are affecting people right now, how much
attention should be paid to rising sea levels?
Answer. Many global problems cause great suffering and deserve much
attention. Most of them are fairly cyclical: so far in global history,
disease and hunger tend to come and go, rise and fall, as even do armed
conflict and war. What distinguishes many problems associated with
global warming, and sea level rise in particular, is their one-way and
irreversible nature. Carbon dioxide lingers in the atmosphere for
centuries, and ice sheets that melt or crumble into the sea would take
millennia to rebuild. It is true that few or no historians would rank
sea level rise over the past two centuries as a major problem, but sea
level is already rising about three times faster than it was one
hundred years ago, and is expected to accelerate much more, in a world
where far more population and assets are concentrated along the coast
than ever before.
In choosing whether and how much to invest in reducing global
warming and its impacts, versus other problems, this one-way ratchet is
important to remember. It is also important to remember that emissions,
temperature and sea level rise are all currently accelerating. If and
when we choose to cut emissions, research indicates we will already be
locked into decades more of increasing damage and distress, before
improvements from the cuts become noticeable. There is a great danger
that by the time impacts become painful and obvious enough to loom
large in most people's eyes compared to other immediate issues of the
day, we will already be committed to much greater pain for generations
to come. (Pain that could include much more famine--consider this
summer's drought a small foretaste of the threat to agriculture--and
the geographic spread of tropical diseases like malaria.)
With respect to the local vs. global warming analogy, consider the
difference between heating one toe to 105 degrees (say, by dipping it
in a hot tub), versus heating your whole body through and through to
the same temperature. The former is a minor discomfort, while the
latter is a life-threatening systemic crisis. The two situations are
not fairly comparable.
accuracy to date
Question 3. Scientists and researchers have been making projections
about sea level rise for years--if not decades. Climate models are
constantly being re-worked, and refined, but hearings like these
provide an opportunity to look back as well as forward.
a. To the extent that past projections were made for sea
level rise in 2010, 2012, or another point around the current
period, how accurate have those projections been?
Answer. The projections for sea level rise by 2010, made by both
the third and fourth major assessments of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change--whose reports are generally regarded as the
international scientific consensus near the time they are made--have
been markedly too low. Actual sea level rise has been on the very upper
edge of the entire wide range of possibilities projected.
For more background on sea level rise projections, please see my
reply to Senator Bingaman's first question.
Responses of Benjamin H. Strauss to Questions From Senator Cantwell
Question 1. Knowing the responsibilities states, cities, and
localities already have and their limited ability to raise additional
resources, it seems like we are going to have to establish some sort of
federal program that can direct the billions of dollars needed to adapt
our nation's infrastructure to and protect our citizens from the
impacts of climate change.
a. Do you believe such a Federal role and funding stream is
necessary?
Answer. It seems very likely that many or most coastal cities,
counties and states will not be able to afford the cost of adapting to
sea level rise, or at least will choose not to pay it. In fact,
examples are already accumulating of cities studying the cost of
protection, and balking at the price tag, or choosing projects that
will not offer meaningful protection.
Norfolk, VA engaged the Dutch engineering firm Fugro to design and
cost out defenses. Sea wall cost came to $300 million (compared to an
$800 million total annual budget for the city). Norfolk declined the
proposal because of its high price and because the solution didn't
protect against inland flooding and sewer overflow (which can be
complicated by rising seas--drainage of inland water is retarded).
Norfolk, population 250,000, is now developing a plan to seek federal
aid for a comprehensive $1 billion fix over the next 30 years,
according to the Washington Post.
An Army Corps of Engineers levee project that could have protected
communities in north and central Lafourche, LA, from storm surge on top
of rising seas, at a cost of roughly $1 billion, was recently canceled,
according to Houma Today.
The Washington Post reported this spring that Louisiana has so far
not been able to find $320 million to raise a vulnerable, low-lying
section of LA Route 1, which serves Port Fourchon, a lynchpin in the
nation's current energy infrastructure (for more see answer to question
no. 3 from Senator Bingaman).
In Seattle, WA, citizens will vote this fall on a $290 million bond
ballot measure to repair and rebuild a downtown waterfront seawall. The
new seawall will be built to tolerate 11 inches of sea level rise.
Climate Central's recent peer-reviewed research projects 11 inches of
sea level rise (90% confidence range: 4-21 inches) for the Seattle area
by 2050. Even if the citizens vote to pay and the wall is built, it
will not protect the city for even close to its planned 100-year life
under a wide range of sea-level rise scenarios.
Question 1b. Wouldn't a price on carbon, which could serve to both
reduce the severity of these climate impacts and provide the needed
funds, make the most sense?
Answer. It is my understanding that the great majority of
economists believe a price on carbon would be the most efficient way to
reduce emissions and therefore future impacts. Most impact reduction
would be realized after 2050, because of the powerful momentum of
warming. Although our actions today can reduce future costs, many
costly impacts are indeed unavoidable (and already taking place, even
if not labeled as costs of climate change).
Question 2. As we think about our economic and energy future, we
need to consider the real costs of inaction. A recent study has
estimated that the impacts of climate change will cost my home state of
Washington 10 billion dollars per year by 2020. This is an enormous
burden that will be arriving very soon.
Answer. It is imperative that we get ahead of this curve and
prepare for these impacts now. To that end, we must maintain vital
funding of research programs and facilities that advance scientific
knowledge and understanding and provide the foundation for cost-
effective, innovative solutions. Unfortunately, funding carve-outs in
the Department of Energy's Office of Science have impacted base program
funding for user facilities and research in recent years.
In my home state, PNNL is working on solutions to the challenges
climate change imposes, but to succeed, they need our continued
support. In these fiscally austere times, it makes even less sense to
be a penny wise and a pound foolish. PNNL is conducting important
research, for example through the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement
(ARM) Program, to get a better sense of what changes in climate are
already occurring and will likely occur in the future--advancing our
understanding of the climate system that include complex components
such as aerosols, clouds, and the carbon cycle.
PNNL is also working to provide better information to plan for the
coming impacts. They're developing high resolution models that
incorporate critical infrastructure and natural resources of each
region to inform mitigation and adaptation decisions at the state and
regional level. This information will be invaluable for infrastructure
planning by natural resource managers, energy companies, and government
agencies that currently face great uncertainties in their decision
making in response to changing regional climates.
It seems to me that the upfront costs of this research and planning
will be extremely modest relative to the costs coming down the road.
Question 2a. Do all of you agree that proposed cuts to research and
development will impede our ability to prepare for and mitigate the
worst impacts of climate change?
Answer. Without any cuts at all, the national investment in
research on climate change, its impacts, and reducing and coping with
those impacts, is almost certainly very small compared to the scale of
the threat. What would the defense budget be if an enemy power
threatened to annex much of South Florida, the boot of Louisiana, Long
Island, and the United States' largest ports and naval bases? This is a
sampling of effects from something like a worst-case scenario for sea-
level rise this century (and that is just one climate change impact;
drought and agricultural effects may be more damaging).
Question 2b. Do you hear from states and localities appreciating
your analysis and that they use your data to make better planning
decisions?
Answer. Our data have only just been released this spring, so it is
early for collecting this kind of feedback, but I understand our work
will be incorporated in the coming national climate assessment, and has
been used for public education by groups and individuals in at least
Massachusetts, Florida, North Carolina, and California.
______
Responses of Waleed Abdalati to Questions From Senator Bingaman
Question 1. There are many questions about how reliable sea level
projections are. Can you describe in more detail the strengths and
limitations of the models and also how best decision-makers should use
the information that is available for future planning.
Answer. Two methods have been used for projecting sea level rise.
The first is through models that seek to accurately describe the
physics that affect sea level changes. These include expansion of
oceans as they warm, the physics associated with the movement, melting,
and accumulation of glaciers and ice sheets, and the variability in
stored groundwater. These models have the strength of being physically
based, enabling a representation of the underlying causes of sea level
rise. They have the limitation, however, of not being able to fully
capture the effects of changes in the flow rates of glaciers on ice
sheets, which can contribute substantial amounts to sea level, as a
result, this approach, while grounded in physics has historically
underestimated sea level rise, and has historically not been able to
capture the accelerating ice loss from ice sheets.
The second method is to compare past temperatures to past sea
levels reconstructed from the geological record of Earth's climate
history. There is a fairly robust relationship between the two, and by
using this relationship or correlation; one can predict values of sea
level rise for estimated values of future temperatures. This method is
a statistical, rather than a physical approach, and when applied to
future warming scenarios, this method provides the highest estimates (2
meters) for the end of the century. It has the advantage of not
requiring a detailed understanding of the complex physics in order to
make a prediction, and it produces results consistent with recent
history. However, because it does not directly incorporate underlying
physical processes, this method provides limited insight into
mechanisms and characteristics of future sea level rise.
Despite the limitations, all of the many peer-reviewed, science-
based sea-level models predict that sea-level rise will continue for
the foreseeable future, although the models differ as to the precise
rate of the average rise, and most models have underestimated current
rates of sea level rise.
In addition, there is considerable regional variability in the rate
of sea level rise, which makes prediction at a particular location very
difficult. This variability is a result of ocean circulation
characteristics, changes in land processes and characteristics in
different regions, the Earth's rotational characteristics, the sources
of sea level rise, etc.
For the purpose of supporting decision-making, the key points to
keep in mind are as follows:
the projections have a very wide range of uncertainty;
they historically have underestimated rates of sea level
rise, largely because there are some physical processes
associated with rapid ice loss that the community is just
beginning to get a handle on;
there is considerable regional variability, such that local
values may be much higher or lower than the global average,
which is currently 3.1+0.4 mm/yr.;
improving the projections requires continued acquisition and
analysis of data on sea levels, ocean characteristics, ice
sheets, glaciers, and groundwater storage, and continued
improvements in models through the analysis and incorporation
of these data.
Besides scientific uncertainties, some of which are
mentioned above, uncertainty in future greenhouse gas emissions
also contributes to uncertainty in future sea level rise.
NASA, in conjunction with our partner agencies, both domestically
and internationally, continues to invest in the observations and
analysis that support current assessments and future predictions of sea
level rise, both globally and regionally.
Question 2. Opponents of policies to reduce carbon emissions often
cite the costs and economic burden of such policies as a main reason
for their opposition. Your testimony here today would indicate that the
costs of inaction, and also of not planning for a certain level of
climate change that we have already committed to, are quite high. Are
there studies that effectively quantify these costs, and if so, how do
they compare to the costs of being proactive?
Answer. There is an urgent need to better estimate the economic
costs of climate change; without such estimates the cost-effectiveness
of measures to mitigate or adapt to climate change cannot properly be
assessed.
Economic analysis is out of the purview of NASA's mission. This
type of cost estimate should be performed as part of the National
Climate Assessments (http://www.globalchange.gov/what-we-do/assessment)
that have been conducted by the US Global Change Research Program and
which can be found at http://library.globalchange.gov/. However, due to
a lack of capacity, both past Assessments and the ongoing Assessment
(scheduled for completion in 2013) include very little economic
analysis.
Question 3. Are there particular power plants or other pieces of
energy infrastructure that are of primary concern? Is it feasible to
protect them, or will they simply need to be retired or replaced?
Answer. The protection our domestic energy infrastructure is
critical to national safety, security and the livelihood of many
Americans. The vulnerability is a combination of the amount of sea
level rise, climate and weather patterns in the vicinity of these
components of the infrastructure, the elevation and the surrounding
landscape of where they are situated, and the resilience of these
structures. NASA's efforts and expertise in sea level focus on the
magnitude and distribution of sea level rise, which can inform risk
assessments, however, determining the vulnerability is beyond the scope
of the agency's activities.
Responses of Waleed Abdalati to Questions From Senator Murkowski
tools for fixing the problem
Question 1. In Congress, it has become apparent that cap-and-trade
lacks the support needed to pass, and internationally, the U.N. has
failed to develop a treaty that all nations are willing to ratify. What
we are left with at the moment are regulations by the EPA under the
Clean Air Act, which many of us oppose due to our concerns about their
economic impact.
a. How much of a difference will CAFE standards and New
Source Performance Standards for power plants actually have on
projected sea level rise?
Answer. There is no question that international and domestic
regulatory policies will influence the future state of sea level;
however, the relative impact on future sea level rise of CAFE standards
and New Source Performance Standards in particular lies outside the
current scope of NASA scientific research. Of course, these regulations
also have beneficial effects on air quality and human health, and CAFE
standards are projected to save consumers $1.7 trillion in fuel costs
over the life of the program.
setting priorities
Question 2. A New York Times article from 2007, entitled ``Feel
Good vs. Do Good on Climate,'' brings up a number of interesting points
on this subject. Using New York as a case in point, the article states
that ``The warming that has already occurred locally is on the same
scale as what's expected globally in the next century.'' Bjorn Lomborg
is also quoted as saying, ``No historian would look back at the last
two centuries and rank the rising sea level here as one of the city's
major problems.''
a. In comparison to malaria, famine, and other global
problems that are affecting people right now, how much
attention should be paid to rising sea levels?
Answer. Sea level rise is one of many global challenges people face
right now, in the United States and elsewhere. Each of these challenges
has major implications and should be regarded as matters of great
importance by the public, the science community, and policy makers. The
relative urgency of one problem over another depends on the values we
place on life and property, the degree of threat posed by each one, and
the risks we as a nation are willing to take. In the United States, sea
level rise is very likely to adversely affect the well-being of many of
our citizens, and come at a great cost in terms of property and
infrastructure. Deferred action on the sea level and climate change
fronts means the costs of adapting will be great. Assessing how the sea
level threat compares to the other threats humans face depends on
information and accurate models. At NASA we continue to acquire this
information, and use it to inform models, so that the risks and
vulnerabilities can be appropriately assessed.
accuracy to date
Question 3. Scientists and researchers have been making projections
about sea level rise for years--if not decades. Climate models are
constantly being re-worked, and refined, but hearings like these
provide an opportunity to look back as well as forward.
a. To the extent that past projections were made for sea
level rise in 2010, 2012, or another point around the current
period, how accurate have those projections been?
Answer. Past projections of sea level rise have typically
underestimated the observed rate of rise. The figure* below is taken
from Church et al., Oceanography, 2011 and shows a comparison of
projections from the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change. Sea level projections from this report were
matched with observations in the year 1990. The range of projections is
shown by the orange band and the beige lines. For the beige lines, an
attempt was made to account for a more rapid loss of ice from the ice
sheets in light of rapid changes in glacier flow that the climate
models could not simulate. Nevertheless, the observations from tide
gauges (black line) and from satellite altimeters (red line) fall near
the top of all projections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Figure has been retained in committee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reference
Church, J. A., J. M. Gregory, N. J. White, S. M. Platten, and J. X.
Mitrovica, Understanding and Projecting Sea Level Change, Oceanography,
24(2), pp. 130-143.
letter from former nasa officials
Question 4. On March 28th, your agency's Administrator, Charles
Bolden, received a letter from approximately 50 former NASA officials.
The letter asked that NASA ``refrain from including unproven and
unsupported remarks'' in climate-related statements. The letter also
mentions ``catastrophic forecasts,'' and I want to ask you about that
characterization. As with any prediction of future events, estimating
sea levels over the next century is a decidedly difficult task. And it
is made more complicated when attempts to forecast specific
consequences--to infrastructure, people, or wildlife--are involved.
a. My question is: how important do you feel it is to be
clear and transparent about the range of uncertainty associated
with these types of predictions?
Answer. It is not merely important, but it is absolutely essential
that scientists provide clear characterizations of uncertainty when
making predictions about the range of possible future scenarios. If
scientists are not transparent about uncertainty it diminishes both the
credibility and utility of the results. This is why both the IPCC
Assessments and the peer-reviewed literature upon which they are based
make such extensive efforts to include characterizations of uncertainty
that are rigorous, transparent, and use carefully-defined terminology.
It is equally important to remember that while we cannot precisely
predict the future, we can make informed estimates based on past and
current observations, and our knowledge of physical processes.
Therefore, the path to decreasing uncertainty is through observations,
and continuously improving our understanding of the physical processes
that drive the Earth system. It is also important to remember that, no
matter how good our science may become, future climate will always be
uncertain because it depends on future human actions.
Unfortunately, in a world where discussion seems to revolve around
extremes, some use uncertainty to imply doubt, and subsequently offer
it as a reason for inaction. In fact, uncertainty implies the
possibility of higher risk, and can be used to support the case for
stronger, not weaker, action to minimize risk. None-the-less, for
policy to be informed, and for the dialogue on the topic to be honest,
scientists must continue to be as clear about what we don't know, as we
are about what we believe to be the case.
Responses of Waleed Abdalati to Questions From Senator Cantwell
Question 1. Knowing the responsibilities states, cities, and
localities already have and their limited ability to raise additional
resources, it seems like we are going to have to establish some sort of
federal program that can direct the billions of dollars needed to adapt
our nation's infrastructure to and protect our citizens from the
impacts of climate change.
a. Do you believe such a Federal role and funding stream is
necessary?
b. Wouldn't a price on carbon, which could serve to both
reduce the severity of these climate impacts and provide the
needed funds, make the most sense?
Answer. As I stated in this hearing, the climate has always
changed. It always will, for a variety of reasons. The success of
society in the face of those changes really depends on how big the
changes are, how rapidly they occur, and our ability to anticipate and
prepare for them. There is a significant level of federally funded
research under way targeted at determining what the future will likely
bring, so that we can be equipped to prepare for the changes that lie
ahead. What is learned through this research can also inform policies
targeted at slowing and reducing the change, to levels that can be more
easily adapted to. The federal government plays a critical role in
developing the necessary knowledge to successfully confront the
challenges associated with climate change, and this must continue.
Placing a price on carbon is one tool that can be used to incentivize
people to find alternative forms of energy that may have less of an
impact on our environment and sea level. The effectiveness of this
approach, and how it compares to others is not clear, and is not
something NASA is involved in studying. What is clear, however, is that
the reliable evaluation of this effectiveness requires an understanding
of the physical processes at work, which is where the contributions
from the NASA investments are critical.
Question 2. As we think about our economic and energy future, we
need to consider the real costs of inaction. A recent study has
estimated that the impacts of climate change will cost my home state of
Washington 10 billion dollars per year by 2020. This is an enormous
burden that will be arriving very soon.
It is imperative that we get ahead of this curve and prepare for
these impacts now. To that end, we must maintain vital funding of
research programs and facilities that advance scientific knowledge and
understanding and provide the foundation for cost-effective, innovative
solutions. Unfortunately, funding carve-outs in the Department of
Energy's Office of Science have impacted base program funding for user
facilities and research in recent years.
In my home state, PNNL is working on solutions to the challenges
climate change imposes, but to succeed, they need our continued
support. In these fiscally austere times, it makes even less sense to
be a penny wise and a pound foolish. PNNL is conducting important
research, for example through the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement
(ARM) Program, to get a better sense of what changes in climate are
already occurring and will likely occur in the future--advancing our
understanding of the climate system that include complex components
such as aerosols, clouds, and the carbon cycle.
PNNL is also working to provide better information to plan for the
coming impacts. They're developing high-resolution models that
incorporate critical infrastructure and natural resources of each
region to inform mitigation and adaptation decisions at the state and
regional level. This information will be invaluable for infrastructure
planning by natural resource managers, energy companies, and government
agencies that currently face great uncertainties in their decision
making in response to changing regional climates.
It seems to me that the upfront costs of this research and planning
will be extremely modest relative to the costs coming down the road.
a. Do all of you agree that proposed cuts to research and
development will impede our ability to prepare for and mitigate
the worst impacts of climate change?
Answer. For decades our nation's investment in research and
development has led to great advances in our understanding of, and
ability to predict, sea level rise and climate change. Continued
commitment to research and development will no doubt lead to more
robust climate predictions and predictions of future sea level rise,
and will increase our ability to successfully deal with climate change.
In these challenging fiscal times, it is the difficult task of our
nation's policy makers to balance the need for these investments
against other challenges we face. We at NASA work hard to maximize the
science return on that investment, no matter its size.
Question 2b. Do you hear from states and localities appreciating
your analysis and that they use your data to make better planning
decisions?
Answer. NASA's Earth Science Division includes an Applied Sciences
Program, which partners with public and private organizations such as
state and local governments on ways to incorporate NASA Earth
observational data and science results in their decision-making
activities and services. These have proven to be both valuable and
appreciated. Some examples of these successful collaborations are given
below.
New Mexico Department of Health Utilizes NASA Satellite Products for
Dust Storm Forecasting
A NASA-funded project with the New Mexico Department of Health
(DoH) led to the production of daily 48-hour dust forecasts drawing on
observations from MODIS and CALIPSO. Dust storms are known to trigger
asthmatic responses and cardiovascular issues in susceptible
individuals. These forecasts are available to the public and end-users
throughout the state via the New Mexico DoH web portal (http://
nmtracking.unm.edu) and are also linked to the national CDC
Environmental Public Health Tracking Network (EPHTN).
NASA/ARRA Project aids California Agricultural Community
Agricultural uses of water account for more than 80% of total water
consumption in many Western states, and optimization of irrigation
management is a key component of sustaining agricultural water
supplies. Knowing how much and when to irrigate can be a complicated
and costly decision. Through American Reinvestment and Recovery Act
(ARRA) funds, NASA worked with California Department of Water Resources
(CDWR) on a project to apply NASA Earth satellite observations in the
California Irrigation Management Information System (CIMIS). The
project integrated NASA Terra, Aqua, and Landsat satellite measurements
with agricultural weather conditions from CIMIS to map key indicators
of crop water requirements and agricultural irrigation demand across
the entire California Central Valley at the scale of individual fields
on a daily basis. The project produced estimates of crop water needs
for each field, providing a new source of information that can be used
by growers to account for optimal irrigation rates when scheduling
irrigation. NASA and CDWR worked with grower associations and
individual growers in the project.
NASA's GRACE Data Enhances the U.S. Drought Monitor
The U.S. Drought Monitor provides weekly maps of national
vulnerability to drought, supporting state and local effort to focus on
preparedness and risk management to manage water supply and deliver
drought aid where it is needed most. A project sponsored by NASA's
Earth Science Division integrated data products from the GRACE (Gravity
Recovery and Climate Experiment) satellite to enhance the U.S. Drought
Monitor. The project combined GRACE data and other observations to
improve information on soil moisture and groundwater records, which are
used to produce weekly maps of wetness conditions in the soil and
aquifers. Prior to the addition of the new GRACE-based products, the US
Drought Monitor lacked information on deep soil moisture and
groundwater storage--water resources that can be used to gauge the
impacts of long episodes of wet or dry weather.
``These maps provide regional to national-level water
resource information that was previously unavailable to policy
and decision-makers. The novel use of satellite-based gravity
data in combination with advanced modeling techniques has given
us a unique perspective on groundwater that was not resolvable
through just ground-based observations that can provide new
information for hydrologic drought monitoring.''
--Brian Wardlow, National Drought Mitigation
Center.
California Department of Health Using NASA Satellite Products
A NASA-funded project with the California Department of Health led
to the operational integration of NASA data products, such as MODIS and
Landsat, into the California Vector-borne Disease Surveillance Gateway.
Enhanced products are distributed to Gateway users throughout
California for improved risk assessment of mosquito-borne encephalitis
viruses, including the West Nile Virus.
NASA Satellite Products Support Mapping Carbon Flux in Oregon Forests
Forests play a vital role in the carbon cycle through the
absorption of carbon dioxide and release of carbon through events such
as wildfires, insect infestations, and timber harvests. This dichotomy
complicates forest management strategies that incorporate carbon
absorption through the cycle of forest growth, death and regeneration.
To help forest managers understand carbon flux, a NASA-funded project
developed a unique model that uses remote sensing data to gain insight
into the carbon flux of Oregon's forests. Created by the Oregon
Department of Forestry (ODF), the Oregon Roundtable on Sustainable
Forests uses the project's approach to carbon assessment to assess the
feasibility of forest management plans.
``We have traditional estimates of carbon flux based on
inventory plots, but [the project's] data integrates the
physiological functions of forest ecosystems with state-of-the-
art landscape modeling, satellite remote sensing, large-scale
vegetation mapping, and computer simulation. [The project] uses
the technology investments of NASA and puts them into a useful
format to help us better understand the annual flux of carbon
through Oregon forests.''
Andrew Yost, Oregon Department of Forestry
Question 3. Shellfish farmers in Washington State are being
severely impacted by ocean acidification. In Washington, the shellfish
industry employs over 3,200 Washingtonians and has a total economic
contribution of $270 million annually.
In 2010, I secured funding to acquire and deploy ocean
acidification sensors near major shellfish hatcheries in Washington
State. Today, these sensors, combined with buoys from NOAA's Integrated
Ocean Observation System program, allow shellfish growers to monitor
ocean acidity in real time. Real time ocean acidification data has made
all the difference to the shellfish industry, illustrating a strong
nexus between ocean acidification data and shellfish recruitment.
Without real time monitoring, the shellfish industry cannot survive.
a. Dr. Abdalati, are we getting close to having reliable
satellite data on the acidity of the ocean like we do for sea
surface temperature?
Answer. Yes, we are getting closer. However, it is not yet possible
to directly measure the acidity of the ocean from space. It is possible
to estimate some properties of the ocean related to ocean acidity (or
pH, a measure of acidity or basicity of an aqueous solution, in this
case, the ocean) and the biological, chemical, and ecological impacts
of changing ocean acidity from what are known as ``ocean color''
satellites. Properties of the ocean related to ocean acidity and the
impacts of ocean acidification on ocean biology that can be estimated
from ``ocean color'' satellites include new data products such as
particulate inorganic carbon (PIC), biogenic silica, and the partial
pressure of carbon dioxide (pCO2), as well as standard products such as
phytoplankton chlorophyll (chl).
``Ocean color'' sensors can measure light coming from the ocean in
the ultraviolet to infrared portions of the electromagnetic spectrum.
The light coming from the ocean is referred to as the ocean's optical
properties or ``color'', and can provide quantitative, detailed
information on the ocean's biology, ecology, and chemistry. Researchers
can use ocean color satellite data of the optical properties of the
ocean to estimate or model ocean acidity indirectly, as well as the
biological impacts of ocean acidification. For example, recently-
published NASA-funded research has developed a method for predicting
coastal surface-water pCO2 (partial pressure of carbon dioxide, or CO2)
from remote-sensing data, based on self organizing maps and a nonlinear
semi-empirical model of surface water carbonate chemistry (Hales et
al., 2012, in press, Progress in Oceanography). In the ocean, the pCO2
is determined from measurements of two of the following: dissolved
inorganic carbon, pH and alkalinity. pCO2 in the ocean can change based
on location (sampling depth, latitude), ocean temperature, and the
ocean's alkalinity (or measure of the ocean's capacity to balance acid,
such as hydrogen ions, with base, such as carbonate ions). Biological
processes in the ocean also influence the pCO2 in the ocean. While this
algorithm is experimental, this type of study not only gives us insight
in to what properties from ocean color satellites can be used to
estimate ocean acidity regionally and globally, but also provides
quantitative information on carbon cycling.
Question 3b. What monitoring sensors and algorithms are still
needed to observe the acidification of the ocean remotely from
satellites?
Answer. Continued observations from NASA satellite ocean color
sensors will provide data on properties of the ocean such as
phytoplankton chlorophyll (proxy for ocean plants), which help to
detail ecological impacts of ocean acidification on ``primary
producers'' (bottom of the food chain). Understanding the impacts of
ocean acidification on the primary trophic level will allow researchers
and managers to identify and understand the impacts of ocean
acidification on higher trophic levels (e.g., fisheries) that depend on
primary producers for food. Satellites can provide this information
from a local to a global scale. Continuity of ocean color data from
past sensors such as the Sea-Viewing Wide Field-of-view Sensor
(SeaWiFS), and existing sensors such as the Moderate resolution Imaging
Spectroradiometer (MODIS), and perhaps future data from the Suomi NPP
VIIRS (Visible Infrared Imager Radiometer Suite) are critical to
providing a time series of biological data in the ocean critical for
detailing the response of the ocean's biology and ecology to ocean
acidification.
______
Responses of Leonard Berry to Questions From Senator Bingaman
Question 1. Opponents of policies to reduce carbon emissions often
cite the costs and economic burden of such policies as a main reason
for their opposition. Your testimony here today would indicate that the
costs of inaction, and also of not planning for a certain level of
climate change that we have already committed to, are quite high. Are
there studies that effectively quantify these costs, and if so, how do
they compare to the costs of being proactive?
Answer. It is almost common sense to want to understand a problem
and build a response to it over time--the old proverb ``a stitch in
time saves nine''. Apart from that, the economics show that the cost of
inaction is great. A 2008 study by Tufts University reports that by
2075 in Florida alone, the cost of inaction would be $184 billion and
$345 billion by 2100 (Stanton and Ackerman, 2007). Research that is
currently being conducted is starting show that this may be an
underestimation.
In the recent ClimAID report for New York State (Rosenzweig et al.,
2011, ch. 7), a detailed case study of the impacts of a 100 year storm
on transportation and economic activity in New York City estimates
additional costs (as compared to the present) of $12 billion for a 2-
foot rise in sea level, and $26 billion in additional costs for a 4
foot rise. (p. 348.) This is for just one storm, and not the worst
conceivable storm. Moreover, NPCC 2010 p. 177 notes that estimates
indicate that the current 100-year storm is likely to occur once every
15 to 35 years by the 2080s. This all suggests that we need more
detailed information of assets at risk.
Question 2. Are there particular power plants or other pieces of
energy infrastructure that are of primary concern? Is it feasible to
protect them, or will they simply need to be retired or replaced?
Answer. The critical infrastructure includes transportation, water
supply and treatment systems, power stations and buildings among
others. There are methods for dealing with relatively near term climate
hazards, including flood walls and evacuation plans; for the longer
term, larger infrastructure may be required, such as harbor surge
barriers in some areas.
We need a national assessment of energy infrastructure at risk to
sea level rise. However in Florida we do know during Hurricane Andrew,
the Turkey Point nuclear power station was briefly compromised and we
must make doubly sure that any new facilities build at least three feet
of level rise into their environmental assessment and into their
operation.
Responses of Leonard Berry to Questions From Senator Murkowski
tools for fixing the problem
Question 1. In Congress, it has become apparent that cap-and-trade
lacks the support needed to pass, and internationally, the U.N. has
failed to develop a treaty that all nations are willing to ratify. What
we are left with at the moment are regulations by the EPA under the
Clean Air Act, which many of us oppose due to our concerns about their
economic impact.
a. How much of a difference will CAFE standards and New
Source Performance Standards for power plants actually have on
projected sea level rise?
Answer. While we can't prevent sea level rise over the next 50-60
years. We can take mitigation efforts in order to prevent further
global temperature increases and thus reduce the seas thermal expansion
causing much of sea level rise.
setting priorities
Question 2. A New York Times article from 2007, entitled ``Feel
Good vs. Do Good on Climate,'' brings up a number of interesting points
on this subject. Using New York as a case in point, the article states
that ``The warming that has already occurred locally is on the same
scale as what's expected globally in the next century.'' Bjorn Lomborg
is also quoted as saying, ``No historian would look back at the last
two centuries and rank the rising sea level here as one of the city's
major problems.''
a. In comparison to malaria, famine, and other global
problems that are affecting people right now, how much
attention should be paid to rising sea levels?
Answer. When it comes to future climate change, past is not
prelude. Sea level rise is expected to continue at an accelerating
rate, making this a critical global problem that, in fact, is happening
now. In Southeast Florida freshwater wells are becoming saline and
flood control structures are losing capacity. Trillions of dollars of
infrastructures are at risk, imperiling our future national economy
including--our ability to address other global problems. Because
adaptations that involve significant infrastructure changes take many
decades to plan, design and build, we must be proactive in making
initial adaptations (flood walls and evacuation plans) and also be
proactive now as we begin the long planning process for potentially
larger solutions. Mayor Bloomberg is treating this issue of climate
change seriously enough to set up a special process to examine the
impacts on the city and make adaptation plans.
Florida and our nation spends a great amount of time and money on
Emergency Preparedness to minimize the future impacts of floods,
hurricanes, earthquakes, etc., and to react to relatively short term
postdisaster recovery needs. The warming of oceans and rapid increases
in ice loss in polar regions are ``Leading Indicators'' of future sea
level rise which will produce important permanent changes in our
natural and built environments. These changes will produce large
investment losses for those directly impacted by sea level rise and
large indirect financial costs or tax burdens in other areas unless
society begins to shift new developments to lower risk areas and
implements policies that encourage established developments to move to
these lower risk areas as appropriate.
accuracy to date
Question 3. Scientists and researchers have been making projections
about sea level rise for years--if not decades. Climate models are
constantly being re-worked, and refined, but hearings like these
provide an opportunity to look back as well as forward.
a. To the extent that past projections were made for sea
level rise in 2010, 2012, or another point around the current
period, how accurate have those projections been?
Answer. Projections have generally been on the low side because the
IPCC did not include estimates of polar and glacial ice reductions in
its projections.
Responses of Leonard Berry to Questions From Senator Cantwell
Question 1. In the Puget Sound region, sea level is projected to
rise by six inches by 2050--13 inches by the end of the century. And
due to potential ice melt from Greenland and Antarctica, increases of
up to four feet for Puget Sound are even possible by the end of the
century. This is particularly alarming to me and my constituents
because structures located in flood hazard areas are valued at 28.7
billion dollars in Puget Sound alone.
Sea level rise and severe storms could be a big problem for the
many military installations in Puget Sound that are critical to our
national security. We've already seen how Florida's Homestead Air Force
Base was essentially destroyed by Hurricane Andrew in 1992. And
Hurricane Ivan badly damaged Naval Air Station Pensacola in 2004.
And sea level rise is just one of the many harmful impacts my state
is going to have to deal with because of global warming pollution.
Climate change is expected to severely disrupt our very supply and
demand of energy. Shifts in the amount and timing of stream-flow will
lead to substantial changes in our seasonal hydroelectric power
generation, which my state depends upon for two-thirds of its
electricity needs. Projected snowpack decreases of 29 percent by the
2020s, 44 percent by the 2040s, and 65 percent by the 2080s are frankly
quite daunting when we already have too little water to go around and
our needs are just going to increase over time. Unless we act, in
coordination with the rest of the world, this snowpack decline is going
to cost my constituents billions of dollars in lost hydropower,
irrigation water, and industries that depend on salmon recovery.
All of the expected impacts add up to a rather expensive bill. A
recent study estimated that climate change impacts in Washington state
will reach nearly 10 billion dollars per year by 2020. That's just
eight years from now, and it's the same burden on my constituents as an
increase of three-and-a-half dollars for a gallon of gasoline.
I am proud that my state is a national leader in developing a
climate response strategy. Incorporating climate change into its
planning decisions whether they are where to place new infrastructure
or where to focus adaptation efforts.
I was struck by Dr. Strauss's recent report that found the threat
of a ``century'' flood in Washington state more than triples by 2030.
That's a daunting assessment given that already since 1990, Puget Sound
has experienced 16 federally declared flood disasters, and Interstate 5
has closed four times due to flooding. One of those closures resulted
in $47 million in lost economic output to the state.
Our states are already struggling to keep their budgets balanced
while maintaining critical funding for education, first responders,
transportation systems, and other essential government services. As you
look at the costs to Florida and New York city, how are you planning to
pay for these necessary adaptation measures?
Answer. The preferred way to pay for adaptation is to encourage new
growth in low risk areas and provide incentives for existing coastal
developments to relocate or rebuild as appropriate. This requires a
long lead time and Congressional action to establish strategic long
term policies to develop water resources, transportation, and power
infrastructure for the new developments. The implementation of the
interstate highway system and the subsequent growth of suburbs shows
the potential for encouraging growth in new areas. Other policies are
also needed to help those in high risk areas who want to relocate.
These might include a special tax deduction category for developed
property AND land which are subject to sea level rise impacts and are
donated to a national seashore trust in advance of functional loss or
after loss due to a tropical storm or other event. It might also
include reforms to flood insurance and disaster relief programs to
encourage or require property owners to relocate to lower risk areas
after a damage event.
As far as Florida is concerned, there are no special funds set
aside to deal with these issues. Local governments are devoting
considerable resources identifying issues and responding to current
threats on a somewhat piece meal basis.
Question 2. Knowing the responsibilities states, cities, and
localities already have and their limited ability to raise additional
resources, it seems like we are going to have to establish some sort of
federal program that can direct the billions of dollars needed to adapt
our nation's infrastructure to and protect our citizens from the
impacts of climate change.
a. Do you believe such a Federal role and funding stream is
necessary?
Answer. A key principle for planning, especially long range
planning for climate adaptation, is to have vision of a desired future
condition and develop a plan to move consistently toward that goal.
With regard to sea level rise, that goal would greatly reduce national
exposure to sea level rise risk over the next 50+ years with policies
that strongly encourage new development and relocations in low risk
areas. This might involve federal investment in large scale, next
generation infrastructure (transportation, water, sewer, power, and
communication systems) as a framework for development of new energy
efficient climate friendly communities, much like the way the current
interstate system investment has helped energize and shape US community
developments since the 1950s. When identifying low risk areas, it will
be important to recognize that sea level rise is most likely to
continue for multiple centuries and is very likely to accelerate
briskly in coming years.
Federal support will be necessary to help coastal areas adjust to
rising sea level. The protection and possible relocation of
transportation and wastewater treatment systems, for example, will be
very expensive and not adapting will have significant adverse local and
interstate consequences.
b. Wouldn't a price on carbon, which could serve to both
reduce the severity of these climate impacts and provide the
needed funds, make the most sense?
Answer. A carbon price would be very important. There are other
approaches that can be pursued as well. For example, a recent key
article in Science indicates that great progress can be made worldwide
using existing technology in reducing methane emissions and black soot.
Question 3. As we think about our economic and energy future, we
need to consider the real costs of inaction. A recent study has
estimated that the impacts of climate change will cost my home state of
Washington 10 billion dollars per year by 2020. This is an enormous
burden that will be arriving very soon.
It is imperative that we get ahead of this curve and prepare for
these impacts now. To that end, we must maintain vital funding of
research programs and facilities that advance scientific knowledge and
understanding and provide the foundation for cost-effective, innovative
solutions. Unfortunately, funding carve-outs in the Department of
Energy's Office of Science have impacted base program funding for user
facilities and research in recent years.
In my home state, PNNL is working on solutions to the challenges
climate change imposes, but to succeed, they need our continued
support. In these fiscally austere times, it makes even less sense to
be a penny wise and a pound foolish. PNNL is conducting important
research, for example through the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement
(ARM) Program, to get a better sense of what changes in climate are
already occurring and will likely occur in the future--advancing our
understanding of the climate system that include complex components
such as aerosols, clouds, and the carbon cycle.
PNNL is also working to provide better information to plan for the
coming impacts. They're developing high resolution models that
incorporate critical infrastructure and natural resources of each
region to inform mitigation and adaptation decisions at the state and
regional level. This information will be invaluable for infrastructure
planning by natural resource managers, energy companies, and government
agencies that currently face great uncertainties in their decision
making in response to changing regional climates.
It seems to me that the upfront costs of this research and planning
will be extremely modest relative to the costs coming down the road.
a. Do all of you agree that proposed cuts to research and
development will impede our ability to prepare for and mitigate
the worst impacts of climate change?
Answer. Yes, proposed cuts would have potentially significant
negative effects. In fact, additional funding is needed for
vulnerability assessments and the monitoring and collection that is
needed for these assessments.
b. Do you hear from states and localities appreciating your
analysis and that they use your data to make better planning
decisions?
Answer. Yes, states and localities have been quite active in
sharing information and planning approaches. These include the
Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact, Broward and Martin
Counties, Florida's Department of Economic Opportunity, The City of
Punta Gorda, Florida, The Florida Department of Transportation, and The
City of New York.
Question 4. Sea level rise, storm surges, and extreme weather
events will increase the risk of flooding and damage to energy
production and delivery systems such as power plants, transmission
lines, pipelines, and oil refineries. More storm activity will increase
the cost of power and infrastructure maintenance and lead to more,
longer blackouts and disruptions of services.
As we plan for these potential disruptions, we should be looking
for ways to make the electric grid more resilient and reliable. The
Department of Energy's 2011 Quadrennial Technology Review found that we
are ``underinvesting in activities supporting modernization of the
grid.'' This underinvestment delays the nation's transition to a more
resilient, reliable, and secure electricity system, which is needed
even more urgently due to the additional challenges from climate
change.
a. Should grid modernization efforts and making the grid
smarter be important parts of our response to electric
vulnerabilities created by climate change?
Answer. Yes. Often the demands for power and power generating
capacity are not co-located, which means that power will have to move
long distances across the grid (note we lose about 6% of power in
transmission). At present, the carrying capacity of the grid and the
control systems required are not in place. As a result, without
reinforcing the grid and migrating to digital controls, the grid will
increasingly put populations at risk in the southeast, southwest, and
Rocky Mountain states.
b. Is securing our grid against these threats just as
important as against other potential threats such as
cyberattacks?
Answer. The risks are categorically different. Cyber attacks can
bring the grid down temporarily as a result of control interruptions.
Hardening the access to the control system is the key to preventing
cyber attacks. Climate change issues are associated with the carrying
capacity of the wiring system. If power cannot get through the wiring,
large scale interruptions will occur during the most vulnerable periods
(very hot or cold).
______
[Responses to the following questions were not received at
the time the hearing went to press:]
Questions for Adam Freed From Senator Bingaman
Question 1. Opponents of policies to reduce carbon emissions often
cite the costs and economic burden of such policies as a main reason
for their opposition. Your testimony here today would indicate that the
costs of inaction, and also of not planning for a certain level of
climate change that we have already committed to, are quite high. Are
there studies that effectively quantify these costs, and if so, how do
they compare to the costs of being proactive?
Question 2. Are there particular power plants or other pieces of
energy infrastructure that are of primary concern? Is it feasible to
protect them, or will they simply need to be retired or replaced?
Questions for Adam Freed From Senator Murkowski
tools for fixing the problem
Question 1. In Congress, it has become apparent that cap-and-trade
lacks the support needed to pass, and internationally, the U.N. has
failed to develop a treaty that all nations are willing to ratify. What
we are left with at the moment are regulations by the EPA under the
Clean Air Act, which many of us oppose due to our concerns about their
economic impact.
a. How much of a difference will CAFE standards and New
Source Performance Standards for power plants actually have on
projected sea level rise?
setting priorities
Question 2. A New York Times article from 2007, entitled ``Feel
Good vs. Do Good on Climate,'' brings up a number of interesting points
on this subject. Using New York as a case in point, the article states
that ``The warming that has already occurred locally is on the same
scale as what's expected globally in the next century.'' Bjorn Lomborg
is also quoted as saying, ``No historian would look back at the last
two centuries and rank the rising sea level here as one of the city's
major problems.''
a. In comparison to malaria, famine, and other global
problems that are affecting people right now, how much
attention should be paid to rising sea levels?
accuracy to date
Question 3. Scientists and researchers have been making projections
about sea level rise for years--if not decades. Climate models are
constantly being re-worked, and refined, but hearings like these
provide an opportunity to look back as well as forward.
a. To the extent that past projections were made for sea
level rise in 2010, 2012, or another point around the current
period, how accurate have those projections been?
responsibility for fixing the problem
Question 4. Mr. Freed, as Deputy Director of Mayor Bloomberg's
Office of Long-Term Planning and Sustainability, you've spent time
looking at what projected sea level rise could mean for Manhattan. And
the fact that you've looked at this is testament to the number of
ways--and the number of entities--that could ultimately find a role in
any problems that result.
a. In your view, does responsibility for addressing and
preparing for sea level rise reside with state, local, or
federal governments, companies, insurance providers,
individuals--or some combination of all of them?
Questions for Adam Freed From Senator Cantwell
Question 1. In the Puget Sound region, sea level is projected to
rise by six inches by 2050--13 inches by the end of the century. And
due to potential ice melt from Greenland and Antarctica, increases of
up to four feet for Puget Sound are even possible by the end of the
century. This is particularly alarming to me and my constituents
because structures located in flood hazard areas are valued at 28.7
billion dollars in Puget Sound alone.
Sea level rise and severe storms could be a big problem for the
many military installations in Puget Sound that are critical to our
national security. We've already seen how Florida's Homestead Air Force
Base was essentially destroyed by Hurricane Andrew in 1992. And
Hurricane Ivan badly damaged Naval Air Station Pensacola in 2004.
And sea level rise is just one of the many harmful impacts my state
is going to have to deal with because of global warming pollution.
Climate change is expected to severely disrupt our very supply and
demand of energy. Shifts in the amount and timing of stream-flow will
lead to substantial changes in our seasonal hydroelectric power
generation, which my state depends upon for two-thirds of its
electricity needs. Projected snowpack decreases of 29 percent by the
2020s, 44 percent by the 2040s, and 65 percent by the 2080s are frankly
quite daunting when we already have too little water to go around and
our needs are just going to increase over time. Unless we act, in
coordination with the rest of the world, this snowpack decline is going
to cost my constituents billions of dollars in lost hydropower,
irrigation water, and industries that depend on salmon recovery.
All of the expected impacts add up to a rather expensive bill. A
recent study estimated that climate change impacts in Washington state
will reach nearly 10 billion dollars per year by 2020. That's just
eight years from now, and it's the same burden on my constituents as an
increase of three-and-a-half dollars for a gallon of gasoline.
I am proud that my state is a national leader in developing a
climate response strategy. Incorporating climate change into its
planning decisions whether they are where to place new infrastructure
or where to focus adaptation efforts.
I was struck by Dr. Strauss's recent report that found the threat
of a ``century'' flood in Washington state more than triples by 2030.
That's a daunting assessment given that already since 1990, Puget Sound
has experienced 16 federally declared flood disasters, and Interstate 5
has closed four times due to flooding. One of those closures resulted
in $47 million in lost economic output to the state.
Our states are already struggling to keep their budgets balanced
while maintaining critical funding for education, first responders,
transportation systems, and other essential government services. As you
look at the costs to Florida and New York city, how are you planning to
pay for these necessary adaptation measures?
Question 2. Knowing the responsibilities states, cities, and
localities already have and their limited ability to raise additional
resources, it seems like we are going to have to establish some sort of
federal program that can direct the billions of dollars needed to adapt
our nation's infrastructure to and protect our citizens from the
impacts of climate change.
a. Do you believe such a Federal role and funding stream is
necessary?
b. Wouldn't a price on carbon, which could serve to both
reduce the severity of these climate impacts and provide the
needed funds, make the most sense?
Question 3. As we think about our economic and energy future, we
need to consider the real costs of inaction. A recent study has
estimated that the impacts of climate change will cost my home state of
Washington 10 billion dollars per year by 2020. This is an enormous
burden that will be arriving very soon.
It is imperative that we get ahead of this curve and prepare for
these impacts now. To that end, we must maintain vital funding of
research programs and facilities that advance scientific knowledge and
understanding and provide the foundation for cost-effective, innovative
solutions. Unfortunately, funding carve-outs in the Department of
Energy's Office of Science have impacted base program funding for user
facilities and research in recent years.
In my home state, PNNL is working on solutions to the challenges
climate change imposes, but to succeed, they need our continued
support. In these fiscally austere times, it makes even less sense to
be a penny wise and a pound foolish. PNNL is conducting important
research, for example through the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement
(ARM) Program, to get a better sense of what changes in climate are
already occurring and will likely occur in the future--advancing our
understanding of the climate system that include complex components
such as aerosols, clouds, and the carbon cycle.
PNNL is also working to provide better information to plan for the
coming impacts. They're developing high resolution models that
incorporate critical infrastructure and natural resources of each
region to inform mitigation and adaptation decisions at the state and
regional level. This information will be invaluable for infrastructure
planning by natural resource managers, energy companies, and government
agencies that currently face great uncertainties in their decision
making in response to changing regional climates.
It seems to me that the upfront costs of this research and planning
will be extremely modest relative to the costs coming down the road.
a. Do all of you agree that proposed cuts to research and
development will impede our ability to prepare for and mitigate
the worst impacts of climate change?
b. Do you hear from states and localities appreciating your
analysis and that they use your data to make better planning
decisions?
Question 4. Sea level rise, storm surges, and extreme weather
events will increase the risk of flooding and damage to energy
production and delivery systems such as power plants, transmission
lines, pipelines, and oil refineries. More storm activity will increase
the cost of power and infrastructure maintenance and lead to more,
longer blackouts and disruptions of services.
As we plan for these potential disruptions, we should be looking
for ways to make the electric grid more resilient and reliable. The
Department of Energy's 2011 Quadrennial Technology Review found that we
are ``underinvesting in activities supporting modernization of the
grid.'' This underinvestment delays the nation's transition to a more
resilient, reliable, and secure electricity system, which is needed
even more urgently due to the additional challenges from climate
change.
a. Should grid modernization efforts and making the grid
smarter be important parts of our response to electric
vulnerabilities created by climate change?
b. Is securing our grid against these threats just as
important as against other potential threats such as
cyberattacks?
______
Questions for Anthony C. Janetos From Senator Bingaman
Question 1. Opponents of policies to reduce carbon emissions often
cite the costs and economic burden of such policies as a main reason
for their opposition. Your testimony here today would indicate that the
costs of inaction, and also of not planning for a certain level of
climate change that we have already committed to, are quite high. Are
there studies that effectively quantify these costs, and if so, how do
they compare to the costs of being proactive?
Question 2. Are there particular power plants or other pieces of
energy infrastructure that are of primary concern? Is it feasible to
protect them, or will they simply need to be retired or replaced?
Questions for Anthony C. Janetos From Senator Murkowski
tools for fixing the problem
Question 1. In Congress, it has become apparent that cap-and-trade
lacks the support needed to pass, and internationally, the U.N. has
failed to develop a treaty that all nations are willing to ratify. What
we are left with at the moment are regulations by the EPA under the
Clean Air Act, which many of us oppose due to our concerns about their
economic impact.
a. How much of a difference will CAFE standards and New
Source Performance Standards for power plants actually have on
projected sea level rise?
setting priorities
Question 2. A New York Times article from 2007, entitled ``Feel
Good vs. Do Good on Climate,'' brings up a number of interesting points
on this subject. Using New York as a case in point, the article states
that ``The warming that has already occurred locally is on the same
scale as what's expected globally in the next century.'' Bjorn Lomborg
is also quoted as saying, ``No historian would look back at the last
two centuries and rank the rising sea level here as one of the city's
major problems.''
a. In comparison to malaria, famine, and other global
problems that are affecting people right now, how much
attention should be paid to rising sea levels?
accuracy to date
Question 3. Scientists and researchers have been making projections
about sea level rise for years--if not decades. Climate models are
constantly being re-worked, and refined, but hearings like these
provide an opportunity to look back as well as forward.
a. To the extent that past projections were made for sea
level rise in 2010, 2012, or another point around the current
period, how accurate have those projections been?
Questions for Anthony C. Janetos From Senator Cantwell
Question 1. Knowing the responsibilities states, cities, and
localities already have and their limited ability to raise additional
resources, it seems like we are going to have to establish some sort of
federal program that can direct the billions of dollars needed to adapt
our nation's infrastructure to and protect our citizens from the
impacts of climate change.
a. Do you believe such a Federal role and funding stream is
necessary?
b. Wouldn't a price on carbon, which could serve to both
reduce the severity of these climate impacts and provide the
needed funds, make the most sense?
Question 2. As we think about our economic and energy future, we
need to consider the real costs of inaction. A recent study has
estimated that the impacts of climate change will cost my home state of
Washington 10 billion dollars per year by 2020. This is an enormous
burden that will be arriving very soon.
It is imperative that we get ahead of this curve and prepare for
these impacts now. To that end, we must maintain vital funding of
research programs and facilities that advance scientific knowledge and
understanding and provide the foundation for cost-effective, innovative
solutions. Unfortunately, funding carve-outs in the Department of
Energy's Office of Science have impacted base program funding for user
facilities and research in recent years.
In my home state, PNNL is working on solutions to the challenges
climate change imposes, but to succeed, they need our continued
support. In these fiscally austere times, it makes even less sense to
be a penny wise and a pound foolish. PNNL is conducting important
research, for example through the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement
(ARM) Program, to get a better sense of what changes in climate are
already occurring and will likely occur in the future--advancing our
understanding of the climate system that include complex components
such as aerosols, clouds, and the carbon cycle.
PNNL is also working to provide better information to plan for the
coming impacts. They're developing high resolution models that
incorporate critical infrastructure and natural resources of each
region to inform mitigation and adaptation decisions at the state and
regional level. This information will be invaluable for infrastructure
planning by natural resource managers, energy companies, and government
agencies that currently face great uncertainties in their decision
making in response to changing regional climates.
It seems to me that the upfront costs of this research and planning
will be extremely modest relative to the costs coming down the road.
a. Do all of you agree that proposed cuts to research and
development will impede our ability to prepare for and mitigate
the worst impacts of climate change?
b. Do you hear from states and localities appreciating your
analysis and that they use your data to make better planning
decisions?
Question 3. All of the testimonies indicate that the impacts from
climate change are already here, and more are coming soon. I am
wondering how much influence the amount of emissions over the next few
decades will have on future climate change impacts.
Predicting the extent of future climate changes and evaluating
impacts of alternative mitigation and adaptation strategies will
require significant improvement in the accuracy of climate change
models. We also need more complete representations of human systems at
regional to local scales, where mitigation and adaptation planning
occur.
a. In improving the accuracy and scope of our models, how
helpful would it be to have a more certain emissions pathway
into the future?
b. Would this certainty improve our ability to plan for and
adapt to climate change impacts?
Appendix II
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
----------
Statement of Ben Strauss and Remik Ziemlinski, Climate Central
sea level rise threats to energy infrastructure
a surging seas brief report by climate central
April 19, 2012.
Summary
Sea level rise from global warming is well on the way to doubling
the risk of coastal floods 4 feet or more over high tide by 2030 at
locations nationwide. In the lower 48 states, nearly 300 energy
facilities stand on land below that level, including natural gas
infrastructure, electric power plants, and oil and gas refineries. Many
more facilities are at risk at higher levels, where flooding will
become progressively more likely with time as the sea continues to
rise. These results come from a Climate Central combined analysis of
datasets from NOAA, USGS and FEMA.
Rising seas
Global warming has raised sea level about 8 inches since 1880, and
the rate of rise is accelerating. Scientists expect 20 to 80 more
inches this century, a lot depending upon how much more heat-trapping
pollution humanity puts into the atmosphere. In the near term, rising
seas will translate into more and more coastal floods reaching higher
and higher, as sea level rise aggravates storm surges. These increases
threaten widespread damage to the nation's energy infrastructure. This
brief analyzes the potential risk.
Multiplying risk
Based on peer-reviewed research, Climate Central's March 2012
report, Surging Seas (surgingseas.org/NationalReport), made local sea
level rise and coastal flood risk projections at 55 water-level
stations distributed around the lower 48 states. At the majority of
these sites and across the U.S., according to the projections, climate
change more than doubles the odds of near-term extreme flooding,
compared to a hypothetical world without warming. Across sites, median
odds for floods reaching at least 4 feet above local high-tide lines
are 55 percent by 2030. Median odds for floods exceeding 5 feet are 41
percent by 2050. Odds vary regionally, but generally rank highest along
the Gulf of Mexico. However, warming multiplies odds the most along the
Pacific and then Atlantic coasts. Numbers are detailed in Table 2 of
Surging Seas.
Energy infrastructure exposed
A great number of coastal energy facilities lay below these
elevations, exposed to increasing risk of floods. This analysis
identifies 287 facilities less than 4 feet above the high-tide line,
spread throughout the 22 coastal states of the lower 48. More than half
of these are in Louisiana, mainly natural gas facilities. Florida,
California, New York, Texas, and New Jersey each have 10-to-30 exposed
sites, mainly for electricity in the first three states, and for oil
and gas in the last two. All told, this brief catalogs 130 natural gas,
96 electric, and 56 oil and gas facilities built on land below the 4-
foot line. Below the 5-foot line, the total jumps to 328 facilities
with similar geographic and type distribution.
Figure 1* shows a map of coastal facility locations below 4 feet.
Table 1 presents total energy facilities below 1-to-10 feet, state by
state. Tables 2-4 break out natural gas, electric, and oil and gas
facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Figure has been retained in committee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analysis methods
To arrive at the values presented here, we overlay point coordinate
data for energy facilities from the Federal Emergency Management Agency
HAZUS Database / MH (version 1.1), against previously developed flood-
risk zones. Surging Seas documents the methodology for developing these
zones, which are based on the elevation of land relative to local high-
tide lines (as opposed to standard elevation). The Surging Seas
analysis employed national datasets from NOAA and USGS.
The HAZUS database breaks down energy facilities into several
classes. We lump ``Oil / Gas Refinery'' and ``Oil / Gas Storage
Facility / Tank Farm'' together with ``Oil / Gas Facility''; the
database includes only two sites in the first two categories less than
10 feet, vs. 118 for the last category. Similarly, we lump
``Substation'' (1 below 10 feet) together with ``Electric Facility''
(201).
Limitations
The results presented here should be presented with certain limits
in mind. For example, the FEMA source data used includes only point
coordinate values for each energy facility. Actual facilities cover
larger areas that may include higher or lower elevations. This analysis
uses the best publicly available elevation data covering the entire
coast of the lower 48 states. However, like most datasets, the
elevation dataset includes errors, so any point may be higher or lower
than the value provided. These factors mean that results for any
individual facility should be viewed cautiously. We therefore do not
present results at the individual level. However, averaged over many
facilities, potential errors should cancel out, making the aggregate
findings presented more reliable.
This analysis simply tallies facilities under different elevations.
It does not account for levees, seawalls, or other features that may
offer protection. However, areas depressed below a sea-flood level,
even if isolated from the ocean, may be more subject to flooding from
rainwater during storms, as drainage would be impeded.
The Surging Seas report presents more thorough and detailed limits
that all apply for this brief as well.
Licensing
You may republish this brief report and/or its tables and graphics
online, in their original form, provided you cite Climate Central and
provide a link to sealevel.climatecentral.org. You must seek prior
permission for print republication. You may also not sell or edit our
content without permission. Contact us with questions or for
permissions at [email protected]. For more detailed
information on our policy, see climatecentral.org/about/republish-our-
content.
About
Climate Central Climate Central is an independent, non-profit
journalism and research organization. For more information, visit
climatecentral.org/what-we-do.
Disclaimer
All content found herein is provided solely for personal
informational purposes and is provided ``AS-IS.'' You acknowledge and
agree that your use and possession of this content is subject to, and
you agree to the provisions set forth in, Climate Central's Terms of
Use (http://www.climatecentral.org/about/legal#terms_of_use), Privacy
Policy (http://www.climatecentral.org/about/legal#privacy_policy) and
Disclaimer (http://sealevel.climatecentral.org/about/disclaimer).
______
Statement of Ben Strauss, Claudia Tebaldi, and Remik Ziemlinski
a climate central report: surging seas
sea level rise, storms & global warming's threat to the us coast
March 14, 2012.
Executive Summary
Global warming has raised sea level about 8 inches since 1880, and
the rate of rise is accelerating. Scientists expect 20 to 80 more
inches this century, a lot depending upon how much more heat-trapping
pollution humanity puts into the sky. This study makes mid-range
projections of 1-8 inches by 2030, and 4-19 inches by 2050, depending
upon location across the contiguous 48 states.
Rising seas dramatically increase the odds of damaging floods from
storm surges. For over two-thirds of the locations analyzed (and for
85% of sites outside the Gulf of Mexico), past and future global
warming more than doubles the estimated odds of ``century'' or worse
floods occurring within the next 18 years--meaning floods so high they
would historically be expected just once per century. For over half the
locations analyzed, warming at least triples the odds of century-plus
floods over the same period. And for two-thirds the locations, sea
level rise from warming has already more than doubled the odds of such
a flood even this year.
These increases are likely to cause an enormous amount of damage.
At three quarters of the 55 sites analyzed in this report, century
levels are higher than 4 feet above the high tide line. Yet across the
country, nearly 5 million people live in 2.6 million homes at less than
4 feet above high tide. In 285 cities and towns, more than half the
population lives on land below this line, potential victims of
increasingly likely climate-induced coastal flooding. 3.7 million live
less than 1 meter above the tide.
About half of this exposed population, and eight of the top ten
cities, are in the state of Florida. A preliminary independent analysis
suggests about $30 billion in taxable property is vulnerable below the
three-foot line in just three counties in southeast Florida, not
including the county with the most homes at risk in the state and the
nation, Miami-Dade. Small pockets or wide areas of vulnerability,
however, exist in almost every other coastal state.
The population and homes exposed are just part of the story.
Flooding to four feet would reach higher than a huge amount of dry
land, covering some 3.0 million acres of roads, bridges, commercial
buildings, military bases, agricultural lands, toxic waste dumps,
schools, hospitals, and more. Coastal flooding made worse by global
warming and rising seas promises to cause many billions of dollars of
damage over the coming decades.
This report and its associated materials, based on two just-
published peer-reviewed studies, is the first major national analysis
of sea level rise in 20 years, and the first one ever to include:
Estimates of land, population and housing at risk;
Evaluations of every low-lying coastal town, city, county
and state in the contiguous US;
Localized timelines of storm surge threats integrating local
sea level rise projections; and
A freely available interactive map and data to download
online (see SurgingSeas.org).
Summaries of these findings at a state-by-state level are available
in fact sheets at SurgingSeas.org/factsheets. The original peer-
reviewed studies can be found via SurgingSeas.org/papers. All findings
reflect best estimates from the research; actual values may vary.
This report focuses on new research and analysis, not
recommendations; but it is clear from the findings here that in order
to avoid the worst impacts, the United States must work to slow sea
level rise by reducing emissions of heat-trapping gases, and work to
diminish the remaining danger by preparing for higher seas in coastal
cities and counties everywhere. SurgingSeas.org/plans lists a selection
of existing resources, plans and efforts to prepare, from local to
national levels.
sea level rising
Background
Global average sea level has increased over 8 inches since 1880,\1\
and global warming has caused the great majority, if not all, of that
rise.\2\ Warming has acted in two main ways: by heating up and thus
expanding the global ocean; and by attacking glaciers and polar ice
sheets, pouring meltwater and icebergs into the sea.\3\ The planet has
heated by more than one degree Fahrenheit over the last century, rising
faster as we have burned coal, oil and gas faster, and so sent ever
more heat-trapping gases into the air.\4\ Scientists overwhelmingly
agree that these building gases are responsible for most of the warming
observed thus far.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Church J A and White N J 2011. Sea-level rise from the late
19th to the early 21st century. Surveys in Geophysics
\2\ Moore J C, Jevrejeva S and Grinsted A 2011. The historical
global sea-level budget. Annals of Glaciology. Also Church J A, White N
, Konikow L F, Domingues C M, Cogley J G, Rignot E, Gregory J M, van
den Broeke M R, Monaghan A J, and Velicogna I 2011. Revisiting the
Earth's sea-level and energy budgets from 1961 to 2008. Geophysical
Research Letters. Also Shum C K and Kuo C-Y 2011. Observation and
geophysical causes of present-day sea-level rise. In Climate Change and
Food Security in South Asia, R. Lal et al, eds.
\3\ Ibid. Also Bindoff N L and others 2007. Observations: Oceanic
climate change and sea level. In S Solomon and others, editors, Climate
Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group
I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change.
\4\ S Solomon and others 2007. Climate Change 2007: The Physical
Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge
University Press.
\5\ Oreskes N 2004. The scientific consensus on climate change.
Science
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Warming and sea level rise\6\ are both accelerating, as is the rate
of decay of ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica.\7\ Loss of ice from
these sources has the potential to raise sea level by many tens of feet
over centuries. In the warm period before the last Ice Age--when the
planet was as warm as we expect it to become by 2100 or sooner, at
least without deep and immediate cuts to pollution--global sea level
very likely reached over 20 feet higher than it is today,\8\ an
eventual sea level we could be committing to within decades\9\ if not
already.\10\ That rise would be enough to drown many major coastal
metropolises.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Church J A and White N J 2006. A 20th century acceleration in
global sea-level rise. Geophysical Research Letters
\7\ Rignot E, Velicogna I, Van den Broeke M R, Monaghan A, and
Lenaerts J 2011. Acceleration of the contribution of the Greenland and
Antarctic ice sheets to sea level rise. Geophysical Research Letters.
\8\ Kopp R E, Simons F J, Mitrovica J X, Maloof A C, and
Oppenheimer M 2009. Probabilistic assessment of sea level during the
last interglacial stage. Nature.
\9\ Ibid. and Overpeck J T, Otto-Bliesner B L, Miller G H, Muhs D
R, Alley R B and Kiehl J T 2006. Paleoclimatic evidence for future ice-
sheet instability and rapid sea-level rise. Science
\10\ Rohling E J, Grant K, Bolshaw M, Roberts A P, Siddall M,
Hemleben Ch, and Kucera M 2009. Antarctic temperature and global sea
level closely coupled over the last five glacial cycles. Nature
Geoscience
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projections
This century, scientists expect about 20 to 80 more inches of
global sea level rise, depending significantly on how much more heat-
trapping pollution humankind puts into the sky.\11\ The amount also
depends on just how strongly pollution translates into warming, and
just how strongly warming translates into sea rise. The analysis
presented in this report, based on a paper by Tebaldi and others,\12\
takes a wide range of possibilities into account. It also factors in
the gradual sinking or rising of coastal land around much of the U.S.,
which leads to faster or slower rates of local sea level rise, compared
to global rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Vermeer M and Rahmstorf S 2009. Global sea level linked to
global temperature. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Also Pfeffer W T, Harper J T and O'Neel S 2008. Kinematic constraints
on glacier contributions to 21st-century sea-level rise. Science. Also
Grinsted A, Moore J C, and Jevrejeva S 2009. Reconstructing sea level
from paleo and projected temperatures 200 to 2100AD. Climate Dynamics
\12\ Tebaldi C, Strauss B H and Zervas C E 2012. Modelling sea
level rise impacts on storm surges along US coasts. Environmental
Research Letters.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This study's middle-of-the-road projections for 2030 range from one
inch of local sea level rise in the northwest corner of Washington
State, where the land is slowly rising, to 8 inches near New Orleans,
where it is sinking. By 2050, these projections increase to 4 and 19
inches, respectively. Best-and worst-case projections range from lower
to considerably higher values. Table 1 shows findings for all 55
locations studied, plus regional and national summaries.
Storm surge: The risk multiplier
Rising seas dramatically increase the odds of damaging floods from
storm surges. For over two-thirds of the 55 locations analyzed (and for
85% of sites outside the Gulf of Mexico), past and future global
warming more than doubles the estimated odds of ``century'' (or worse)
floods occurring by 2030--meaning floods so high they would
historically be seen with only a one percent (or less) chance per year.
For over half the locations analyzed, warming at least triples the odds
of century-plus floods. Figure 1* illustrates these changes around the
nation, and Table 2 shows results at all flood study sites.
Additionally, for two-thirds of the locations, sea level rise from
warming has already at least doubled the annual risk of century-plus
floods (see Table 2 and footnote 18). These calculations all
incorporate the assumption that 90% of historic sea level rise has
stemmed from warming.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Figure 1 has been retained in committee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The increases in odds come despite the fact that sea level rise
from warming, over the next two decades and over the last century, is
better measured in inches than in feet. In many places, only inches
separate the once-a-decade flood from the once-a-century one; and
separate the water level communities have prepared for, from the one no
one has seen. Critically, a small change can make a big difference,
like the last inch of water that overflows a tub. Sea level rise is
raising the launch pad for storms and high tides, and being experienced
by the ever-more frequent occurrence of extreme high water levels
during these events--long before the ocean reaches damaging heights
permanently.
Flood waters will reach different levels in different places on
different schedules. Part of these differences will come from uneven
local rates of sea level rise, part will come from chance, and part
will come from how big local storm surges tend to be, which can vary a
lot. Mostly because of this last factor, expected heights above high
tide are generally about a foot higher than the national average in the
Gulf of Mexico, and a foot lower than average in southern California
and the southern Atlantic coast. But lower heights do not necessarily
imply lower risk. For example, two feet of sea level rise should make
an enormous difference in places where two-foot surges are rare
extremes, and relatively less in places where ten-foot surges are
sometimes seen.
This study found that at over half the sites examined, there is a
one-in-two or better chance of water reaching at least 4 feet higher
than the average local high tide by 2030, at least once. 85 percent of
stations have at least one-in-six odds. By 2050, many locations should
experience 5-foot or higher floods, with at least one-in-two odds at
nearly half of stations, and at least one-in-six odds at nearly two-
thirds. In all cases, sea level rise caused by global warming increases
the odds, usually doubling or tripling them or more. Table 2 provides
details for each site studied.
U.S. vulnerability
Floods exceeding these levels are likely to cause an enormous
amount of damage. Across the country, nearly 5 million people live in
2.6 million homes on land less than 4 feet above high tide. In 285
cities and towns, more than half the population lives below this line,
potential victims of increasingly likely climate-induced coastal
flooding. And nationwide, over 6 million people live on land less than
5 feet above average high tide. Based on a paper by Strauss and
others,\13\ this study estimated the land, housing and population less
than 1-10 feet above local high tide levels, for every coastal town,
city, county and state in the contiguous 48 states. SurgingSeas.org
presents full results in a searchable, interactive map and in tables.
3.7 million live on land less than 1 meter above the local high tide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Strauss B H, Ziemlinski R, Weiss J L, and Overpeck J T 2012.
Tidally adjusted estimates of topographic vulnerability to sea level
rise and flooding for the contiguous United States. Environmental
Research Letters
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
About half of the exposed population under 4 feet, and eight of the
top ten cities, are in the state of Florida. A preliminary independent
analysis suggests about $30 billion in taxable property lies below the
three-foot line in just three counties in southeast Florida, not
including the county with the most homes at risk in the state and the
nation, Miami-Dade.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Draft Regional Climate Action Plan of the Southeast Florida
Regional Climate Change Compact, Appendix E, via http://
www.southeastfloridaclimatecompact.org/index--files/Page648.htm,
accessed January 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small pockets or wide areas of vulnerability, however, exist in
almost every other coastal state, as Figure 2* makes clear. Table 3
shows the top ten states, counties and cities by total population
living less than 4 feet above local high tide. State fact sheets at
SurgingSeas.org/factsheets provide more summary information at a state
level. The map at SurgingSeas.org links each city displayed with the
nearest flood analysis site used in this study, as an indicator for
when and with what chances a given water height might be achieved in
the area. Actual odds may vary over even small distances.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Figure 2 has been retained in committee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The population and homes exposed are just part of the story.
Flooding to four feet would reach higher than a huge amount of dry
land, covering some 3 million acres of roads, bridges, commercial
buildings, military bases, agricultural lands, toxic waste dumps,
schools, hospitals, and more. Coastal flooding made worse by global
warming and rising seas promises to cause many billions of dollars of
damage over the coming decades. This report focuses on population,
housing and land, but future analyses will address infrastructure,
landmarks, and property threatened.
A number of state and local governments are beginning to plan or
even take action against the challenge of sea level rise.
SurgingSeas.org/plans presents a list and further resources.
Research methods
To make maps of low and vulnerable coastal land, this study used
the highest-resolution nationwide coastal elevation data publicly
available, from the National Elevation Dataset (US Geological Survey;
cells ca. 30 feet on a side). We adjusted elevations to indicate
heights compared to the nearest average high tide levels, because these
can vary by several feet from place to place. Tidal information came
from VDatum, a tool created by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration. We then removed from consideration all wetland area as
defined by the National Wetlands Inventory, and overlaid the remaining
map elevation zones against high-resolution data from the 2010 Census
to extract population and housing estimates. SurgingSeas.org/
LandAnalysis provides more detail.
To analyze future high water levels from sea level rise plus storm
surge and tides, we studied 55 water level gauges around the US. We
combined local factors, such as sinking land, and global future sea
level rise estimates, to make local sea level rise projections at each
site. We then used historic patterns of local extreme water levels to
forecast future probabilities of extremes assuming the same patterns
continue, but augmented by the projected local sea level rise. Our
analysis also included developing confidence intervals around best
estimates. SurgingSeas.org/FloodAnalysis provides more detail.
To estimate how global warming shifts the odds of high storm
surges, we computed extreme event probabilities in a hypothetical world
with no warming-induced sea level rise, past or future, and then
compared the results with our first calculations including warming. We
retained local sea level change from vertical land movement in the no-
warming scenario. Based on a review of scientific literature, we
assumed that 10% of the global average sea level rise observed since
1880 came from factors other than warming, and so also retained this
10% of global rise in the no-warming scenario.
For more detail, visit SurgingSeas.org/research, which includes
links to fuller descriptions of our methods, and the two core
scientific papers upon which this report is based:
Tebaldi C, Strauss B H and Zervas C E 2012. Modelling sea
level rise impacts on storm surges along US coasts.
Environmental Research Letters.
Strauss B H, Ziemlinski R, Weiss J L, and Overpeck J T 2012.
Tidally adjusted estimates of topographic vulnerability to sea
level rise and flooding for the contiguous United States.
Environmental Research Letters.
Limitations
The results presented here should be interpreted with certain
limits in mind. One set of limits comes from the elevation data used.
Like almost any dataset, it includes errors--so any point classified as
below a given height, may in fact be above it; and any point classified
as above a height, may be below it. These potential errors should
cancel out when evaluating the totals of what is affected over larger
areas like towns, cities and counties. However, elevation error should
be kept in mind when looking at any individual point on the map that
accompanies this analysis (SurgingSeas.org/map).
Another issue from the elevation data concerns their horizontal
resolution. Cells 30 feet on a side are too large to completely capture
fine features like levees or seawalls, which may protect land even when
it is below the water level, such as in the New Orleans area.
Therefore, this analysis quantifies the land, housing and population
below different threshold elevations--amounts not affected by built
protection--but does not evaluate how much would be inundated, given
each water level. Of course, many areas are not protected; protected
areas are protected only to limited heights; and being below water
level poses challenges for storm water drainage, increasing the risk of
rain-driven flooding.
The analysis of flood odds and timing applies strictly only at the
55 water level gauge sites studied, and can only be considered general
indicators for the surrounding areas. This is mainly because storm
surge patterns can vary from place to place, even over short distances,
due to geography and storm directions. Statistics among gauges
sometimes correspond well over wide areas, suggesting wide
applicability. But they also sometimes vary greatly over short
distances, suggesting the opposite.
This report assumes that recent historic storm patterns do not
change in the future. However, global warming may change the frequency
or intensity of storms that affect coastal flooding. This analysis also
leaves out projected changes in Atlantic circulation expected to add
several extra inches of sea level rise along the Northeast Corridor by
mid-century;\15\ and projected changes in the ``gravity fingerprint''
of global oceans,\16\ which may partly counteract the first change.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Yin J, Schlesinger M E and Stouffer R J 2009. Model
projections of rapid sea-level rise on the northeast coast of the
United States. Nature Geoscience.
\16\ Mitrovica J X, Gomez N, Morrow E, Hay C, Latychev K, and
Tamisiea M E 2011. On the robustness of predictions of sea level
fingerprints. Geophysical Journal International.
\17\ Tebaldi C, Strauss B H and Zervas C E 2012. Modelling sea
level rise impacts on storm surges along US coasts. Environmental
Research Letters. See supplemental materials.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most broadly, this report presents our best estimates for the
quantities analyzed, given the underlying data and our assumptions.
True values are likely to fall above or below our estimates.
Licensing
Excepting the stand-alone cover image, you may republish this
document and/or its tables and graphics online, in their original form,
provided you cite Climate Central and provide a link to
sealevel.climatecentral.org. You must seek prior permission for print
republication. You may also not sell or edit our content without
permission. Contact us with questions or for permissions at
[email protected]. For more detailed information on our
policy, see http://www.climatecentral.org/about/republish-our-content.
About Climate Central
Climate Central is an independent, non-profit journalism and
research organization. For more information, visit climatecentral.org/
about.
Table 2. Increase in flood odds driven by sea level rise from
global warming.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Odds are for floods by given years, not within given years.
Flood heights measured relative to local high tide. Century flood
levels estimated using historic flooding patterns and assuming 2009 sea
level as a baseline. Global warming multipliers indicate how much sea
level rise from global warming has multiplied flood odds, compared to a
world without warming, to reach the projected odds shown. 90% of
historic global average sea level rise since 1880 is assumed to come
from warming. Historic century flood odds have already doubled at all
sites with multipliers >2 by 2030, except for at Solomons Island, MD
and Freeport, TX, where odds have increased by 90% or more.
Disclaimer All content found herein is provided solely for personal
informational purposes and is provided ``AS-IS.'' You
acknowledge and agree that your use and possession of this
content is subject to, and you agree to the provisions set
forth in, Climate Central's Terms of Use (http://
www.climatecentral.org/about/legal#terms_of_use), Privacy
Policy (http://www.climatecentral.org/about/
legal#privacy_policy) and Disclaimer (http://
sealevel.climatecentral.org/about/disclaimer). Cover image,
copyright WCU Program for the Study of Developed Shorelines
______
Attachments of Leonard Berry, Director, Florida Center for
Environmental Studies, Florida Atlantic University, Jupiter, FL
annex a.--southeast florida sea level rise concerns for federal
consideration
Based on the findings of the Final Recommendations of the
Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force (July 2010), a National Priority
Objective in an Area of Special Emphasis is to ``Strengthen resiliency
of coastal communities . . .and their abilities to adapt to climate
change impacts and ocean acidification.'' Southeast Florida is highly
vulnerable to the effects of climate change, especially sea level rise.
In order to effectively address sea level rise issues, the Southeast
Florida Regional Climate Compact Counties have identified a number of
concerns for federal assistance related to adaptation policies,
adaptation funding and technical needs.
southeast florida regional climate change compact 2012 joint
legislative program
Statements on Sea Level Rise
SUPPORT--greater incorporation of adaptation strategies in the
development of state climate and energy policies, legislation, and
appropriations priorities.
SUPPORT--legislation which complements and enhances the utilization
and implementation of Adaptation Action Area comprehensive plan
designation in law for areas that experience coastal flooding and that
are vulnerable to the related impacts of sea level rise. (See expanded
language below under Broward County Legislative Program).
SUPPORT--programs and efforts that provide technical assistance and
funding to local governments to aid the integration of adaptation
planning in local comprehensive plans.
SUPPORT--funding for adaptation planning and investments (see
attached letter) in the areas of water management, water supply,
transportation and other projects that provide hazard mitigation and
serve to reduce immediate and long-term risks (of sea level rise) to
infrastructure.
SUPPORT--policies, legislation and funding that will provide for
the complete implementation of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration
Plan as fundamental to Everglades Restoration, but also the vitality of
local water resource management efforts given the overall contributions
of the Everglades to regulated water storage and aquifer recharge which
will become increasingly important under variable climate conditions
and in the face of sea level rise.
SUPPORT--greater recognition of the role of Everglades Restoration
in planning for economic and environmental sustainability, climate
adaptation, including the impacts of sea level rise and extreme
weather, such as droughts and floods.
2012 Broward County Legislative Program
SUPPORT: Federal legislation that would create and fund a national
infrastructure bank or other new infrastructure funding source to
finance projects needed by state and local governments to adapt to the
impacts of climate change and the growing regional needs for improved
infrastructure with emphasis on investments in areas such as water
management, water supply, transportation and other projects that
provide hazard mitigation and serve to reduce risks to urban
infrastructure from extreme weather events and rising sea levels.
SUPPORT: Specific recognition of an ``Adaptation Action Area''
through designation in federal legislation for those regions, such as
Southeast Florida, that are uniquely vulnerable to climate impacts,
including sea level rise, for the purpose of prioritizing funding for
infrastructure needs and adaptation planning, This specifically
includes support for the inclusion of Adaptation Action Area language
with the Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), enabling at-risk regions to develop long-term
plans for adaptation.
Technical Needs Identified in Compact Work Group Discussions
Continued technical support from federal agencies. The
Compact acknowledges the significant role and contributions of
federal agency partners in local and regional planning efforts
relating to water supply, water resource management, and sea
level. These collaborations have served to substantially
advance programmatic efforts and the Compact with the applied
expertise and resources of the USACE, NOAA, USGS, and EPA staff
in local and regional offices. Continued support is need to
develop technical tools and aid in the implementation of the
Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Action Plan.
Improved and expanded hydrologic modeling for the region to
understand the impacts of sea level rise with scenario testing
for adaptation infrastructure improvements. Particular areas of
vulnerability and analysis will include sea level rise,
drainage and flood control infrastructure, changing
precipitation patterns, impacts on groundwater levels, surface
water management, and saltwater intrusion and its influence on
potable wellfields and water supplies. The USGS is currently
working on this type of modeling in select pilot areas of South
Florida.
Installation of additional National Water Level Observation
Network (NWLON) stations. NOAA conducted an assessment of tidal
stations along the Florida Coast and identified the need for
additional NWLON stations and subordinate gages. This
additional monitoring equipment will be important in
understanding and tracking changes in sea level rise for the
region.
Inventory of infrastructure at risk: While NOAA, USGS, USACE and
others have aided the region in the development of inundation maps,
vulnerability assessments are impeded by the lack of complete and
accurate geographic information system (GIS) coverages for select
infrastructure, such as historical and cultural resources. Funding is
needed to create these coverages to determine impacts associated with
sea level rise and storm surge.
Congress of the United States
washington, dc 20515
May 13, 2011.
Hon. Rodney Frelinghuysen,
Chairman, House Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Energy and
Water, 2362-B Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. Pete Visclosky,
Ranking Member, House Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Energy
and Water, 1016 Longworth House Office Building, Washington,
DC.
Dear Chairman Frelinghuysen and Ranking Member Visclosky:
As you begin work on the Fiscal Year 2012 Energy and Water
Appropriations bill, we respectfully request you to include language
with the Army Corps of Engineers enabling at-risk, multi-county regions
impacted by rising sea levels to develop long-term plans for
adaptation.
Scientists around the world and within our most respected
institutions note an alarming level in sea level rise, possibly by
several feet over the next century. This will inudate low-lying coastal
zones, impacting hundreds of millions of people worldwide and tens of
millions of Americans here at home. Our states and local communities
are just beginning to grapple with the possible effects of what this
kind of massive, permanent flooding will mean. It is critical that
local leaders be given the necessary tools to start planning now, so
that our communities will have enough time to prepare for these life-
altering effects.
We request that the following language be inserted into the Army
Corps of Engineer's Operations & Maintenance account, or whichever
account you feel is most relevent:
``Funds will be used to study, define and designate several
``Adaptation Action Areas,'' which are at-risk, multi-county,
regions of the country, uniquely vulnerable and significantly
impaced by rising sea level.''
We hope that this language will enable regional groups to begin
effectively strategizing and planning for adaptation to sea level rise.
We thank you for your consideration of this important request.
Sincerely,
Alcee L. Hastings,
Member of Congress.
Ted Deutch,
Member of Congress.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz,
Member of Congress.
Frederica Wilson,
Member of Congress.
annex b.--sea level risk and response summit
the future of florida and the coast
Boca Raton Marriott, FL, June 20, 21 & 22, 2012.
Introduction
This Summit will result in raising an awareness and visibility of
sea level rise and climate change issues to make them a central agenda
item for the future of Florida and to emphasize how local and regional
actions can be translated to other regions in the U.S. and abroad.
Furthermore, this Summit will result in highlighting the ``now'' of sea
level rise and showcase the myriad of activities taking place in
Florida and the organizations that are mobilizing to address the issue
to a national and global audience. In addition, the Summit will produce
specific recommendations to local, state and federal agencies presented
in a report summary and a website where visual aids and publications
will be used to educate summit participants before and after the
summit.
Format And Purpose
The Center for Environmental Studies (CES) at Florida Atlantic
University, the Florida Sea Grant Program, and the United States
Geological Survey will hold a Sea Level Rise Risk and Response Summit
June 20th through June 22nd. The organizers have collaborated with a
diverse group of experts in designing the program, goals and outcomes.
The Summit will take place in Boca Raton, Florida and seek to bring in
an audience of up to 300.
The purpose of this summit is three-fold: Highlight the
interrelationships between sea level rise, limestone geology, and water
management in Florida; share the ongoing responses and adaptation
planning of agencies, institutions, and civic society to sea level
rise; and compare the Florida situation and response with other
vulnerable localities in the US and worldwide. This summit will focus
on the complex sea level rise issues in Florida and provide examples
from other coastal regions within the US and internationally.
Goals And Objectives
The goals are to make a diverse audience of Summit attendees aware
of the myriad of adaptation activities currently underway in the region
and beyond. From this shared awareness, there will be a plan to
continue a process of cooperation and coordination of adaptation
responses. The primary objective is to present an awareness and
understanding of the effects of sea level rise on the built environment
and other social and societal issues and to explore adaptation and
mitigations practices and policies that could be used to offset
negative impacts. Other objectives include:
Highlighting current and ongoing sea level rise and climate
change research initiatives from academia, regional planning,
state and federal projects taking place in Florida.
Share methods and lessons learned with other states/regions
to improve planning, decision making and adaptation.
Provide scientific information to enable effective decision
making to enable effective decision making to address the
threats and opportunities posed by climate and sea level rise
(similar to US Global Change Research Program goal).
Identify concerns, compatibilities and links between social
and economic issues, underserved populations, and the built
environment with regards to sea level rise, salt water
intrusion and water supply issues.
annex c.--additional resources, collaborations, and research*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Map to Annex C has been retained in committee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Department of Transportation Research: Development of a Methodology
for the Assessment of Sea Level Rise Impacts on Florida's
Transportation Modes and Infrastructure
In Florida, low elevations can make transportation infrastructure
in coastal and low-lying areas potentially vulnerable to sea level rise
(SLR). Because global SLR forecasts lack precision at local or regional
scales, SLR forecasts or scenarios for parts of the state have been
prepared using varying tools and approaches. However, Florida still
lacks a consensus on the appropriate methodology to forecast potential,
adverse impacts. Also, a comprehensive analysis of transportation
infrastructure potentially at risk in Florida from SLR has not been
conducted.
In this project, Florida Atlantic University researchers analyzed
findings, including data sources and methodologies used to forecast
SLR. They recommended data sources and methods for forecasting SLR and
related impacts in Florida and investigated integrating SLR forecasts
with FDOT information systems to identify at-risk infrastructure. Using
the Weiss Overpeck 1-meter (?3 ft) estimate of SLR to illustrate the
methodology, researchers linked mapping software and datasets to create
a framework for identifying transportation facilities at risk. Project
Manager: Maria Cahill, AICP, FDOT Planning Office, Principal
Investigator: Dr. Leonard Berry, Florida Atlantic University
www.dot.state.fl.us/research-center, www.ces.fau.edu/climate_change/
fdot
2) Integrative Collaboration on Climate and Energy (ICCE)
Launched by Florida Atlantic University in the spring of 2009, ICCE
is a cross-university program creating relevant linkages across
disciplines. With Florida Atlantic University as the lead institution
ICCE includes more than 80 faculty members in a multitude of climate
change-related disciplines. Collectively, we have strong collaborative
linkages with local, state and federal governmental and non-
governmental organizations, the business community, and public. Other
University collaborators include: University of South Florida, Florida
Gulf Coast University, and Columbia University. Our partners provide
strong support in topical and regional areas. Based on our expertise,
deep community connections, and long-held partnerships, we are uniquely
positioned to take research-based knowledge and apply it to practical
decision-making that focuses on the needs of the region and its people.
Furthermore, we know that the work of ICCE will have implications for
addressing the climate change issues that will soon be faced by much of
the Unites States and the world. www.ces.fau.edu/climate_change/icce
3) Resilient Tampa Bay 2011
A Knowledge Exchange with Dutch Experts was hosted by the
University of South Florida's Patel Center for Global Solutions in
Tampa, Florida, on February 21-23, 2011. The three-day workshop was
organized in collaboration with local, regional, state, and
international entities. More than 150 attendees heard from Dutch and
local water experts on resiliency issues relating to Tampa Bay,
particularly on urban flooding, storm surge, and sea level rise.
Additionally, key stakeholders formed four geo-focal teams to identify
vulnerabilities and to make recommendations on resiliency strategies
for four defined locations: Tampa Bay, City of Tampa, City of St.
Petersburg, and Gulf Beach Communities.
Today, coastal cities around the world face a range of dynamic
regional and global pressures. These pressures make coastal cities more
vulnerable to flooding, storm surges, coastal erosion, and more. Global
change pressures serve as threat multipliers thus increasing existing
problems for these cities. The Tampa Bay region is one of these coastal
areas that will become more vulnerable in the future; hence the
critical need to improve its resiliency. Tampa Bay's key
vulnerabilities related to water include:
Urban flooding events caused by heavy rainfall induce
frequent but limited local damage
Storm surges caused by hurricanes. Occurrence probability is
low but as high-impact events, they can lead to catastrophic
flooding along the entire coast.
Sea level rise caused by climate change. As a long-term
driver, it will increase existing flooding problems.
The goal of Resilient Tampa Bay 2011 was to exchange ideas on
developing resiliency plans for the Tampa Bay region. The challenge was
to consider plans that would protect vital infrastructure, improve
conditions for economic development, and minimize the impact of
hurricanes and other natural disasters. Key issues addressed were:
Determining the factors that make Tampa Bay vulnerable
Establishing progress toward improving resiliency in Tampa
Bay
Understanding existing visions and solutions for improving
resiliency in Tampa Bay
Recommending the next steps for improving resiliency in
Tampa Bay
As part of an ongoing effort to engage Dutch water experts in
addressing resiliency challenges in Tampa Bay, we partnered closely
with the Dutch Consulate in Miami and the Dutch Embassy in Washington,
D.C., to secure the participation of several Dutch speakers who shared
some of their most effective and reliable solutions for flood
resiliency. The Patel Center has been instrumental in establishing a
dialogue between Dutch water experts and their counterparts in the
Tampa Bay region through two previous workshops in June 2009 and
November 2009. Resilient Tampa Bay 2011 built upon the momentum created
from the prior workshops and will serve as a springboard to launch
ongoing resiliency planning efforts in our region.
4) Florida Water Management and Adaptation in the Face of Climate
Change
A White Paper on Climate Change and Florida's Water Resources
supported by the state university system of florida november 2011
The State of Florida will be faced in the coming years with
significant challenges and opportunities for managing water in a highly
dynamic and changing climate. The impacts of climate change on water
resources management will have consequences for the economic
sustainability and growth of the state. A strong awareness of climate
change impact issues and potential adaptation strategies that could be
implemented by the state will increase its resilience over the long-
term to uncertain climatic conditions and sea level rise. To that end,
a series of white papers have been prepared by State University System
(SUS) of Florida Universities to coalesce our understanding of realized
and predicted climate change impacts with a focus on various topics.
The report presented herein addresses water resources and adaptation
issues across the state.
The primary objectives of this report are: (1) to identify
Florida's water resources and water-related infrastructure that are
vulnerable to climate change; (2) show demographics in the state that
are vulnerable to climate change impacts with a focus on water
resources and sea level rise; and (3) highlight some of the alternative
technologies currently being used to solve water resource supply issues
in the state that are likely to expand and be challenged under various
scenarios of climate change.
Florida is highly vulnerable to climate change as a result of its
expansive shoreline, low elevation and highly permeable aquifers, and
the location of high population centers and economic investments close
to the coastline. Further, the state receives a high frequency of
tropical storm landings that are accompanied by tidal surges that
compound the risks of sea level rise. Because the state is highly
vulnerable compared to other regions globally, Florida's academic,
governmental and non-governmental institutions are developing
adaptation strategies and conducting research on climate change. In
this white paper, we highlight climate change issues relevant to water
management, but also recognize the financial challenges to implement
adaptation measures to address climate change solutions. Implementing
adaptation measures will require an unprecedented level of resource
leveraging and coordination among academic, governmental, non-
governmental, and private sector entities. http://floridaclimate.org/
whitepapers/ http://floridaclimate.org/water_management_pdf.php