[House Hearing, 116 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
CREATING A CLIMATE RESILIENT AMERICA:
OVERCOMING THE HEALTH RISKS
OF THE CLIMATE CRISIS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE
CLIMATE CRISIS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
HEARING HELD
FEBRUARY 5, 2020
__________
Serial No. 116-17
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
www.govinfo.gov
Printed for the use of the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
41-273 WASHINGTON : 2020
SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE CLIMATE CRISIS
One Hundred Sixteenth Congress
KATHY CASTOR, Florida, Chair
BEN RAY LUJAN, New Mexico GARRET GRAVES, Louisiana,
SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon Ranking Member
JULIA BROWNLEY, California MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
JARED HUFFMAN, California GARY PALMER, Alabama
A. DONALD McEACHIN, Virginia BUDDY CARTER, Georgia
MIKE LEVIN, California CAROL MILLER, West Virginia
SEAN CASTEN, Illinois KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota
JOE NEGUSE, Colorado
----------
Ana Unruh Cohen, Majority Staff Director
Marty Hall, Minority Staff Director
climatecrisis.house.gov
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
Page
Hon. Kathy Castor, a Representative in Congress from the State of
Florida, and Chair, Select Committee on the Climate Crisis:
Opening Statement.............................................. 1
Prepared Statement............................................. 3
WITNESSES
Hon. Gina McCarthy, President and Chief Executive Officer,
Natural Resources Defense Council
Oral Statement................................................. 8
Prepared Statement............................................. 9
Aparna Bole, MD, FAAP, Chair, AAP Council on Environmental
Health, on behalf of American Academy of Pediatrics
Oral Statement................................................. 14
Prepared Statement............................................. 15
Arturo S. Rodriguez, President Emeritus, United Farm Workers, UFW
Foundation, on behalf of UFW Foundation and United Farm Workers
of America
Oral Statement................................................. 23
Prepared Statement............................................. 25
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Letter from the American Psychological Association, submitted for
the record by Ms. Castor....................................... 4
Letter from the National Association of County & City Health
Officials, submitted for the record by Ms. Castor.............. 5
Prepared Statement of Derrick Hollie, President, Reaching
America, submitted for the record by Ms. Castor................ 6
Report, Preliminary US Emissions Estimates for 2019, submitted
for the record by Mr. Graves................................... 51
Data, U.S. Energy Information Administration State Electricity
Profiles, submitted for the record by Mr. Graves............... 51
APPENDIX
Questions for the Record from Hon. Kathy Castor to Hon. Gina
McCarthy....................................................... 51
Questions for the Record from Hon. Kathy Castor to Aparna Bole,
MD, FAAP....................................................... 53
Questions for the Record from Hon. Kathy Castor to Arturo S.
Rodriguez...................................................... 55
CREATING A CLIMATE RESILIENT AMERICA:
OVERCOMING THE HEALTH RISKS
OF THE CLIMATE CRISIS
----------
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 2020
House of Representatives,
Select Committee on the Climate Crisis,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:03 a.m., in Room
1300, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Kathy Castor
(chairwoman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Castor, Bonamici, Brownley,
Huffman, Levin, Graves, Palmer, Carter, and Miller.
Ms. Castor. Committee will come to order. Welcome to the
February 5th, 2020, meeting of the Select Committee on the
Climate Crisis, ``Creating a Climate Resilient America:
Overcoming the Health Risks of the Climate Crisis.''
Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a
recess of the committee at any time.
Good morning, and thanks to everyone for being here early
this morning. I hope the state of your coffee is strong this
morning. Today we are continuing to investigate the challenges
posed by the climate crisis and the benefits we gain from
solving it. Health issues are top of mind for many Americans,
and the serious health consequences of climate change should be
too. This hearing will examine how climate solutions help save
lives and provide economic benefits. I will now recognize
myself for 5 minutes for an opening statement.
The climate crisis is making air pollution worse, and as
temperatures rise, the public health suffers. Today we will
explore the harms of the growing health impacts related to the
climate crisis and what we can do about it. One of our most
important responsibilities as elected representatives is to
keep our constituents safe. Congress has worked to keep
Americans healthy whether it is by protecting our drinking
water, investing in life-saving medical research, or expanding
access to healthcare. And while America has been fueled over
the past two centuries by burning coal, oil, and gas, over
time, those fuel sources have harmed the public health, and now
it is getting worse. The number and gravity of cases of heart
and lung disease, asthma, extended allergy seasons, and the
impacts of extreme heat are on the rise.
And climate-aggravated illnesses are having a
disproportionate impact on children, seniors, and our neighbors
who work outside. The science could not be clearer: The climate
crisis is making Americans sicker, exposing them to stronger
heat waves, dangerous wildfires, floods, droughts, and climate-
fueled disasters, the changing climate is also altering the
patterns of infectious diseases making warm seasons longer and
threatening food security across the world. Unless we take bold
climate action, global surface temperatures will continue to
rise, making these risks even more dangerous. But science tells
us that we can do something about it. We can reduce carbon
pollution, increase energy efficiency, and move toward a clean
energy economy. We can strengthen clean air and clean water
protections and we can solve this crisis by taking bold, urgent
action to protect the health of all Americans. Curbing
pollution can literally save lives and save America hundreds of
billions of dollars.
The World Health Organization estimates that the climate
crisis could cause nearly 250,000 additional deaths globally
each year due to health risks associated with malnutrition,
heat stress, and other health effects. And warmer temperatures
can make it more challenging to battle infectious diseases.
Dangerous illnesses like Lyme disease and malaria are borne
through fleas, ticks, and mosquitoes, which can thrive when we
have longer and hotter summers, shorter winters, and earlier
spring seasons.
The climate crisis also puts the health of workers at risk.
As we will hear, it can be particularly dangerous for farm
workers: the folks who help grow the food that ends up on our
dinner tables. Rising temperatures will make sustained work
increasingly difficult for millions of workers with
temperatures regularly breaching physiological limits.
Solving a crisis is also about protecting our kids and
grandkids, as well as our aging parents and grandparents.
Children have a higher risk of heatstroke and illness than
adults, while older adults are vulnerable to extreme weather
events that can cause power outages and require evacuations.
In recent years, wildfires also have left communities
choking on smoke even when the fires are miles away. We have
seen the deadly disruption of healthcare delivery during and
after infamous storms like Katrina, Sandy, Harvey, Maria, and
Michael. Those storms left healthcare facilities damaged,
medical professionals displaced, and patients struggling to get
needed care. While all Americans are at risk of suffering
climate-fueled health problems, some populations are more
vulnerable than others. Working class families, for example,
face higher risk when floodwaters overtake their neighborhoods,
bringing the mental strain of dealing with a disaster and
carrying dangerous pathogens that put them at risk of physical
illness. Decades of discrimination also have exposed working
class communities and communities of color to extreme heat,
putting them on the front lines of the climate crisis.
As we discuss climate solutions today, it is clear we must
emphasize environmental justice for these vulnerable Americans.
Congress shouldn't wait until it is too late for us to act on
climate. We can turn things around, reduce climate impacts, and
protect our communities, but the time to follow the science and
act is now. I look forward to hearing from our distinguished
panel of witnesses.
[The statement of Ms. Castor follows:]
Opening Statement of Chair Kathy Castor
Hearing on ``Creating a Climate Resilient America: Overcoming the
Health Risks of the Climate Crisis''
Select Committee on the Climate Crisis
February 5, 2020
As Prepared for Delivery
The climate crisis is making air pollution worse and, as
temperatures rise, the public health suffers. Today we will explore the
harms of the growing health impacts related to the climate crisis and
what we can do about it.
One of our most important responsibilities as elected
representatives is to keep our constituents safe. Congress has worked
to keep Americans healthy, whether it's by protecting our drinking
water, investing in life-saving medical research, or expanding access
to health care.
While America has been fueled over the past two centuries by
burning coal, oil and gas, over time those fuel sources have harmed
public health. And now it's getting worse. The number and gravity of
cases of heart and lung disease, asthma, extended allergy seasons, and
the impacts of extreme heat are on the rise. And climate-aggravated
illnesses are having a disproportionate impact on children, seniors and
on our neighbors who work outside.
The science could not be clearer. The climate crisis is making
Americans sicker, exposing them to stronger heat waves, dangerous
wildfires, floods, droughts, and climate-fueled disasters. The changing
climate is also altering the patterns of infectious diseases, making
warm seasons longer, and threatening food security across the world.
Unless we take bold climate action, global surface temperatures will
continue to rise, making these risks even more dangerous.
But science also tells us that we can do something about it. We can
reduce carbon pollution, increase energy efficiency, and move toward a
clean energy economy. We can strengthen clean air and clean water
protections. And we can solve this crisis by taking bold, urgent action
to protect the health of all Americans. Curbing pollution can literally
save lives and save America hundreds of billions of dollars.
The World Health Organization estimates that the climate crisis
could cause nearly 250,000 additional deaths globally every year, due
to health risks associated with malnutrition, heat stress and other
health effects. And warmer temperatures can make it more challenging to
battle infectious diseases. Dangerous illnesses like Lyme disease and
malaria are borne through fleas, ticks and mosquitoes, which can thrive
when we have longer and hotter summers, shorter winters, and earlier
spring seasons.
The climate crisis also puts the health of workers at risk. As we
will hear, it can be particularly dangerous for farm workers, the folks
who help grow the food that ends up on our dinner tables. Rising
temperatures will make sustained work increasingly difficult for
millions of workers, with temperatures regularly breaching
physiological limits.
Solving this crisis is also about protecting our kids and
grandchildren, as well as our aging parents and grandparents. Children
have a higher risk of heat stroke and illness than adults, while older
adults are vulnerable to extreme weather events that can cause power
outages and require evacuations. In recent years, wildfires have left
communities choking on smoke even when fires are miles away. We've seen
the deadly disruption of health care delivery during and after infamous
storms like Katrina, Sandy, Harvey, Maria and Michael. Those storms
left healthcare facilities damaged, medical professionals displaced and
patients struggling to get needed care.
While all Americans are at risk of suffering from climate-fueled
health problems, some populations are more vulnerable than others.
Working class families, for example, face higher risks when floodwaters
overtake their neighborhoods, bringing the mental strain of dealing
with a disaster and carrying dangerous pathogens that put them at risk
of physical illness. Decades of discrimination also have exposed
working class communities and communities of color to extreme heat,
putting them on the front lines of the climate crisis. As we discuss
climate solutions today, it's clear we must emphasize environmental
justice for these vulnerable Americans.
Congress shouldn't wait until it's too late for us to act on
climate. We can turn things around, reduce climate impacts, and protect
our communities. But the time to follow the science and act is now.
I look forward to hearing from our distinguished panel of
witnesses.
Mr. Graves, our ranking member, is going to be a little bit
late today. When he arrives, he will have the opportunity to
give his opening statement. So, at this time, without
objection, the other members who would like to submit opening
statements may have 5 business days to do so.
And before I welcome our witnesses, I have two unanimous
consent requests. We are going to go ahead and get them out of
the way today. The minority has had an opportunity to review
these letters. The first is from the American Psychological
Association about the mental health impacts of climate change.
The second is from the National Association of County and City
Health Officials about the efforts local health departments are
taking to address the health risks of climate change and the
support that they need.
[The information follows:]
Submission for the Record
Representative Kathy Castor
Select Committee on the Climate Crisis
February 5, 2020
American Psychological Association
Services, Inc.,
February 4, 2020.
Hon. Kathy Castor,
Chair, House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Garret Graves,
Ranking Member, House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairwoman Castor and Ranking Member Graves: When you think
about climate change, mental health might not be the first thing that
comes to mind. Americans are beginning to grow familiar with climate
change and its health impacts: worsening asthma and allergies; heat-
related stress; foodborne, waterborne, and vector-borne diseases;
illness and injury related to storms; and floods and droughts. However,
the connections with mental health are not often part of the
discussion.
It is time to expand information and action on climate and health,
including mental health. The health, economic, political, and
environmental implications of climate change affect all of us. The
tolls on our mental health are far reaching. They induce stress,
depression, and anxiety; strain social and community relationships; and
have been linked to increases in aggression, violence, and crime.
Children and communities with few resources to deal with the impacts of
climate change are those most impacted.
To compound the issue, the psychological responses to climate
change, such as conflict avoidance, fatalism, fear, helplessness, and
resignation are growing. These responses are keeping us, and our
nation, from properly addressing the core causes of and solutions for
our changing climate, and from building and supporting psychological
resiliency.
To help increase awareness of these challenges and to address them,
the American Psychological Association (APA) and ecoAmerica sponsored
this report, Mental Health and Our Changing Climate: Impacts,
Implications, and Guidance.\1\ The report is intended to inform and
empower health and medical professionals, community and elected
leaders, and the public.
APA supports robust, science-based efforts to address a wide range
of social issues, including climate change. APA is the largest
scientific and professional organization representing psychology in the
United States, and works to promote the advancement, communication, and
application of psychological science and knowledge to benefit society
and improve lives. Our membership includes more than 121,000
researchers, educators, clinicians, consultants, and students.
We thank you for holding today's hearing and for considering the
mental health aspects of climate change raised in our report. If you
have any questions or need additional information, please contact Geoff
Mumford, PhD, directly at 202.336.6067 or [email protected].
Russell Shilling, PhD,
Chief Scientific Officer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2017/03/mental-health-
climate.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submission for the Record
Representative Kathy Castor
Select Committee on the Climate Crisis
February 5, 2020
National Association of County &
City Health Officials,
February 4, 2020.
Hon. Kathy Castor,
Select Committee on the Climate Crisis,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Garret Graves,
Select Committee on the Climate Crisis,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chair Castor and Ranking Member Graves: On behalf of the
National Association of County and City Health Officials (NACCHO),
representing the nearly 3,000 local health departments across the
country, I write to thank you for highlighting the impact of climate
change on our nation's health through the hearing, ``Creating a Climate
Resilient America: Overcoming the Health Risks of the Climate Crisis''
Climate change has serious and far-reaching health implications for
present and future generations. We appreciate your focus on this
incredibly important issue.
Across the country, local health departments are tasked with
addressing the many health risks that stem from climate change. As the
climate continues to change communities will be susceptible to a number
of health threats, including increased exposure to and geographic reach
of vector-borne and infectious diseases like Zika and Lyme disease,
exacerbation of respiratory conditions and allergies due to worsening
air quality and pollution levels, food shortages, and lack of access to
safe drinking water. Similarly, the increasing frequency and intensity
or adverse weather event, like floods and wildfires, or natural
disasters like hurricanes pose unique public health threats to the
communities affected.
With the necessary resources, local health departments are uniquely
positioned to prepare for and respond to these health impacts and
protect the public's health. For example, NACCHO, with the support of
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, offered a funding
opportunity to supplement local health departments' ongoing climate
change and health adaptation initiatives. In January 2019, NACCHO
awarded the Boston Public Health Commission and the Marquette County
Health Department (MI) each with $15,000 grants to use in climate and
health projects through July 31, 2019. In Boston, the grant supports
the translation and printing of extreme temperature resource guides to
reach all intended populations, particularly non-English speakers who
may be the most vulnerable, while Marquette County is developing a
public health emergency response plan specifically addressing climate
change-related localized flooding, which is predicted to increase in
this rural locality.
However, many more communities need this type of support to
effectively plan and act to address the public health effects of
climate change. Unfortunately, while NACCHO surveys have consistently
found that local health officials are concerned about climate change,
few feel that they have the tools to address it in a comprehensive way.
Nearly eight out of ten local health department directors believe their
local health department lacks the expertise to assess the potential
impacts of climate change and effectively create adaptation plans to
respond to climate change. While more than half of health department
directors acknowledge the health impacts of climate change, less than
20% (one-fifth) have the resources and expertise needed to assess the
potential impacts, create effective plans, and protect their community
from these health impacts. A strong public health workforce is critical
to be able to respond to the changing climate and best protect
communities across the country from its effects.
NACCHO strongly urges all levels of government to collaborate with
community stakeholders in preparation for and response to a changing
global and local climate. Local health departments and the public
health community can and should provide strong leadership in climate
change mitigation and adaptation efforts.
Thank you, again, for holding this important hearing. Please
contact Eli Briggs, NACCHO Senior Director of Government Affairs at
[email protected] or 202-507-4194 if you require additional
information or have any questions.
Sincerely,
Lori Tremmel Freeman, MBA,
CEO.
Ms. Castor. In addition, Derrick Hollie was one of our
scheduled witnesses. He was not able to join us in person today
due to an illness, so we are sorry to miss him, but I ask
unanimous consent to accept these letters from these
organizations and that Mr. Hollie's testimony be added to the
record.
Hearing no objection, so ordered.
[The information follows:]
Submission for the Record
Representative Kathy Castor
Select Committee on the Climate Crisis
February 5, 2020
Reaching America,
February 5, 2020.
The Select Committee on the Climate Crisis,
Longworth House Office Building,
Washington DC.
Greetings Chair Castor, Ranking Member Graves and Members of the
Committee: Thank you for this opportunity to speak.
I'm Derrick Hollie, president of Reaching America, an education and
policy organization I developed to address complex social issues
impacting African American communities. One of the issues Reaching
America does the most work on is reducing energy poverty across the
board.
Energy Poverty exists when low income families or individuals spend
up to thirty percent of their total income on their electric bill. And
when this happens, it puts people in a difficult situation and having
to make tough choices like, do I eat today or pay the electric bill? Do
I get this prescription filled or do I put gas in my car? We all know
someone who faces these tough choices every month.
For members of minority, rural, low income and senior citizen
communities, Energy Poverty is a reality. And unfortunately, members of
our community don't have the luxury to pay more for green technologies
and adequate health care. We need access to affordable energy to help
heat our homes, power our stoves and get back and forth to work each
day.
Through Reaching America I've had the opportunity to speak with
thousands of African Americans in several states who question the
rising cost of energy along with fees and subsidies they don't benefit
from and how they struggle to keep up.
My passion for energy is deeply rooted, after graduating from
college I worked as brakeman for Norfolk Southern Railways at Lambert's
Point in Norfolk, Virginia. Our job and responsibilities was loading
coal ships that transported coal all around the world and I constantly
ask the question, ``If our coal and natural resources are good enough
for other countries--why is not good enough for us here at home. My
grandfather was also a black coal miner in Southwest VA. It's safe to
say if it weren't for the energy industry, I wouldn't be here to speak
with all of you today.
When the government creates policy, its first priority should be
the welfare of the people, especially those impacted the hardest,
rather than big businesses and special interests looking for a handout.
And if people can't afford to stay warm, they certainly can't afford
healthcare especially those on a fixed income.
And here's a real-life example. Last week my eighty-four-year-old
mother-in-law on a fixed income was at our house. She was complaining
about a $150 deductible on a prescription that needed to be filled. In
addition to her electric bill that includes renewable mandates--a
subsidy that she is required to pay and will never benefit from it
right here in the District of Columbia. My mother-in-law has three
daughters that help her. However, millions of Americans don't have that
benefit and are forced to try and balance paying for healthcare and
energy. And most have to choose between one or the other.
A new study \1\ out of Northwestern University confirms that
increases in electricity and natural gas prices lead to more winter
deaths. The effects were even larger among the poor, as families are
forced to choose between putting food on the table, health care and
keeping their homes warm. With the amount of affordable and reliable
energy in America, these are choices we shouldn't have to make.
It would be helpful to have a ``Impact Assessments'' before any
regulation is passed. This would be a major step toward increasing
economic opportunities. And having input from Governors and community
leaders the same way ``Qualified Opportunity Zones'' were created. It
will also establish a level of trust in communities that never existed
before.
After all, the government requires environmental impact statements
to estimate the effects of projects like roads and buildings on nature.
Shouldn't the government act similarly when it comes to how regulations
impact the population?
A minority impact assessment would create a list of all the
positive and negative impacts a proposed regulation would have on
factors including employment, wages, consumer prices and homeownership.
This regulatory impact would then be analyzed for its effect on
minorities and other communities mentioned in contrast to the general
population.
The bottom line, any policy that contributes to energy poverty is a
bad one for low income families, minorities, rural and senior citizens
communities. Fortunately, our nation has an abundant supply of natural
gas that is a solution to our nation's energy needs. Recent polar
vortex temperatures dropped so low in some areas that windmills
couldn't turn. We need a plan B and that's Natural Gas.
Natural gas is clean. The U.S. Energy Information Administration
reports that almost two-thirds of the CO2 emission reductions from
2006-2014 came from the fuel shifting toward natural gas. And right
now, our air quality in America is the best it's been in decades. The
New York Times even confirmed that in an article published June 19th,
2019.
Natural gas is also reliable. Natural gas generation efficiently
meets the needs of our nation's energy grid. And natural gas is
affordable. For many Americans, this allows them to not have to choose
whether to keep the lights on or get a prescription filled.
In closing, I'm all for protecting the environment and clean energy
however until we have figure out a way to harness the sun, wind and
water to sustain ourselves, we need to use what we have especially if
it can lower energy cost, create jobs and boost the economy and allow
for adequate health care.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https://twitter.com/seemaecon/status/1110162658618040320.
Ms. Castor. At this time, we want to welcome our witnesses.
We have an outstanding panel today. Their testimony, I know you
all have read it, is chockful of substantive recommendations
for the Climate Committee's report that is coming out in March.
You will recognize some of them, especially our first witness,
Ms. Gina McCarthy. She is the new president and CEO of the
Natural Resources Defense Council, NRDC, an organization that
has been working to protect people and the environment for 50
years. Ms. McCarthy served as the 13th Administrator of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency in President Obama's
Cabinet and has worked for Republican Governors in senior
leadership positions as well. She was a professor of the
practice of public health at the Department of Environmental
Health at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health and
holds a master's degree in environmental health engineering,
planning, and policy from Tufts University.
Welcome.
Dr. Aparna Bole is here today on behalf of the American
Academy of Pediatrics where she serves as the chair of the
Council on Environmental Health. Dr. Bole is a practicing
pediatrician at UH Rainbow Babies and Children's Hospital where
she serves as medical director of community integration and is
an associate professor of pediatrics at Case Western Reserve
University School of Medicine.
Welcome, Dr. Bole.
And Mr. Arturo Rodriguez is here to testify on behalf of
the United Farm Workers Foundation and the United Farm Workers
of America. Mr. Rodriguez was president of UFW for over 25
years until 2018 and is now president emeritus.
Without objection, the witnesses written statements will be
made part of the record.
With that, Ms. McCarthy, you are now recognized to give a
5-minute presentation of your testimony.
STATEMENTS OF THE HONORABLE GINA MCCARTHY, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL; APARNA
BOLE, M.D., FAAP, CHAIR, COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH,
AMERICAN ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS; AND ARTURO S. RODRIGUEZ,
PRESIDENT EMERITUS, UNITED FARM WORKERS, UFW FOUNDATION.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE GINA MCCARTHY
Ms. McCarthy. Thank you very much. Hi. Good morning,
everybody. First of all, thank you Chairwoman Castor and
Ranking Member Graves, when he gets here, and members of the
select committee for holding this hearing.
I have three children, and I am lucky enough to also have
two grandchildren that I absolutely adore is probably not too
strong a word. And they will be both 32 and 31 years old in
2050, and that is the year that science tells us that we must
have a zero carbon future if we want to avoid the most
destructive climate impacts, and that is really why I am here
today.
All of a sudden, 2050 isn't so far away, and it is my
responsibility to defend a healthier and brighter future for
all of our kids. It is our climate fight, and it is really
always going to be that personal to me and I think to everyone.
At the Environmental Protection Agency, our success was
measured in lives saved, healthier kids, and fewer asthma
attacks. Climate change was in our purview because the mission
was to protect people from pollution, just like the carbon
pollution that is fueling climate change. So this is not a
partisan issue. This is an issue of science.
I took the helm of one of the premier environmental
organizations in the world, NRDC, because I could not sit on
the sidelines. We need to restore science as the foundation of
sound public policy, and we need to change how we fuel our
global economy. And, frankly, we don't have time to put our
heads in the sand anymore or to muzzle our scientists about
telling us what is really happening in the world. We must
recognize that carbon pollution is not an equal opportunity
killer. Climate warming pollution targets our children, the
elderly, the poor, and the powerless, especially communities of
color, who often live right next to power plants and refineries
and busy roadways. You know, 4 million kids each year develop
asthma simply because they have the misfortune of living near a
major roadway. If you are a parent and your child uses an
inhaler, these statistics are very real to you, and shame on
all of us for not already doing more to protect those children.
The health risks associated with climate change carry a steep
human toll and economic cost. NRDC and the University of
California in San Francisco recently teamed up to try to
quantify that cost. When you stack up fewer than a dozen
climate-related events in 2012, including wildfires in Colorado
and Washington State, Lyme disease in Michigan, and algal
blooms in Florida, among others, you get $10 billion in
healthcare costs. About 65 percent of those medical bills were
paid for by Medicare and Medicaid, pointing to the outsized
harm of climate change to older adults and low-income people.
Yes, climate change is the world's biggest public health
challenge today, but it is also an incredible opportunity for
all of us because we can tackle this, and we can invest in the
kind of things we need to make a better future. We can move
solutions that are already available, the clean energy that is
the revolution of today. We can make healthier communities.
That is what this committee is all about, turning the climate
crisis into the biggest opportunity we have to invest in the
future for ourselves and our children. Nationally, the cost of
solar and wind dropped more than 25 percent last year alone.
From 2010 to 2018, wind, solar, and geothermal more than
tripled its proportion of our natural energy mix. We are
winning, folks, when it comes to clean energy. We have to start
acting like it, celebrating our success and grabbing for more.
Energy efficiency, which is essential to decarbonization,
employs 2.3 million people, which is twice as many as the
entire fossil fuel industry. The regional greenhouse gas
initiative in the northeast, which is a multi-state effort to
cut carbon pollution from the power sector, it has delivered
billions of dollars in health benefits, and it has led to
cleaner and lower infant mortality rates.
I just will not buy the argument that economic hardship
accompanies public health protections. In fact, I believe it is
exactly the opposite, and we have shown that time and time,
again. You know, my kids and grandchildren are my moral
compass. They are my reason to sit here today, and I ask each
of you to think about who you are fighting for and what you are
doing to defend our kids' health and their future.
I look forward to continuing to work with the select
committee as you build your climate policy recommendations for
Congress. Thank you very much.
[The statement of Ms. McCarthy follows:]
Written Testimony of Gina McCarthy, Natural Resources Defense Council,
Before the House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis
Hearing on: Creating a Climate Resilient America: Overcoming the Health
Risks of the Climate Crisis
February 5, 2020
Thank you to Chairwoman Castor, Ranking Member Graves, and members
of the select committee for holding this hearing. Our climate crisis
continues to hurt our economy, threaten our national security, and harm
public health. That's what I want to focus on today--how climate change
is making people sick, what government should do about it, and the
policies we need, not only protect and improve public health, but
create a brighter future for all Americans.
I have three children, Daniel, Maggie, and Julie. I'm also lucky
enough to have two grandkids to love and cherish. I cannot help but
think that they will only be 32 and 31 years old in 2050--the year when
science tells us we must achieve a zero-carbon economy, if we hope to
keep pollution to levels that avoid the most destructive impacts of
climate change. Before these children were born, 2050 seemed far away;
but not anymore. I remember the first time that my child was handed to
me right after I gave birth. I looked at my son Daniel and at first
glance fell impossibly in love with him. But in some ways, I was
terrified, too. From that moment forward, my future and my happiness
was no longer about me, they were dependent on the health and happiness
of my son, my daughters--and now, my grandchildren. It was my
responsibility to protect them as best I could and it's why I keep
fighting today. That's what climate change is about. It's that
personal.
I spent 4 years running the Environmental Protection Agency. It was
the honor of my lifetime to work alongside such smart, hardworking and
committed career staff. EPA's mission is to protect public health--and
its success is measured in human lives saved, fewer kids with asthma
attacks, and how well we protect those most vulnerable from harm.
Climate change came under our purview because, at its core, this is
an issue of pollution and public health. This is an issue of protecting
people, not just the planet for the planet's sake.
I also worked for six governors prior to working for President
Obama. Five of them were Republicans. None of them told me I should
make sure to deliver contaminated water to their house. None of them
told me they wanted their grandchildren to breathe dirty air. None of
them told me to ignore the vastly unfair pollution concentration in
communities of color. Pollution, including carbon pollution that fuels
climate change, is not--and should not be--a partisan issue.
But I recently made the shift after 35 years in government to take
the helm of one of the premier environmental advocacy organizations in
the world, the Natural Resources Defense Council. I never once
questioned whether any work other than public service could be more
productive, fulfilling, or important. I went to NRDC because they do
the necessary work of lifting up stories and delivering the scientific
analysis that clearly shows the connection between climate change and
health. The risks are real--families are facing harm and decision
makers with the power to act need to continually and loudly be shown
the truth.
I joined NRDC because we must rebuild our long-standing public
health protections, resuscitate our efforts to combat climate change,
and restore science as the foundation of sound public policy. We must
end the destruction of cost-effective laws and regulations like the
Mercury and Air Toxics Standards and the Clean Car Rules; and we must
end the marginalization of career professionals, scientists, and
experts through relocations and reassignments.
I'm here to preserve, protect, and defend our irreplaceable natural
resources, our precious wildlife, and the biodiversity we all depend
on--a sacred obligation that historically has enjoyed strong bipartisan
support.
The era of willful ignorance and flat-out denial of our climate
crisis must end. It's an urgent challenge intensifying by the hour; we
must work to change the way we fuel the world's economies.
I am here to talk about why climate change is the most significant
public health challenge in the world today, but also why it can be the
most important public health opportunity of our lifetime. I want us to
stop focusing on what we are trying to avoid, and instead build the
future we want to see. I want us to stop just explaining why we must
run from pollution and devastation and start talking about investing in
the kind of future we need, a future that is clean, healthy, more just,
more sustainable, and no longer reliant on fossil fuels.
Building a climate-resilient America means real investments--
investments that recognize the steep health costs of inaction. It means
recognizing that pollution kills, and that it is not an equal
opportunity killer. It disproportionately poisons our children and the
elderly, the poor and the powerless, and communities of color.
While we could spend this entire hearing on the vast and complex
health harms fueled by climate disruption; today, I'll spend time
briefly detailing a few major areas of concern.
Climate-fueled disasters and rising temperatures are already making
people sick. In just the last few years, wildfire smoke has choked
major cities in the West. Record drought has starved farming
communities of safe drinking water. And hurricanes in the Southeast
have contributed to a growing mental health crisis tied to increased
suicide.\1\ The Lancet Countdown on health and climate change, an
annual snapshot developed by 35 academic institutions around the world,
reports that losses in crop yield, increases in water-borne disease,
and lethal weather events will profoundly affect ``the life of every
child born today.'' The authors write: ``Without accelerated
intervention, this new era will come to define the health of people at
every stage of their lives.''
Climate change is worsening air pollution. Roughly 80 percent of
our country's climate-warming pollution, and most of the other air
pollution that causes or exacerbates heart and lung diseases, comes
from burning coal, oil, and natural gas. One of the many harmful
byproducts of fossil fuels are small particles called PM2.5. In 2016,
PM2.5 contributed to the early deaths of more than 64,000 Americans.
These types of environmental health risks widened inequality.
Communities of color living closest to power plants, oil and gas
operations, and busy roads bore the heaviest burden of this
pollution.\2\ In 2015, African American children were 4 times more
likely to go to the hospital for asthma and 10 times more likely to die
from asthma than non-Hispanic white children.\3\ The first few rungs of
any ladder of opportunity are clean air to breathe and clean water to
drink. The government's job and this body's focus, is to act to protect
people from pollution and balance the scales for those most impacted.
Climate change is increasing the intensity and frequency of
dangerously hot days. Heat waves have gotten worse in 61 percent of
major Southeast cities, including Birmingham and New Orleans, to name a
few.\4\ Extremely hot days aren't just an inconvenience: they lead to
brain and kidney damage, premature births, heart attacks, and stroke.
Research from the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health shows we're
seeing heat impact health, cognitive function, reaction time,
impulsivity, aggression, and violence. In Boston and across cities in
the U.S. there are significant increases in police and fire department
calls on hot days related to medical emergencies, violent and
aggressive crimes, and accidents. Outdoor workers and professionals,
including members of our military, are vulnerable to heat-related
illnesses. Take a moment to picture where many of our military bases
are located at home and abroad. Then think about all the heavy gear
service members carry and the strain from training and fighting. From
2014 to 2018, the rate of heat stroke among active duty members
increased 73 percent and the rate of heat exhaustion increased nearly
53 percent. Across the country, extreme heat also led to the loss of
approximately 1.1 billion potential work hours from 2000 to 2018--with
the largest losses in states like Louisiana, Alabama, Georgia, and
Florida.
The health risks associated with climate change--death, illness,
disruptions to care from disasters, and lost workdays--carry a steep
economic cost. NRDC and the University of California, San Francisco
recently teamed up to quantify that cost. If you add up the costs of
just 10 climate events in 2012, including wildfires in California, Lyme
disease in Michigan, and algal blooms in Florida, among others--you get
about $10 billion in health costs across the United States. And about
65 percent of the illness costs were paid for by Medicare and Medicaid,
pointing to the outsized harm of climate change to older adults and
low-income people. A recent analysis of Medicaid use in and around
Baton Rouge, Louisiana, showed higher numbers of claims and higher
costs to the system after catastrophic flooding in 2016. About a third
of visits among men and women were for substance abuse and depression-
related disorders, respectively. This study echoes the findings of so
many others: that severe weather events are a significant threat to our
mental health.
Sadly, the story in Baton Rouge is a familiar one across the
country. As I said, pollution is not an equal opportunity killer. The
imbalance in harm demands we aim for balance in our solutions.
Significant amounts of money will need to be spent to stop carbon
emissions and to adapt to our changing climate--the longer we take, the
higher the cost. A 2019 study by EPA scientists found that proactively
adapting roads and rail networks to climate disruption would prevent
twice as much damage as reactively adapting.\5\ But how much bang for
the buck we get from these investments depends on where we spend it and
on what. Are we going to be smart and focus our resources on protecting
the people who are most vulnerable today, the people who need
investment quicker and in larger amounts, the people living in places
where people are dying today? If we do, we can build momentum to get us
on the path towards a more sustainable and more just future.
I'm proud that NRDC, along with other major environmental groups,
has signed onto the Equitable and Just National Climate Platform. The
two key principles of the platform are, to enact solutions that address
the legacy of pollution, and to make justice and equity a priority in
any climate solution.
The good news is we have solutions that shift us away from carbon
pollution and move us towards clean energy and cleaner communities. We
have plenty of opportunities to make real progress. Even if progress is
incremental, forward movement matters. It shows what's possible,
broadens engagement, and builds hope. People will continue to see the
clear benefits of a low carbon future--and will continue to want it,
demand it, and run towards it.
So how do we create that future? First and foremost, we need to
tackle the root cause of climate change: pollution from fossil fuels.
Congress needs to lead in reducing emissions in the U.S. and
beyond. It must speak out and respond to the Trump administration's
efforts to undermine fuel efficiency standards and clean power
regulations, among many other rollbacks, that are taking us in the
wrong direction and putting public health at risk.
What we need are policies that get us to net-zero emissions
economy-wide by 2050 at the latest. NRDC sees a number of possible
paths to achieving this and is eager to work with anyone and everyone
in Congress to achieve that goal.
Ramping up energy efficiency, which is essential to decarbonization
has been and will continue to be a job creator; the U.S. is home to 2.3
million energy efficiency jobs, employing twice as many workers as the
entire fossil fuel industry.\6\ One hundred percent clean energy is
within reach, if we keep investing in innovation. The three states
leading the country in producing wind power are Texas, Iowa, and
Oklahoma. Why? Because it makes clear economic sense: nationally, the
cost of solar and wind power dropped more than 25% last year alone.\7\
From 2010 \8\ to 2018,\9\ wind, solar and geothermal more than tripled
its proportion of our national energy mix.
For the transportation sector, the single largest source of carbon
emissions, that means a zero emission vehicle market transformation
through federal incentives for vehicle purchases and investment in
networked charging infrastructure like those found in H.R. 2256, the
Drive America Forward Act or S. 674, the Clean Corridors Act. And it
means states working together to protect the California waiver and
expand its reach, as well as regional carbon action like the cap and
invest strategy that states are employing as part of the Transportation
and Climate Initiative (TCI). This kind of transformation to a clean
economy will create countless jobs and opportunities. There are already
3.2 million Americans working in clean energy and vehicles right now.
The power sector is the nation's second largest source of carbon
pollution, down from being the largest source a decade ago. Why?
Because a clean energy transition is already underway. States across
the country are seeing the cost and health benefits of shifting power
generation to cleaner sources. The economically prudent thing to do is
also the prudent public health thing to do. But it all needs to happen
faster and recognize the hardship for some workers and communities as
economic activity shifts to cleaner energy production and delivery.
That's why it's essential that inclusive and meaningful transition
plans for workers are designed and adopted for those currently employed
in highly-polluting sectors, and for communities that have depended on
those industries for so long.
Let me give you an example of effective regional action: the
Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative in the Northeast--a multi-state
effort to cut carbon pollution from the power sector, which also has
reduced other forms of air pollution that I helped design and implement
when I was working for the State of Connecticut. RGGI has had a
measurable impact on improving health. In the last two decades, the cap
and invest program has resulted in billions of dollars in health
benefits \10\ and is associated with decreased mortality of
infants.\11\ Not to mention, RGGI states continued to grow their
economies while cutting carbon pollution nearly in half.
One of the most remarkable things about cleaning up our power
plants, our cars, and our factories is that we don't have to wait for
decades to see results. A recent review by the Forum of International
Respiratory Societies found that community members can experience
better health just two weeks after significant cuts to nearby sources
of pollution. Benefits include fewer premature births, missed school
and work days, and deaths from heart and lung problems.\12\
As we implement these climate solutions, we also need to rethink
how we approach the delivery of health services, how we build and
renovate critical infrastructure, and how we prepare for and respond to
disasters. An obvious place to start is with our public health system.
At its core, public health is about keeping people healthy by
preventing harm rather than by treating symptoms. But right now, annual
public health spending in the United States amounts to just $255 per
person.\13\ Cash-strapped state and local public health officials
simply cannot focus on the climate crisis when they are dealing with
issues like the opioid crisis or coronavirus. NRDC strongly supports
Congressional action to increase funding and capacity for the U.S.
Centers for Disease Control's Climate and Health program, which is the
only direct federal support for state and local agencies trying to
prevent climate-related health harms.
We must also prioritize the climate resilience of our hospitals and
other healthcare facilities. Despite recent progress in disaster
preparedness, we've seen too many examples of extended disruptions in
care delivery, permanent hospital closures, and massive layoffs of
healthcare workers. Federal funding for hospitals and other healthcare
facilities should be conditioned on climate planning and risk
assessments. Babies were literally being born in smoke filled hospitals
in Australia, due to the historically devastating climate-charged
wildfires that have burned down massive swaths of their country.\14\
The United States has roughly 200 federal hospitals that should be put
through ``climate and health stress tests'' to ensure they can maintain
essential services in a hotter and wilder world.
One piece of legislation that would address both areas is the
Climate Change Health Protection and Promotion Act of 2019 (H.R. 1243/
S. 523). The bill would, among other things, result in a national
action plan to ensure our public health and healthcare systems are
ready for the climate crisis.
And what does the world look like if we succeed at both ending our
dependence on deadly fossil fuels and creating a more climate-resilient
society? It looks cleaner, safer, healthier, and more prosperous.
It looks like workers returning safely home at the end of their
shift. It looks like shady, tree-lined neighborhoods with clean,
breathable air and drinkable water. It looks like diverse options for
clean transportation that get people where they need to go on time. And
it looks like a family sitting down to a table with enough good food to
go around, and without worrying about paying their medical bills or
packing for yet another evacuation to get out of harm's way.
I know that in the United States we have an administration that
doesn't want to recognize climate change or climate science, but this
administration doesn't represent the views or the value or the
character of the United States of America. Just the opposite. The anti-
science intransigence of the Federal Government is igniting action
across our country at the local, state and regional levels.
I am confident that everyone in this room--no matter their party
affiliation--is here to do the hard work needed to leave this country,
and our world, better than we found it. We are here to defend the
future for our children. I'm a mother and a grandmother--my kids and
grandkids are the face of climate change for me; they are my moral
compass and my reason to sit here today. They are the reason I fight.
I ask the members, and everyone else here today to think about who
you fight for, why you fight, and what you can do to help.
At times like these, when the furor of partisan politics seems to
run so hot and so deep that it's can be overwhelming, we cannot lose
sight of the core values that bind us together. Surely one of those
values must be protecting the health and wellbeing of our kids.
Thank you for convening this critical conversation and for your
attention. I look forward to continuing to work with the select
committee as you develop your climate policy recommendations for
Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ https: // www.vox . com / policy - and - politics / 2018 / 3 /
20 / 17138990 / puerto - rico - hurricane - maria - 6 - months and
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-states/north-carolina/articles/2018-
11-05/suicide-raises-florence-death-toll-to-41-in-north-carolina.
\2\ https://www.lancetcountdownus.org/2019-lancet-countdown-us-
brief.
\3\ https://www.minorityhealth.hhs.gov/omh/
browse.aspx?lvl=4&lvlid=15.
\4\ https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/chapter/19/.
\5\ https://www.nature.com/articles/s41558-019-0444-6.
\6\ https: // www.nrdc.org / experts / lara-ettenson / energy -
efficiency-jobs-soar-now-make-them-available-all.
\7\ https: // www.utilitydive.com / news / renewable-energy-prices-
keep-falling-when-do-they-bottom-out/555822/.
\8\ https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/state/.
\9\ https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/state/.
\10\ https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41836.pdf.
\11\ https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/9/4/e024735.
\12\ https://www.atsjournals.org/doi/10.1513/AnnalsATS.201907-
538CME.
\13\ https: // www . tfah . org / wp - content / uploads /
archive / assets / files / TFAH - 2018 - InvestInAmerica Rpt-FINAL.pdf.
\14\ https://www.insider.com/australian-bushfires-babies-delivered-
in-smoky-hospitals-2020-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
###
Ms. Castor. Thank you.
Dr. Bole, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF APARNA BOLE, M.D., FAAP
Dr. Bole. Thank you. Thank you, Chair Castor, Ranking
Member Graves, and committee members, and good morning. My name
is Dr. Aparna Bole, and as Chair Castor mentioned, I am a
pediatrician practicing in Cleveland, Ohio, and I am here today
on behalf of the American Academy of Pediatrics as chair of the
AP Council on environmental health. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify today about the critical child health
risks of climate change and the child health benefits of
climate solutions.
Children are disproportionately burdened by and uniquely
vulnerable to the health impacts of climate change as a result
of their physiology and because of their developmentally
appropriate behaviors.
Pediatricians see firsthand how kids' health is affected by
climate change today. For example, in my home State of Ohio, we
care for infants hospitalized during increasingly frequent
extreme heat events, children whose drinking water is less safe
because of how increased extreme precipitation and increased
water temperatures promote toxic algae in our great lake, and
children with asthma exacerbations because of high ozone and
allergens in the air we breathe.
These and other climate change related phenomena, such as
increased frequency of severe weather events and wildfires,
changing patterns of vector-borne diseases, impaired food
security, and mental health effects. These harm kids across the
United States and are described in detail in my written
testimony. One of my young patients is a sixth grader with
asthma whom I will call Jordan. Jordan is obese, and I have
been working with him and his family on a healthier diet and
exercise. Last summer he signed up for a sports camp at the
local Y just like we planned, but when he came in for his
sports physical, I found myself conflicted. I praised him, but
I also had to warn his parents to watch the air quality index.
Outdoor summer sports practiced on a high ozone day could
dangerously exacerbate his asthma. The very thing I had
recommended to help promote Jordan's health, now could be
dangerous, in part, because of climate change. Just as Jordan
struggled to balance playing outside in the summer with
ensuring that he can breathe, I struggle with caring for my
patients when climate change affects so many intersecting
aspects of their lives.
Pediatricians have several recommendations to Congress to
address this challenge. Comprehensive climate legislation
should accelerate energy efficiency and renewable energy
production while decreasing incentives for fossil fuel
production. The AP supported the original 2015 clean power
plan, and we urge the reinstatement of this vital policy. The
AP also supports the implementation of an effective carbon fee
and dividend regime to reflect the true societal cost of carbon
pollution, including its health costs. Any such policy must
preserve EPA's proven authority to regulate carbon pollution.
To achieve net zero carbon pollution, it is essential to reduce
the carbon footprint of our transportation systems. This should
include reducing motor vehicle emissions, expanding public
transportation, and increasing construction of safe bikeways
and walkways. Climate legislation should improve the
adaptability and resilience of our food system by promoting
crop resilience and reducing the greenhouse gas contributions
of animal agriculture. The U.S. healthcare sector must adapt to
both reduce its contribution to climate change and improve its
resilience. Federal policy should incentivize energy
efficiency, clean energy, and adaptation strategies for the
health sector. We must also educate healthcare providers and
vulnerable patients about climate-associated health risks and
how climate change impacts our clinical practice.
The AP supported the Paris Agreement to engage the global
community in emissions reduction targets and has supported H.R.
9, the House-passed legislation to maintain the U.S. commitment
to the Paris Agreement's emissions reduction targets. Finally,
we encourage Federal policy to emphasize environmental justice,
acknowledging the disproportionate impact of climate change's
health effects on historically marginalized populations, such
as indigenous communities, other communities of color, and
those who are socioeconomically disadvantaged. While children
bear an outsized burden of the health impacts of climate
change, climate solutions can support cleaner air, sustainable
communities with safe places for our kids to walk and play, and
healthier food systems. These have immediate child health
benefits and help to ensure that future generations of children
will thrive.
Thank you, again, for the chance to testify today, and I
look forward to answering your questions.
[The statement of Dr. Bole follows:]
Testimony of Aparna Bole, MD, FAAP
Chair, AAP Council on Environmental Health on behalf of the American
Academy of Pediatrics
Testimony Before the U.S. House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis
Creating a Climate Resilient America:
Overcoming the Health Risks of the Climate Crisis
February 5, 2020
Good Morning Chair Castor, Ranking Member Graves, and Committee
Members. My name is Dr. Aparna Bole. I'm here today on behalf of the
American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), a non-profit professional
organization of 67,000 primary care pediatricians, pediatric medical
subspecialists, and pediatric surgical specialists dedicated to the
health, safety and well-being of infants, children, adolescents, and
young adults. I currently serve as the Chair of the AAP Council on
Environmental Health, leading the Academy's work developing our
evidence-based policy statements on issues impacting children's health,
our efforts to educate pediatricians and parents about environmental
health concerns, and our advocacy at every level of government for
policies that improve children's environmental health.
In addition to my role with the AAP, I am an Associate Professor of
Pediatrics at Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine, and I
am a practicing pediatrician at UH Rainbow Babies and Children's
Hospital, where I serve as Medical Director of Community Integration.
I would like to extend our appreciation to the Committee for
holding this critical hearing. The AAP views addressing climate change
as a vital child health priority, and I am grateful for the opportunity
to testify today about the child health impacts of climate change, the
child health benefits of climate solutions, and federal policy
opportunities to address these.
In clinics and hospitals throughout the United States,
pediatricians are witnessing the immediate harms and risks that climate
change poses to the health of their patients. The AAP has long called
for policies to address the global challenge of climate change and
protect the health and wellbeing of children. Underpinning that work is
the Academy's policy statement \i\ dedicated to articulating the
science behind the ways in which climate change impacts child health
and the opportunities to address it. My testimony today will outline
the scientific consensus on climate change, highlight the ways in which
climate change is uniquely harmful to children's health, and offer
policy recommendations for your consideration to address those effects
and improve the health of children.
Children are Uniquely and Disproportionately Harmed by Climate Change
Climate change is affecting the health of children in the United
States here and now, and pediatricians see these effects in their
patients every day. Children are uniquely vulnerable to the health
impacts of climate change, and any comprehensive response to climate
change must take child health into account. The World Health
Organization estimates that over 80 percent of the existing global
burden of disease attributable to climate change occurs in children
younger than 5 years old.\ii\ Children's immature physiology and
metabolism; critical windows of development; higher exposure to air,
food, and water per unit of body weight; unique developmentally
appropriate behavior patterns; and dependence on caregivers place them
at much higher risk of climate-related health burdens than adults.\iii\
The health impacts of climate change are greatest for children and
communities already experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage,\iv\ which
also presents significant environmental justice concerns.
Climate Change is a Public Health Crisis that Uniquely and
Disproportionately Harms Children
Climate change is an ever-growing global threat that has unique and
disproportionate impacts on children. A large consensus of climate
scientists now conclude based on extensive scientific evidence that the
major physical, chemical, and ecological changes of our planet can be
attributed to human activity, which includes the burning of fossil
fuels. Atmospheric carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas levels began
to increase about 100 years ago, leading to subsequent increases in
global temperatures.\v\ Warming of the planet is unequivocal. According
to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, each of the last 3
decades has been successively warmer than any preceding decade since
1850. The globally averaged temperature (combined land and ocean
surface) increased approximately 1+C between 1850 and 2012. Since
recordkeeping began in 1880, the global sea level has risen
approximately 8 inches because of melting of glaciers and thermal
expansion of warmer water. In turn, the effects of climate change are
creating myriad significant public health concerns. These effects are
especially harmful to the health and wellbeing of children.
Climate change is affecting the health of children in the United
States here and now, and pediatricians see these effects in their
patients every day. Children are uniquely vulnerable to the health
impacts of climate change, and any comprehensive response to climate
change must take child health into account. The World Health
Organization estimates that over 80 percent of the existing global
burden of disease attributable to climate change occurs in children
younger than 5 years old.\vi\ Children's immature physiology and
metabolism; critical windows of development; higher exposure to air,
food, and water per unit of body weight; unique developmentally
appropriate behavior patterns; and dependence on caregivers place them
at much higher risk of climate-related health burdens than adults.\vii\
The health impacts of climate change are greatest for children and
communities already experiencing socioeconomic disadvantage,\viii\
which also presents significant environmental justice concerns.
How Climate Change Impacts Children's Health
Increasing Frequency and Intensity of Natural Disasters and Extreme
Weather
Extreme weather events, including severe storms, floods, and
wildfires, directly threaten children with injury, displacement, and
death. The frequency of reported natural disasters has increased over
the past 40 years. Three times as many extreme weather events occurred
between 2000 and 2009 as occurred between 1980 and 1989. The scale of
natural disasters has also increased because of deforestation,
environmental degradation, urbanization, and intensified climate
variables. These events place children at risk for injury,\ix\ loss of
or separation from caregivers,\x\ exposure to infectious diseases,\xi\
indoor exposure to mold and other allergens,\xii\ \xiii\ and a uniquely
high risk of mental health consequences, including posttraumatic stress
disorder, anxiety disorders, depression, adjustment disorder, and
suicide in adolescents.\xiv\ \xv \
The distinctive health, behavioral, and psychosocial needs of
children subject them to unique risks from these events. Disasters can
cause irrevocable harm to children through devastation of their homes,
schools, and neighborhoods, all of which contribute to their
physiologic and cognitive development.\xvi\ Adverse Childhood Events
(ACEs), such as the destruction of homes, schools and neighborhoods,
family structures and communities, have impacts beyond childhood on
adult health. Individuals with a history of ACEs are more likely to
have hypertension, diabetes, and other adult health problems across the
life span.\xvii\
Rising Heat-Related Morbidity and Mortality
Extreme heat is a leading cause of weather-related death in the
U.S., and children suffer directly from the increased severity and
duration of heat waves. Studies performed in multiple countries have
shown an increase in child morbidity and mortality during extreme heat
events. Infants younger than 1 year and high school athletes seem to be
at particularly increased risk of heat-related illness and death. The
experience of unusually warm temperatures during pregnancy is
associated with increased risk of preterm birth,\xviii\ which increases
the risk of immediate and long-term health problems as well as infant
mortality. Researchers estimate there is a greater than 90% chance that
by the end of the 21st century, average summer temperatures will exceed
the highest temperatures ever recorded in many regions across the
world, putting children and their families at increasing risk of heat
injury.\xix\ Heat waves have become more frequent and/or prolonged in
many regions, and the number of extreme cold waves in the United States
is also the lowest since recordkeeping began.\xx\
Worsening Air Quality
Air quality can be reduced through temperature associated
elevations in ground-level ozone concentration, increased pollen counts
and allergy season duration, and wildfire smoke. All of these factors
exacerbate respiratory disease and asthma in children.\xxi\ Climate
change-related warming leads to elevated ozone pollution, which are
particularly harmful to children's developing lungs and brains and
linked to poor birth outcomes, infant mortality, missed school days,
and asthma attacks.\xxii\ Fossil fuel combustion also releases harmful
pollutants such as particulate matter, which has been linked to
premature death, asthma exacerbations, and other respiratory symptoms
that are most likely to affect children. Higher CO2 concentrations
cause ragweed to produce more pollen, and warmer temperatures allow
these plants to bloom longer. The allergy season is longer now,
especially in northern latitudes. Seasonal allergies affect 10 percent
of American children, and every spring and fall pediatric offices are
filled with children suffering from severe allergies.\xxiii\ \xxiv\
\xxv\ \xxvi\ These climate change-related elevations in ozone and
intensification of the aeroallergen season both disproportionately harm
children with asthma. African American and Hispanic children have
higher rates of asthma and are more likely to suffer from these air
pollution hazards that are exacerbated by climate change.
Changing Patterns of Infectious Diseases
Climate influences the behavior, development, and mortality of a
wide range of living organisms, some of which have the potential to
carry or cause pediatric infection. Determining the effects of climate
change on infectious diseases is complex because of confounding
contributions of economic development and land use, changing
ecosystems, international travel, and commerce. Climate change-related
warming has been linked to the northern expansion of Lyme disease in
North America and \xxvii\ increase in mosquito-carried viruses,\xxviii\
and has been projected to increase the burden of child diarrheal
illness, particularly in Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. Concern has also
been raised for climate links to emerging infections, including
coccidioidomycosis and amoebic meningoencephalitis. Further
investigation into climactic influence on infectious diseases and their
impact on children is needed to ensure we understand the full extent of
these connections and how best to address them.\xxix\
Reducing the Food Supply and Increasing its Costs
Altered agricultural conditions, including extreme heat, expanded
water demands, and increased severe weather events, will affect food
availability and cost, particularly in vulnerable regions in which
child undernutrition is already a major threat. The decreased protein,
iron, and zinc content of certain staple crops like rice has been
demonstrated for plants grown under increased CO2 conditions, carrying
significant implications for child nutrition.\xxx\ These detrimental
effects will exacerbate U.S. food insecurity and undermine ongoing
efforts to promote high-quality nutrition for all children.
Young People are Speaking Out
Given the ways that climate change is disproportionately harming
children and adolescents, it is unsurprising and inspiring to see so
many young people advocating for solutions to our ongoing climate
crisis, including before this very Committee. Pediatricians have been
honored to stand behind young people calling for action to address the
ways climate change is already affecting them and will continue to harm
their lifelong health. We were grateful to have the opportunity to file
an amicus curiae \xxxi\ brief supporting the plaintiffs in the Juliana
v. U.S. case, in which youth filed suit against the Federal Government
over its inaction to address the ways climate change is harming them.
While we were disappointed to see the Ninth Circuit rule that the
courts cannot redress those concerns, we continue to proudly stand in
support of young people advocating for solutions to this public health
problem that particularly affects them.
The Need for Federal Action
Given these unique circumstances and vulnerabilities, Congress must
act to address the child health threat of climate change. Children are
already disproportionately bearing the burden of climate change and
will continue to do so if we do not enact significant policy changes.
Not only do we need to act, but we need to specifically address the
ways climate change affects children in both our mitigation and
adaptation efforts. We thank the Committee for its important work on
these efforts and urge you to ensure that any comprehensive legislation
to address climate change include specific considerations on addressing
and mitigating its impact on children.
Federal Policy Opportunities to Address the Child Health Impact of
Climate Change
While the child health detriments of climate change are manifold
and daunting, the encouraging news is that there are policy
opportunities to address it that yield child health benefits. While the
science underpinning novel responses grows and evolves daily, we
already know much of what needs to be done, and simply need decisive
bipartisan action to advance a comprehensive climate change and child
health agenda. The following are our recommendations across several
policy sectors.
De-Carbonizing the Energy Sector
Power plants are a significant contributor to climate change,
generating over one-quarter of all U.S. greenhouse gas pollution. To
decarbonize the energy sector, comprehensive climate legislation should
promote energy efficiency and renewable energy production at the
federal, state, and local levels while decreasing incentives for
continued production and consumption of carbon-intensive fuels such as
coal, oil, and gas.
The AAP supported the Clean Power Plan (CPP) in 2015, and in 2018
and 2019 opposed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)
proposed attempts to undermine its effectiveness. The CPP would have
significantly limited carbon pollution from both new and existing
sources of carbon pollution from fossil fuel-fired power plants. In
addition to addressing climate change, this policy would have had the
added benefit of also decreasing co-pollutants from power plants, such
as particulate matter. Reducing these pollutants under the CPP would
have prevented up to 6,600 premature deaths. In addition, it would have
resulted in up to 150,000 fewer asthma exacerbations in children, and
180,000 fewer missed school days in the year 2030.\xxxii\ EPA has clear
authority to regulate carbon pollution from power plants, and we urge
the reinstatement of this vital policy.
In addition, the AAP supports terminating federal subsidies and tax
incentives for the production and transport of coal, oil, and gas, and
increasing federal subsidies for clean, renewable energy sources such
as wind, solar, and hydropower. The AAP also supports the
implementation of an effective carbon fee and dividend regime to
accurately reflect the true societal of carbon pollution, including its
health costs.
It is critical that any such policy regime not undermine critical
public health protections in the Clean Air Act, including the EPA's
authority to regulate carbon pollution under section 111(d). EPA's
proven authority to regulate hazardous air pollutants under the Clean
Air Act, twice affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court, is a vital tool to
address climate change and protect health, and no legislation should
undermine, pause, or weaken that authority. Existing legislative
proposals to institute a carbon fee also include provisions to halt
certain vital EPA regulatory authorities, roll back climate safeguards,
or immunize fossil fuel companies against any potential liability for
damages caused by their contributions to climate change. Due to the
urgency of addressing climate change with all available tools,
comprehensive climate legislation must not weaken existing avenues of
reducing carbon pollution, such as EPA's Clean Air Act authority. The
AAP would oppose decarbonization legislation that eliminates these
essential public health protections.
Reducing Carbon Pollution from Transportation
To achieve net zero carbon pollution, it is essential to reduce the
carbon footprint of transportation systems. Climate mitigation
strategies focused on reforming the transportation sector have the
potential to spur significant positive impacts on child health through
improved safety and physical activity.\xxxiii\ The best available
science suggests that tailpipe emissions may be responsible for 1 in 5
children who develop asthma.\xxxiv\ Via reduced emissions alone, clean
transportation is estimated to prevent 120,000 premature deaths by 2030
and 14,000 annually thereafter in the U.S.\xxxv\ Other studies have
shown that the health benefits of lower-emission motor vehicles are
increased when combined with the promotion of active travel such as
walking or biking, which reduces the prevalence of chronic diseases
such as diabetes, dementia, ischemic heart disease, and cancer.\xxxvi\
\xxxvii\ The overall health benefits of such transportation strategies
have been shown to save billions in public health spending.\xxxviii\
Comprehensive climate legislation should include expanding public
transportation and increasing construction of safe bikeways and
walkways, which both reduce greenhouse gas emissions and promote
healthy childhood weight through active transportation.
Modernizing the Food System to Reduce its Carbon Footprint
Strategies aimed at shifting food systems to decrease greenhouse
gas emissions offer further potential to address environmental concerns
while dramatically promoting child health.\xxxix\ The adoption of more
plant-based diets in line with current dietary guidelines could reduce
global mortality by 6-10% and food-related greenhouse gas emissions by
29-70% by 2050 with global net health benefits from diseases like
diabetes, heart disease, stroke, and cancer valued between US$1-31
trillion.\xl\ In order to realize the full health benefits of such
dietary change, evidence suggests that special attention must be given
to reducing red meat consumption \xli\ and controlling sugar levels in
more sustainable diets.\xlii\ In addition, it is important to support
efforts to improve the adaptability and resilience of our food system,
through research, development, and implementation of technologies and
strategies that promote crop resilience and reduce the greenhouse gas
contributions of animal agriculture.
Promoting Sustainable Community Development
Climate change policies that preserve, create, and expand natural
green environments directly impact the mental health of populations,
with the strongest benefits occurring during childhood. An abundance of
evidence suggests the relationship of public green spaces with greater
mental wellbeing in a dose-dependent relationship.\xliii\ \xliv\
Prolonged exposure to green space specifically during childhood has
been shown to decrease independently the risk of a wide range of mental
illness later in life.\xlv\ \xlvi\ While the exact mechanisms are still
being studied, research has shown that exposure to the natural
environment decreases harmful thought patterns \xlvii\ and can even
impact brain structure and development.\xlviii\ The importance of
natural environments early in life has been substantiated with studies
showing improved cognitive development and function with increased
green space exposure.\xlix\ Adopting urban planning designs that
incorporate open green spaces, walkability, reduced dependence on
automobile transit, and climate change resilience while minimizing
sprawl will decrease emissions while promoting child health.
Prioritizing Health Care Sector Mitigation and Adaptation
The U.S. health care sector is a major contributor to climate
change, producing 10% of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.\l\ At the same
time, health care systems are contending with consequences of climate
change on patients and communities, and health care institutions also
play an important role in communities' resilience in the face of
climate change related events.
To address the broad array of negative child health effects from
climate change, it is essential that federal policies promote energy
efficiency and the adoption of clean energy in the health care sector,
as well as the adaptation, preparedness, and resilience of hospitals
and health systems. Energy efficiency and clean energy can be important
components of reducing the cost of health care delivery. We also
encourage the development of essential adaptation strategies, and
assisting state and local governments, public health agencies, and
health professionals in implementation of these strategies. Disaster
preparedness and response efforts should include the specific needs of
children. National and international policymaking efforts should
include extensive input from stakeholders in the health sector, as
today's hearing demonstrates. In addition, we must educate health care
providers and vulnerable patients about climate-associated health
risks, as well as climate-associated effects on clinical practice--such
as management of chronic diseases during periods of extreme heat or
poor air quality, and alterations in the safety and efficacy of
prescription medications.
Pursuing Additional Adaptation Strategies
In addition to mitigation efforts such as achieving net-zero carbon
emissions by 2050, comprehensive climate legislation must include
additional adaptation measures to protect children and their families
from the effects of climate change that inevitably will occur and are
already occurring. These include developing and implementing effective
early-warning systems for extreme weather events, and physical
protection against those events. Federal policy should also support
improved surveillance of climate-associated infectious diseases,
including new and emerging pathogens. Finally, we encourage federal
policy to promote enhanced community resilience, and an emphasis on
redressing the environmental justice concerns climate change presents.
Children's safety from climate change should not depend on the color of
their skin or the zip code in which they were born.
Making Global Progress through Effective International Diplomacy
Another crucial tool is the use of diplomacy and international
cooperation to support global action in response to the climate crisis.
The AAP supported the Paris Agreement to engage the global community in
emissions reduction targets and has supported the House-passed
legislation (H.R. 9) to maintain the U.S. commitment to Paris
Agreement's emissions reduction targets. We encourage a focus on
upholding U.S. commitments under that agreement as part of any
comprehensive legislative response to climate change.
Promoting Response Strategies with Health Co-Benefits
While climate change disproportionately impacts child health,
decarbonization efforts also present an enormous opportunity to improve
child health by maximizing the co-benefits of carbon pollution
reduction. Reducing emissions of hazardous traditional air pollutants
such as particulate matter, sulfur oxides, and air toxics along with
carbon dioxide can yield greater health outcomes for children. Child
exposure to hazardous air pollutants can cause direct health impacts
such as neurologic deficits, respiratory tract illness, asthma
exacerbations, and decreased lung function,\li\ \lii\ leading to
downstream effects including increased school absences, emergency
department visits, and hospitalizations.\liii\ \liv\ \lv\ \lvi\ Studies
have also found associations between ambient air pollution and post-
neonatal infant mortality,\lvii\ \lviii\ low birth weight,\lix\ \lx\
\lxi\ \lxii\ and preterm birth.\lxiii\ \lxiv\ \lxv\ \lxvi\ Reducing
these pollutants under the Clean Power Plan would have prevented up to
6,600 premature deaths. In addition, it would have resulted in 3,700
fewer cases of child bronchitis, up to 150,000 fewer asthma
exacerbations in children, and 180,000 fewer missed school days in the
year 2030.\lxvii\ Future decarbonization efforts should prioritize this
potential for drastic improvements in child health outcomes through
leveraged reductions of multiple pollutants within efforts to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions.
Reducing the carbon footprint of other sectors can also yield
important child health co-benefits. For example, accessible public and
active transportation, plant-based food availability, and green spaces
can directly contribute to child health and wellbeing while at the same
time reducing carbon pollution. Additional research into the health
benefits of various decarbonization strategies could help policymakers
choose the smartest investments to maximize co-benefits. The Federal
Government currently provides no funding for such research, so
directing funding for the research, surveillance, reporting, and
tracking of climate-associated health effects would strengthen future
comprehensive climate legislation.
Every day, pediatricians confront the growing burden of chronic
disease in children. Asthma, obesity, mental health, and long-term
health effects related to premature birth are growing issues that we
see in clinics across the nation. We have made tremendous progress in
addressing these and other threats to children's health, and climate
solutions are a way to further prevent some of these conditions or
mitigate their severity. Plans for climate change mitigation present a
tremendous opportunity to improve child health by maximizing the co-
benefits of environmental policies. Policies to promote cleaner air,
facilitate active transportation, encourage more sustainable diets, and
develop more connected communities can lead to enormous child health
gains while preserving a healthy, sustainable environment in which
generations of children can thrive.
Conclusion
We appreciate the Committee's efforts to protect children and
future generations from the health impacts of climate change. We hope
that child health will be a key consideration as you develop any
comprehensive legislative response, and we would welcome opportunities
to further support and contribute to your work. Thank you again for the
chance to testify today, and I look forward to answering your
questions.
\i\ Ahdoot S., Pacheco S.E., AAP Council on Environmental Health.
Global Climate Change and Children's Health. Pediatrics. Nov 2015, 136
(5) e1468-e1484. Available at:
www.pediatrics.org/cgi/doi/10.1542/peds.2015-3233.
\ii\ Zhang Y, Bi P, Hiller JE. Climate change and disability-
adjusted life years. J Environ Health. 2007;70(3):32-36.
\iii\ Sheffield PE, Landrigan PJ. Global climate change and
children's health: threats and strategies for prevention. Environ
Health Perspect. 2011;119(3): 291-298.
\iv\ Fritze JG, Blashki GA, Burke S, Wiseman J. Hope, despair and
transformation: climate change and the promotion of mental health and
wellbeing. Int J Mental Health Syst. 2008;2(1):13.
\v\ Swaminathan M, Kesavan P. Agricultural research in an era of
climate change. Agric Res. 2012;1(1):3-11.
\vi\ Zhang Y, Bi P, Hiller JE. Climate change and disability-
adjusted life years. J Environ Health. 2007;70(3):32-36.
\vii\ Sheffield PE, Landrigan PJ. Global climate change and
children's health: threats and strategies for prevention. Environ
Health Perspect. 2011;119(3): 291-298.
\viii\ Fritze JG, Blashki GA, Burke S, Wiseman J. Hope, despair and
transformation: climate change and the promotion of mental health and
wellbeing. Int J Mental Health Syst. 2008;2(1):13.
\ix\ Miranda DS, Choonara I. Hurricanes and child health: lessons
from Cuba. Arch Dis Child. 2011;96(4):328-329.
\x\ National Commission on Children and Disasters, ed. 2010 Report
to the President and Congress. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare
Research and Quality; 2010; No. AHRQ Publication No. 10-M037. http://
archive.ahrq.gov/prep/nccdreport/nccdreport.pdf. Accessed June 22,
2018.
\xi\ Ivers LC, Ryan ET. Infectious diseases of severe weather-
related and flood-related natural disasters. Curr Opin Infect Dis.
2006;19(5):408-414.
\xii\ Katelaris CH, Beggs PJ. Climate change: allergens and
allergic diseases. Intern Med J. 2018 Feb;48(2):129-134. doi: 10.1111/
imj.13699.
\xiii\ Barbeau DN, Grimsley LF, White LE, El-Dahr JM, Lichtveld M.
Mold exposure and health effects following hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
Annu Rev Public Health. 2010;31:165-78 1 p following 178. doi: 10.1146/
annurev.publhealth.012809.103643.
\xiv\ Goldmann E, Galea S. Mental health consequences of disasters.
Annu Rev Public Health. 2014;35:169-183.
\xv\ Thompson R, Hornigold R, Page L, Waite T. Associations between
high ambient temperatures and heat waves with mental health outcomes: a
systematic review. Public Health. 2018 Aug;161:171-191. doi: 10.1016/
j.puhe.2018.06.008. Epub 2018 Jul 12.
\xvi\ Ahdoot S., Pacheco S.E., AAP Council on Environmental Health.
Global Climate Change and Children's Health. Pediatrics. Nov 2015, 136
(5) e1468-e1484. Available at: www.pediatrics.org/cgi/doi/10.1542/
peds.2015-3233.
\xvii\ Brown, D. W., Anda, R. F., Tiemeier, H., Felitti, V. J.,
Edwards, V. J., Croft, J. B., & Giles, W. H. (2009). Adverse childhood
experiences and the risk of premature mortality. American journal of
preventive medicine, 37(5), 389-396.
\xviii\ Avalos LA, Chen H, Li DK, Basu R. The impact of high
apparent temperature on spontaneous preterm delivery: a case-crossover
study. Environ Health. 2017 Feb 1;16(1):5. doi: 10.1186/s12940-017-
0209-5.
\xix\ Ahdoot S., Pacheco S.E., AAP Council on Environmental Health.
Global Climate Change and Children's Health. Pediatrics. Nov 2015, 136
(5) e1468-e1484. Available at: www.pediatrics.org/cgi/doi/10.1542/
peds.2015-3233.
\xx\ Ahdoot S., Pacheco S.E., AAP Council on Environmental Health.
Global Climate Change and Children's Health. Pediatrics. Nov 2015, 136
(5) e1468-e1484. Available at: www.pediatrics.org/cgi/doi/10.1542/
peds.2015-3233.
\xxi\ Ahdoot S., Pacheco S.E., AAP Council on Environmental Health.
Global Climate Change and Children's Health. Pediatrics. Nov 2015, 136
(5) e1468-e1484. Available at: www.pediatrics.org/cgi/doi/10.1542/
peds.2015-3233.
\xxii\ U.S. EPA. Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Clean Power
Plan Final Rule. https://www3.epa.gov/ttnecas1/docs/ria/
utilities_ria_final-clean-power-plan-existing-units_2015-08.pdf.
Updated October 23, 2015. Accessed November 5, 2019.
\xxiii\ Strickland MJ, Darrow LA, Klein M, Flanders WD, Sarnat JA,
Waller LA, Sarnat SE, Mulholland JA, Tolbert PE. Short-term
associations between ambient air pollutants and pediatric asthma
emergency department visits. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2010;182:307-16.
\xxiv\ Gleason JA, Bielory L, Fagliano JA. Associations between
ozone, PM2.5, and four pollen types on emergency department pediatric
asthma events during the warm season in New Jersey: a case-crossover
study. Environ Res 2014;132:421-9.
\xxv\ Silverman RA, Ito K. Age-related association of fine
particles and ozone with severe acute asthma in New York City. J
Allergy Clin Immunol 2010;125:367-373.e5.
\xxvi\ Strickland MJ, Klein M, Flanders WD, Chang HH, Mulholland
JA, Tolbert PE, Darrow LA. Modification of the effect of ambient air
pollution on pediatric asthma emergency visits: susceptible
subpopulations. Epidemiology 2014;25:843-50.
\xxvii\ Moore SM, Eisen RJ, Monaghan A, Mead P. Meteorological
influences on the seasonality of Lyme disease in the united states. Am
J Trop Med Hyg. 2014;90(3):486-496.
\xxviii\ Anyamba A, Small JL, Britch SC, et al. Recent weather
extremes and impacts on agricultural production and vector-borne
disease outbreak patterns. PLoS One. 2014;9(3):e92538.
\xxix\ Ahdoot S., Pacheco S.E., AAP Council on Environmental
Health. Global Climate Change and Children's Health. Pediatrics. Nov
2015, 136 (5) e1468-e1484. Available at: www.pediatrics.org/cgi/doi/
10.1542/peds.2015-3233.
\xxx\ Ahdoot S., Pacheco S.E., AAP Council on Environmental Health.
Global Climate Change and Children's Health. Pediatrics. Nov 2015, 136
(5) e1468-e1484. Available at: www.pediatrics.org/cgi/doi/10.1542/
peds.2015-3233.
\xxxi\ Jacobs WB and Goho SA. Brief of Amicus Curiae Public Health
Experts, Public Health Organizations, and Doctors in Support of
Plaintiffs-Appellees Seeking Affirmance. Available at: http://
clinics.law.harvard.edu/environment/files/2019/03/Juliana-Public-
Health-Experts-Brief-with-Paper-Copy-Certificate.pdf.
\xxxii\ U.S. EPA. Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Proposed
Carbon Pollution Guidelines for Existing Power Plants and Emission
Standards for Modified and Reconstructed Power Plants. June 2014. EPA-
542/R-14-002.
\xxxiii\ Chang KM, Hess JJ, Balbus JM, Buonocore JJ, Cleveland DA,
Grabow ML, Neff R, Saari RK, Tessum CW, Wilkinson P, Woodward A.
Ancillary health effects of climate mitigation scenarios as drivers of
policy uptake: a review of air quality, transportation and diet co-
benefits modeling studies. Environmental research letters. 2017 Oct
27;12(11):113001.
\xxxiv\ Achakulwisut P, Brauer M, Hystad P, Anenburg SC. Global,
national, and urban burdens of paediatric asthma incidence attributable
to ambient NO2 pollution: estimates from global datasets. Lancet
Planetary Health. 2019;3(4). doi:10.1016/s2542-5196(19)30046-4.
\xxxv\ Shindell DT, Lee Y, Faluvegi G. Climate and health impacts
of U.S. emissions reductions consistent with 2 C. Nature Climate
Change. 2016 May;6(5):503.
\xxxvi\ Woodcock J, Edwards P, Tonne C, Armstrong BG, Ashiru O,
Banister D, Beevers S, Chalabi Z, Chowdhury Z, Cohen A, Franco OH.
Public health benefits of strategies to reduce greenhouse-gas
emissions: urban land transport. The Lancet. 2009 Dec 5;374(9705):1930-
43.
\xxxvii\ Jarrett J, Woodcock J, Griffiths UK, Chalabi Z, Edwards P,
Roberts I, Haines A. Effect of increasing active travel in urban
England and Wales on costs to the National Health Service. The Lancet.
2012 Jun 9;379(9832):2198-205.
\xxxviii\ Jarrett J, Woodcock J, Griffiths UK, Chalabi Z, Edwards
P, Roberts I, Haines A. Effect of increasing active travel in urban
England and Wales on costs to the National Health Service. The Lancet.
2012 Jun 9;379(9832):2198-205.
\xxxix\ Chang KM, Hess JJ, Balbus JM, Buonocore JJ, Cleveland DA,
Grabow ML, Neff R, Saari RK, Tessum CW, Wilkinson P, Woodward A.
Ancillary health effects of climate mitigation scenarios as drivers of
policy uptake: a review of air quality, transportation and diet co-
benefits modeling studies. Environmental research letters. 2017 Oct
27;12(11):113001.
\xl\ Springmann M, Godfray HC, Rayner M, Scarborough P. Analysis
and valuation of the health and climate change cobenefits of dietary
change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2016 Apr
12;113(15):4146-51.
\xli\ Springmann M, Godfray HC, Rayner M, Scarborough P. Analysis
and valuation of the health and climate change cobenefits of dietary
change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2016 Apr
12;113(15):4146-51.
\xlii\ Payne CL, Scarborough P, Cobiac L. Do low-carbon-emission
diets lead to higher nutritional quality and positive health outcomes?
A systematic review of the literature. Public health nutrition. 2016
Oct;19(14):2654-61.
\xliii\ Wood L, Hooper P, Foster S, Bull F. Public green spaces and
positive mental health--investigating the relationship between access,
quantity and types of parks and mental wellbeing. Health & place. 2017
Nov 1;48:63-71.
\xliv\ Shanahan DF, Bush R, Gaston KJ, Lin BB, Dean J, Barber E,
Fuller RA. Health benefits from nature experiences depend on dose.
Scientific reports. 2016 Jun 23;6:28551.
\xlv\ Engemann K, Pedersen CB, Arge L, Tsirogiannis C, Mortensen
PB, Svenning JC. Residential green space in childhood is associated
with lower risk of psychiatric disorders from adolescence into
adulthood. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2019 Mar
12;116(11):5188-93.
\xlvi\ Engemann K, Pedersen CB, Arge L, Tsirogiannis C, Mortensen
PB, Svenning JC. Childhood exposure to green space--A novel risk-
decreasing mechanism for schizophrenia? Schizophrenia research. 2018
Sep 1;199:142-8.
\xlvii\ Bratman GN, Hamilton JP, Hahn KS, Daily GC, Gross JJ.
Nature experience reduces rumination and subgenual prefrontal cortex
activation. Proceedings of the national academy of sciences. 2015 Jul
14;112(28):8567-72.
\xlviii\ Kuhn S, Duzel S, Eibich P, Krekel C, Wustemann H, Kolbe J,
Martensson J, Goebel J, Gallinat J, Wagner GG, Lindenberger U. In
search of features that constitute an "enriched environment" in humans:
Associations between geographical properties and brain structure.
Scientific reports. 2017 Sep 20;7(1):11920.
\xlix\ Dadvand P, Nieuwenhuijsen MJ, Esnaola M, Forns J, Basagana
X, Alvarez-Pedrerol M, Rivas I, Lopez-Vicente M, Pascual MD, Su J,
Jerrett M. Green spaces and cognitive development in primary school
children. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2015 Jun
30;112(26):7937-42.
\l\ Eckelman MJ, Sherman J. Environmental impacts of the U.S.
health care system and effects on public health. PLoS One.
2016;11(6):e0157014. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0157014.
\li\ American Thoracic Society, Committee of the Environmental and
Occupational Health Assembly. Health effects of outdoor air pollution.
Part 1. Am J Respir Crit Care Med.1996;153 :3-50.
\lii\ American Thoracic Society, Committee of the Environmental and
Occupational Health Assembly. Health effects of outdoor air pollution.
Part 2. Am J Respir Crit Care Med.1996;153 :477-498.
\liii\ Thurston GD, Ito K, Hayes CG, Bates DV, Lippmann M.
Respiratory hospital admissions and summertime haze air pollution in
Toronto, Ontario: consideration of the role of acid aerosols. Environ
Res.1994;65 :271-290.
\liv\ White MC, Etzel RA, Wilcox WD, Lloyd C. Exacerbations of
childhood asthma and ozone pollution in Atlanta. Environ Res.1994;65
:56-68.
\lv\ Tolbert PE, Mulholland JA, MacIntosh DL, et al. Air quality
and pediatric emergency room visits for asthma in Atlanta, Georgia,
USA. Am J Epidemiol.2000;151 :798-810.
\lvi\ Gilliland FD, Berhane K, Rappaport EB, et al. The effects of
ambient air pollution on school absenteeism due to respiratory
illnesses. Epidemiology.2001;12 :43-54.
\lvii\ Woodruff TJ, Grillo J, Schoendorf KC. The relationship
between selected causes of postneonatal infant mortality and
particulate air pollution in the United States. Environ Health
Perspect.1997;105 :608-612.
\lviii\ Bobak M, Leon DA. The effect of air pollution on infant
mortality appears specific for respiratory causes in the postneonatal
period. Epidemiology.1999;10 :666-670.
\lix\ Ritz B, Yu F. The effect of ambient carbon monoxide on low
birth weight among children born in southern California between 1989
and 1993. Environ Health Perspect.1999;107 :17-25.
\lx\ Bobak M. Outdoor air pollution, low birth weight, and
prematurity. Environ Health Perspect.2000;108 :173-176.
\lxi\ Dejmek J, Solansky I, Benes I, Lenicek J, Sram RJ. The impact
of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and fine particles on pregnancy
outcome. Environ Health Perspect.2000;108 :1159-1164.
\lxii\ Wang X, Ding H, Ryan L, Xu X. Association between air
pollution and low birth weight: a community-based study. Environ Health
Perspect.1997;105 :514-520.
\lxiii\ Bobak M. Outdoor air pollution, low birth weight, and
prematurity. Environ Health Perspect.2000;108 :173-176.
\lxiv\ Ritz B, Yu F, Chapa G, Fruin S. Effect of air pollution on
preterm birth among children born in Southern California between 1989
and 1993. Epidemiology.2000;11 :502-511.
\lxv\ Ha EH, Hong YC, Lee BE, Woo BH, Schwartz J, Christiani DC. Is
air pollution a risk factor for low birth weight in Seoul?
Epidemiology.2001;12 :643-648.
\lxvi\ Xu X, Ding H, Wang X. Acute effects of total suspended
particles and sulfur dioxides on preterm delivery: a community-based
cohort study. Arch Environ Health.1995;50 :407-415.
\lxvii\ U.S. EPA. Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Clean Power
Plan Final Rule. https://www3.epa.gov/ttnecas1/docs/ria/
utilities_ria_final-clean-power-plan-existing-units_2015-08.pdf.
Updated October 23, 2015. Accessed November 5, 2019.
Ms. Castor. Thank you, Dr. Bole.
Mr. Rodriguez, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF ARTURO S. RODRIGUEZ
Mr. Rodriguez. Thank you very much, Chairwoman Castor.
Sorry about that. Chairwoman Castor, Ranking Member Graves,
members of the Select Committee, thank you for the opportunity
to testify today. Today I am representing the United Farm
Workers and the United Farm Workers Foundation. While many of
us work in climate-controlled environments, farm workers across
the Nation work under the scorching sun and during extreme
weather events to cultivate and harvest the food that reaches
our tables. The dangers farm workers face due to heat exposure
will only increase due to climate change.
In addition to heat, farm workers also are on the front
lines of exposure to a range of harmful pesticides. Not only is
the use of pesticides expected to increase due to climate
change, but the way in which farm workers protect themselves
from harmful pesticides, such as by wearing extra clothing or
personal protective equipment, can increase the risk of heat-
related illness.
Of the approximately 2.4 million farm workers across the
country, roughly half of farm workers are undocumented and
roughly 10 percent are workers here on H-2A visas for temporary
agriculture employment. To keep their employers happy and be
invited back, H-2A workers will work to the limits of their
endurance. The issues I speak of are not hypothetical. The farm
worker communities that we serve are intimately and tragically
familiar with the dangers of pesticide and heat exposure, as
well as other impacts from climate change, such as wildfires.
Asuncion Valdivia was 53 years old. He died of heatstroke
after working for 10 hours in 105-degree temperatures. Instead
of calling an ambulance, Valdivia's employer allegedly told his
son to drive him home.
Maria Isavel Vasquez Jimenez was only 17 years old. She was
working in a vineyard and collapsed after laboring more than 9
hours without access to shade or water. Despite her fiance's
pleas for help, no paramedics were summoned.
Miguel Angel Guzman Chavez was a 24-year-old farm worker
that entered the country under the H-2A temporary agricultural
worker program. He was picking tomatoes in the State of Georgia
and died from heat on June 21st, 2018, a few days after his
arrival to the United States.
A string of heat deaths drove us to take action. We worked
with Congresswoman Judy Chu and helped convince then Governor
Arnold Schwarzenegger to issue the first heat standards in the
Nation in 2005 protecting farm workers and other outdoor
workers from extreme temperatures.
Later, in 2015, we worked with Governor Jerry Brown to
strengthen the rules and ensure more effective, timely, and
consistent enforcement of the heat standard. The standard
requires that workers are provided with very basic yet
lifesaving protections: cool water, shade at 80 degrees, high
heat procedures at 95 degrees, and monitoring of workers,
training to identify and prevent heat illness. While the road
to implementation and enforcement of the California standard
has not been easy, the standard has secured meaningful
improvements for farm workers and resulted in a notable
reduction in the number of farm worker deaths related to heat
hazards.
Behind me today is Pablo Martinez, who has worked in the
fields of Monterey County since he was 13 years old. As a farm
worker and a son of farm workers, Pablo witnessed several of
his coworkers pass out due to heat illness. Before the
existence of the standard, farm workers would carry the
affected workers and try to find a tree or anywhere that could
offer them refuge from the sun. Nowadays, and with access to
water, shade, rest, training, and emergency procedures, he can
attest to the difference that the heat standard makes in the
lives of the people that feed us.
California is the leading agricultural State in the Nation,
home to the largest number of farm workers in the U.S., a
testament to the feasibility of a national heat illness
standard to protect outdoor workers and a prime example that
implementing commonsense heat illness protections is good for
workers, employers, and for our food system.
Since the standard went into effect, California's farming
industry has continued to prosper. In fact, from 2008 to 2018,
the State experienced a nearly 34 percent increase in cash
receipts for all agricultural commodities. The only way we can
ensure that Maria Isavel, Asuncion, Miguel Angel, and others
didn't die in vain is by protecting the workers most vulnerable
to the impacts of climate change with a national heat illness
standard.
We stand ready to work with members of this committee and
beyond to stop unnecessary illnesses and deaths and advance
national safeguards to protect the most vulnerable workers in
communities from the impacts of climate change. Thank you very
much.
[The statement of Mr. Rodriguez follows:]
Testimony of Arturo S. Rodriguez on behalf of the UFW Foundation and
the United Farm Workers of America
Before the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis,
United States House of Representatives
``Creating a Climate Resilient America:
Overcoming the Health Risks of the Climate Crisis''
February 5, 2020
Chairwoman Castor, Ranking Member Graves, and Members of the Select
Committee:
My name is Arturo Rodriguez and I had the honor of serving as the
elected President of UFW for over 25 years, until 2018. Thank you for
the opportunity to represent the United Farm Workers (``UFW'') union
and the UFW Foundation.
Founded in 1962 by Cesar Chavez, Dolores Huerta, and other early
organizers, the UFW is the nation's first enduring and largest farm
worker union. The UFW is a labor organization that represents migrant
and seasonal farm workers in various agricultural occupations. Through
collective bargaining, worker education, state and federal legislation,
and public campaigns, the UFW seeks to improve the lives, wages, and
working conditions of agricultural workers and their families. The UFW
Foundation--a non-profit sister organization of the United Farm Workers
Union--provides critical services and resources to farm worker and
immigrant communities. As the largest Department of Justice accredited
immigration legal service provider in rural California, UFW Foundation
regional offices annually serve over 100,000 immigrants.
The UFW and the UFW Foundation believe that the workers who harvest
the food that this nation enjoys should be entitled to protection from
the impacts of climate change and efforts to undercut such protections.
Both organizations actively champion legislative and regulatory reforms
that advance the health, safety and well-being of farmworker and
immigrant families, rural communities, and beyond. For decades, we have
been fighting to correct the historical inequities that penalized farm
workers with weaker protections than workers in other industrial
sectors. At the federal level and in the state of California, we have
fought for laws and regulations that provide life-saving protections
for farm workers, agricultural communities and consumers across the
country. Among them:
The Farm Workforce Modernization Act (H.R.5038), a
groundbreaking and bipartisan bill that will legalize our
nation's farmworkers, reform the H-2A temporary agricultural
worker program and require employment verification (``E-
verify'') in agriculture. On December 11, 2019, this bill
passed the House of Representatives with overwhelming and
bipartisan support (by a vote of 260-165) and awaits action by
the Senate.
The Agricultural Worker Protection Standard
(``WPS'') which was strengthened on November 2, 2015 and
protects approximately 2.4 million agricultural workers, their
families, and communities adjacent to pesticide applications,
from pesticide exposure and poisoning.
The Certification of Pesticide Applicators (``CPA'')
rule which protects nearly 1 million pesticide applicators and
prevents injuries, illnesses, and deaths from the misuse of
deadly pesticides in agricultural, residential and commercial
settings.
A California law--the first in the nation--that was
signed by Governor Brown on September 12, 2016 and guarantees
farm workers overtime pay after eight hours of work.
And critically relevant to today's hearing, the
California Heat Illness Prevention standards--implemented in
2005 and strengthened in 2015--designed to prevent deaths and
illnesses from extreme heat for workers in agriculture and
other outdoor industries.
OVERVIEW OF THE U.S. FARM WORKER POPULATION
As you examine the role of Congress and the federal government in
protecting outdoor workers from the risks of climate change and heat
exposure, it's important that you understand the many challenges faced
by farm workers--whose skilled work is integral to our food system--and
the impediments they continue to face in securing the legal right to a
safe workplace.
Overall, there are approximately 2.4 million farm
workers across the country. This number includes hundreds of
thousands of minors who work in agriculture.
Out of the 2.4 million farmworkers, in FY 2019, the
U.S. Department of Labor certified over 250,000 positions
requested by agricultural employers for workers to enter the
country with H-2A visas.\i\ Under the H-2A temporary
agricultural worker program, workers depend on the employer
that petitioned them for their job, ability to stay in the
country, housing and transportation. To keep their employers
happy and be invited back, H-2A workers will work to the limits
of their endurance.
Farmworkers are predominantly of Latino and/or
indigenous ancestry with nearly 70% hailing from Mexico. About
50% of the workforce is documented, and nearly 80% are most
comfortable speaking in Spanish.
For farmworkers in California, extreme weather
events and wildfires are not hypothetical scenarios found in
scholarly articles or climate change reports. Indeed, research
indicates that rising temperatures and changes in precipitation
will increase the risks of wildfires and poor air quality.\ii\
Over the past 3 years, farmworkers across California have
first-hand experience performing back-breaking work while fires
raged and smoke made it difficult to breathe. Unless they were
represented by a union, many of them felt pressured to keep
working, despite harmful conditions.
In addition to heat, farm workers are also on the
frontlines of exposure to a range of pesticides that threaten
their health and the development of their children. Due to
climate change, high temperatures, changing patterns of
precipitation and drought are expected to result in a decline
in food production, more intense wildfires, a decrease of water
supplies, and an expansion of pest activity that will increase
the exposure of farmworkers to harmful pesticides.\iii\ In
order to protect themselves from the sun and reduce exposure to
pesticides, farmworkers wear additional clothing or personal
protective equipment (``PPE'') which can increase the risk of
heat-related illness.
Due to a shameful and race-based history, federal
law excludes farmworkers from the same basic labor protections
enjoyed by other workers, including the National Labor
Relations Act (NRLA), the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and
federal child labor laws and safety requirements.
As a result of language barriers, immigration
status, lack of access to health care, and economic
vulnerability, most farm workers won't speak out in the
workplace, be adequately informed about occupational and
environmental hazards, or have access to timely medical
attention when illness or injury strikes.
Today, I have the privilege of sitting before you in a climate-
controlled hearing room. In general, farmworkers have no refuge from
extreme temperatures as they toil under the scorching sun to cultivate
and harvest the food that reaches our tables. Farmworkers feed our
families and communities, without regard to region, race, ethnicity,
gender, age, ability, or whether we are Democrats or Republicans.
Given the nature of agricultural work, their close relationship to
the land and regular exposure to the elements, farmworkers are on the
frontlines of the climate crisis that needs to be solved. To give you a
better sense of the reality that farmworkers and other outdoor workers
face, it would be more fitting for a Congressional hearing to be held
outdoors, in full exposure to the elements when the summer temperatures
are in full swing.
To feed the nation, farmworkers perform skilled and strenuous work.
In the course of that work, they face a range of hazards including but
not limited to, heat illness, occupational and residential exposure to
a range of harmful pesticides, and cumulative exposure to contaminants
in our air and water.
At the national level, farmworkers have the highest rates of
chemical exposures and heat-related deaths \iv\ among U.S. workers:
When it comes to the health and safety risks of
workplace heat exposure, outside of California, farmworkers
enjoy little to no regulatory protection. Only two states--
California \v\ and Washington \vi\--have implemented standards
to protect outdoor workers from heat stress. As such,
farmworkers suffer heat-related illnesses that can lead to heat
stroke and death in the absence of training, life-saving
precautions and timely intervention.
In connection with pesticide exposure, farmworkers
are denied the health and safety protections provided by the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), even
though the impetus behind the establishment of OSHA in 1970 was
the growing concern in Congress about ``the occupational hazard
presented by the misuse of pesticides.'' \vii\
If any of us had to spend several hours toiling under high
temperatures or exposed to pesticides, the basic protections that we'd
need would include water, shade, breaks, training and personal
protective equipment to prevent illness and tragedies. Farmworkers
deserve nothing less. Given the conditions that they must labor under,
protecting farmworkers from the impacts of climate change can be
achieved through commonsense safeguards that take into account the
realities they face in agricultural occupations, across the nation.
The farmworker communities that we serve are tragically familiar
with the dangers of rising temperatures and dangerous heat. We are
humbled to be here on behalf of farm workers who died from the heat
while harvesting America's food. They perished as they were denied the
drinking water, shade, breaks and other simple measures that could have
prevented their deaths:
Miguel Angel Guzman Chavez was a 24-year-old
farmworker that came to the U.S. under the H-2A guest worker
program. He died from heat on June 21, 2018, five days after he
arrived in the U.S. from Mexico. He was picking tomatoes for
Beiza Farm Labor Contractor and Motley Farms in the state of
Georgia. According to co-workers, Miguel Angel and his crew
were working 16 hour days prior to the day he perished. He
wasn't used to the high heat and humidity, and was stricken at
the height of the daily heat at about 4 p.m. while picking
tomatoes. That day, the high temperature was 95, with a heat
index (how hot it really feels when relative humidity is
factored in along with the actual air temperature) of 103 or
104 degrees. Miguel had told his crew boss he was feeling ill.
The foreman told him to sit it out in the shade. Meanwhile,
Miguel yelled and moaned of pain and demanded medical
attention. After one hour of suffering, the foreman finally
took Miguel to the labor contractor's office, where human
resources staff was present. However, it was another employee,
a mechanic, who drove him to the hospital. He died in route.
Like many heat stroke deaths of farm workers, Miguel's death
was preventable.
Honesto Ibarra was a 28-year-old worker that entered
the U.S. on an H-2A visa. On August 6th, 2017, he was working
on a blueberry farm in Sumas, Washington. His coworkers say
that it was a hot day when Honesto started experiencing
headaches and told his supervisor on two different occasions
that he was not feeling well. Honesto was ignored by his
supervisor both times and was told to go back to work. Honesto
eventually collapsed and was transported to a medical center
where he died.
Ricardo Sotelo passed away due to heat illness. This
past June 30th marked 4 years since his death. While Ricardo
was harvesting blueberries at Olsen Bros, Wyckoff Farms in
Washington State, the temperature was 107 degrees. Because of
the high temperatures, many of his co-workers were feeling ill
and began to vomit. Ricardo had been feeling sick all day and
had asked to take a break, but unfortunately he was denied rest
by his supervisor and had to continue picking blueberries.
Later that day, when Ricardo arrived home from work, he passed
out. His family took him to the hospital, where he died on the
same day. Medical records indicated that his death was due to
heat stroke.
Jaime Nuno-Sanchez was a 48 year-old farm worker
with 30 years of experience harvesting fruits and vegetables
throughout the Coachella Valley in Southern California. On the
morning of September 21st, 2015, he started his shift picking
lemons for Wonderful Citrus, one of the largest citrus
distributors in the United States. Around 10:30 a.m. on Sept.
21, a work crew that included Nuno-Sanchez and his wife began
picking from a row of trees at the back of the grove, not far
from where a supervisor had set up shade and water to comply
with California's heat illness prevention standards.
Temperatures hovered around 90 degrees, but the humidity made
it feel like 105. Forty-five minutes into the shift, Nuno-
Sanchez, 48, sat down in a shaded area, saying he didn't feel
well. Minutes later he collapsed. One picker, who could speak
English, called 911. A supervisor jumped into a pickup and sped
to Highway 86 to wait for a fire truck and paramedics. When
they arrived, he led them to the last lemon tree in the grove.
Paramedics tried to revive Nuno-Sanchez, but it was too late.
The father of three died in the field at 12:35 PM.
Maria de Jesus Alvarez Bautista was 63 years old and
worked at Anthony Vineyards, employed through farm labor
contractor Manuel Torres. On July 15, 2008, on a 110-degree
day, she was picking grapes in the vineyard. The foreman
pressured the crew to work harder, telling them they were not
working fast enough. According to her family, Maria felt
pressured to keep pace with her coworkers, although she needed
a break. As a result, she worked for the rest of the day. The
crew of 150 people were not provided shade, nor were they
trained in heat stroke prevention and precautions as mandated
by state law. Without the proper training, her coworkers were
not able to identify the signs of heat illness. Later that
evening when she was home, she had a headache, a high fever and
started vomiting. Her son found his mother wrapped up in a
blanket on the sofa, saying she was cold, despite it being a
hot day. With her condition deteriorating rapidly over the
course of two weeks, she was taken to the hospital on July 29.
Doctors determined that she was severely dehydrated and had
suffered a heat stroke. After being treated at two different
hospitals, Maria de Jesus Alvarez Bautista died on August 2,
2008, making her one of six farm workers whose death was due to
fatal exposure to heat in 2008.
Maria Isavel Vasquez Jimenez was a 17-year-old
undocumented farmworker who worked at a vineyard owned by West
Coast Grape Farming located east of Stockton, California. She
died of heat exhaustion on May 16, 2008. Two days prior to her
death, she was tying grape vines when the temperature rose
above 95 degrees. She was unable to reach a water cooler that
was about 10 minutes away and the foreman didn't give workers a
long enough break to get a drink of water. She collapsed from
heat exhaustion after working more than nine hours under
oppressive heat conditions. She didn't have access to shade or
water and she was never trained on heat illness protection. Two
days after collapsing from heat exhaustion she passed away. As
Bautista, her fiance, cradled her, the supervisor just stared
at her and did nothing. The farm labor contractor failed to
bring Maria Isavel to a hospital right way. Instead, the
supervisor told Bautista to lay her down in a bed of a hot van
and place a wet cloth on her forehead. When she was finally
taken to a hospital near Lodi, approximately two hours after
collapsing, Maria Isavel was in a coma and her body temperature
was about 108 degrees. Then the doctors discovered she was two
months pregnant. Bautista said that Maria and him had not been
given safety training and that the supervisors had told him to
lie about the event.
Maria Isavel Vasquez Jimenez, Maria de Jesus Alvarez Bautista,
Jaime Nuno-Sanchez, Ricardo Sotelo, Honesto Ibarra and Miguel Angel
Guzman Chavez, were not agricultural implements; they were important
human beings. Their lives were worth a lot--and they deserve better
treatment than they received.
PROTECTING WORKERS FROM HEAT IS FEASIBLE AND CALIFORNIA SERVES AS A
MODEL
After a string of heat deaths, in 2005 the UFW worked with then
Assemblywoman Chu and convinced Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to issue
the first comprehensive regulations in the nation to protect California
farm and other outdoor workers from dying or becoming ill when
temperatures soar. After Representative Chu held a hearing outdoors to
highlight the impacts of extreme heat on workers, Gov. Schwarzenegger
announced an emergency heat illness prevention standard. California
became the first state in the nation to issue life-saving and
comprehensive Heat Illness Prevention standards for outdoor workers.
Since 2005, California has required:
Training for all employees and supervisors about
heat illness prevention.
Potable water to employees that is free of charge
and located close to the areas where employees are working
Water cannot be more than 400 feet away
Each employee should have access to 1
quart per hour, or four 8 ounce glasses of water per
hour
Access to shade and encourage employees to take a
cool-down rest in the shade for at least 5 minutes. They should
not wait until they feel sick to cool down.
Planning that includes written procedures for
complying with the Cal/OSHA Heat Illness Prevention Standard.
The laws on the book are only meaningful if they are enforced and
become a reality for the workers that need it the most. In the summer
of 2008, five more farm workers died from heat illness in California.
Their deaths inspired our organizing of the ``March for Fallen Farm
Workers'' from Lodi to the state Capitol in Sacramento to raise
awareness about agricultural establishments and farm labor contractors
who were denying farm workers the life-saving protections inherent in
the state's Heat Illness Prevention Regulation.
In light of these tragedies, the UFW helped aggrieved farm workers
challenge the state of California in 2009 and 2012 over inadequate
enforcement of heat regulations. In 2015, a settlement of these
complaints led the state of California to increase their enforcement of
the heat standard and included a memorandum of understanding under
which farm worker advocacy groups, including the UFW and the UFW
Foundation, can file reports of violations with Cal-OSHA, which is
mandated to immediately investigate them.
Furthermore, on Friday, May 1, 2015, the state issued strengthened
heat regulations for all employees that work outdoors throughout
California. The strengthened rules require that:
Water provided to employees must be ``fresh, pure,
suitably cool'' and located as close as practical to where
employees are working.
Shade must be present at 80 degrees, instead of the
current 85, and accommodate all employees on recovery or rest
periods, and those onsite taking meal periods.
High-heat procedures (which will remain triggered at
95 degrees) shall ensure ``effective'' observation and
monitoring of employees.
During high heat, employees must be
provided with a minimum 10-minute cool-down period
every two hours.
Since the CA standard went into effect, California's farming
industry has continued to prosper. In fact, according to the most
recent farm income and wealth statistics by the CA Department of Food
and Agriculture, from 2008-2018, the state experienced a nearly 34
percent increase in cash receipts for all agricultural commodities,
compared to 2008.\viii\
California is the leading agricultural state in the country,
producing over 400 commodities, two-thirds of the nation's fruit and
nuts, and more than one-third of the nation's vegetables. It is also
home to the largest number of farmworkers in the U.S.\ix\
California's size (the third largest state by land area and most
populated state in the country),\x\ diverse temperature zones, and the
various outdoor industries that are subject to the California Heat
Illness Prevention Standard (agriculture, construction, landscaping,
oil and gas extraction, and transportation or delivery of agricultural
products, construction materials or other heavy materials) \xi\ can
serve as a model for the nation, and a testament to the feasibility of
a national heat illness standard to protect workers.
It's important to note that in testimony before Congress, among
many things, the California Farm Bureau Federation shared that the
California Heat Illness Prevention Standard is simple; that any heat
standard should require provision of water, shade, and training for
everyone, and that ``the greatest need is for workers, supervisors and
employers to understand the key steps to take to avoid incidents of
heat illness and deal effectively and promptly with any incidents that
occur.'' \xii\ All these basic efforts intend to save more lives and
prevent more illnesses among outdoor workers.
PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT (PPE) IS INADEQUATE TO PROTECT
FARMWORKERS FROM UNSAFE LEVELS OF PESTICIDES AND EPA IS NOT CONSIDERING
HOW CLIMATE CHANGE AND PPE USE AFFECT THE RISK OF HEAT ILLNESS.
A bedrock principle of occupational hygiene is the ``hierarchy of
controls,'' which is used by the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) and others to identify options for controlling
exposures to occupational hazards. The hierarchy prioritizes
elimination of the hazardous agent or substitution of a less hazardous
agent. These are preferable to the implementation of engineering
controls, which in turn are preferable to requiring personal protective
equipment. For workers who are protected by OSHA, personal protective
equipment is always the mitigation measure of last resort. When it
comes to protecting workers from pesticides, EPA is in charge and the
agency starts by considering personal protective equipment, then
considers engineering controls, and never considers substitution with
less toxic options or practices.
However, when EPA reviews a pesticide to determine whether it meets
the statutory safety standards, it conducts a series of risk
assessments addressing food, drinking water, drift and volatilization
exposure to children, bystanders, and workers. As its standard approach
in assessing worker risks, EPA identifies risk levels of concern to
workers and determines whether workers will be exposed to levels of
pesticides that exceed those risk levels. For pesticide handlers, if it
finds risks of concern, EPA first tries to reduce the risks through the
use of protective clothing and gear. If the risks of concern are not
eliminated, EPA then considers requiring engineering controls, like
closed mixing systems. If none of these strategies eliminates the risks
of concern, EPA will consider reducing application rates or eliminating
the application method. For risks of concern to field workers, EPA uses
restricted re-entry intervals to keep field workers out of the fields
until exposures will be reduced. Only if re-entry intervals cannot
eliminate the risks of concern will EPA consider stopping the activity
or the use of the pesticide. This is the inadequate and underprotective
methodology that EPA has used to assess worker risks from some of the
most harmful pesticides.
Furthermore, while the Environmental Protection Agency (``EPA'')
has acknowledged that use of PPE when working in hot temperatures
increases the risk of heat-related illness, unfortunately, EPA does not
evaluate this risk when conducting occupational risk assessments for
pesticides that assume varying levels of personal protective equipment.
Feeding America and much of the world is honorable and important
work. Farm workers shouldn't risk death or illness from climate change
impacts and pesticide exposure when reasonable measures can prevent
such tragedies and protect them from these hazards.
Fifteen years ago we got a Republican governor to take action on
heat stress. Five years ago we worked with a Democratic governor to
strengthen the heat standards. Last year, we worked together to secure
the enactment of S. 483, the Pesticide Registration Improvement Act of
2019 (``PRIA 4'') and passage of the Farm Workforce Modernization Act
(H.R. 5038) in the House:
House and Senate leadership, congressional
appropriators and authorizing committees (House and Senate
Agriculture, and House Energy and Commerce) unanimously
supported S. 483. PRIA 4 provides the EPA with more resources
to evaluate pesticide registrations and ensures the protection
of farmworkers, pesticide applicators and consumers who are
exposed to pesticides in agricultural, residential, and
commercial settings.
H.R. 5038 is a bipartisan bill that would not only
legalize eligible farmworkers but also requires that
agricultural employers of H-2A workers maintain a heat illness
prevention plan that includes: procedures for the prevention of
heat illness, appropriate training on heat illness prevention,
access to water and shade, the provision of breaks, and
protocols for emergency response. This was part of an effort to
bring the life-saving heat illness protections that we helped
establish in California to farmworkers across the nation.
SOLUTIONS TO THE CLIMATE CRISIS REQUIRE BOLD ACTION
Farm working and immigrant families are not only vital to our
economy and food security; they are also vital to our communities. As
this Committee and Congress discuss the bold action that will be
necessary to tackle the climate crisis, I urge you not to lose sight of
the relief and safeguards that farmworkers and environmental justice
communities deserve NOW, to live and work with dignity and free of
occupational and environmental hazards that threaten their health,
safety, and the well-being of their families.
To this end, we urge members of this committee to ensure that any
policies, recommendations and strategies to address the climate crisis
count with the meaningful engagement of the workers and communities who
are on the frontlines of the climate crisis. Doing so would be
consistent with the principles of Environmental Justice, which among
many things: demand the participation of the most impacted communities
at every level of decision-making; and affirms the right of all workers
to a safe and healthy work environment.\xiii\ On this front, I want to
commend the work of Congressman McEachin and Natural Resources
Committee Chairman, Raul Grijalva on their comprehensive environmental
justice initiative and the Environmental Justice for All Act.
Environmental justice stakeholders have described the initiative as the
most participatory effort of any Congress.
FOR SOLUTIONS THAT ARE CENTERED ON THE WORKERS MOST VULNERABLE TO THE
CLIMATE CRISIS, AT A MINIMUM, CONGRESS MUST:
CODIFY the right to water, shade, rest, training and
emergency procedures for outdoor workers. These are basic yet
life-saving safeguards that would protect outdoor workers from
heat related illnesses and deaths. This is what the Asuncion
Valdivia Heat Illness and Fatality Prevention Act (H.R. 3668)
intends to do by directing the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) to issue a standard to protect indoor and
outdoor workers from heat-related injuries and illnesses. If
enacted, the bill can ensure that workers like Asuncion, Maria
Isavel, Miguel Angel and Honesto won't die unnecessarily.
ELIMINATE the racist exclusion of farmworkers from
our federal labor laws. U.S. farmworkers who seek improvements
in wages or working conditions can be fired by their employers
if they choose to join, organize or support a labor union. That
is not the case for workers in other industry sectors that
count with federal protections provided by the National Labor
Relations Act of 1935 (NLRA), which among many things,
prohibits employers from firing workers for the aforementioned
activities. The disparity in protections is due to a legacy of
racism that specifically excludes farmworkers (and domestic
workers) from the NLRA. And the exclusions don't end there. In
fact, farmworkers are also excluded from the right to overtime
pay in the Federal Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA). The
Fairness for Farm Workers Act (H.R. 1080) would end the
discrimination that denies farmworkers the right to overtime
pay.
DIRECT THE EPA to assess the risks of heat-related
illness associated with any and all personal protective
equipment (PPE) that the Agency assumes that workers will wear
when conducting occupational risk assessments for pesticides.
While the Agency has acknowledged that use of PPE when working
in hot temperatures increases the risk of heat-related illness,
the EPA does not evaluate this risk when conducting
occupational risk assessments for pesticides that assume
varying levels of PPE.
DIRECT THE EPA to follow the hierarchy of controls
when selecting options to reduce occupational risk from
pesticides. A bedrock principle of occupational hygiene is the
``hierarchy of controls,'' which is used by the Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and others to identify
options for controlling exposures to occupational hazards. The
hierarchy prioritizes elimination of the hazardous agent or
substitution of a less hazardous agent. These are preferable to
the implementation of engineering controls, which in turn are
preferable to requiring personal protective equipment. For
workers who are protected by OSHA, personal protective
equipment is always the mitigation measure of last resort. When
it comes to protecting workers from pesticides, EPA is in
charge and the agency starts by considering personal protective
equipment, then considers engineering controls, and never
considers substitution with less toxic options or practices.
DIRECT ALL FEDERAL AGENCIES to comply with Executive
Order 12898 relating to Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice In Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations, and report to Congress on its implementation. EO
12898 directs Federal agencies to address disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its
programs. Failure to implement EO 12898 is of great concern as
it will disproportionately and negatively impact members of the
UFW and UFW Foundation who are farm worker families, low-income
immigrants, immigrants with disabilities and persons of color.
INVEST in the capacity of rural and agricultural
communities to:
Resist and respond to climate change
impacts. Agricultural communities are particularly
vulnerable to climate change and pesticide exposure.
Compared to urban areas, rural areas have higher
concentrations of people that live in poverty and are
more likely to have limited access to medical services
and housing with air-conditioning.\xiv\ This affects
the ability of farmworker families to find refuge from
the heat in their own homes and get treatment for heat-
related illnesses or injuries. Failure to prepare the
agricultural sector for the impacts of climate change
will compromise our food security, and the health,
safety and livelihoods of farmworkers.
Decrease the agricultural industry's
reliance on harmful pesticides. In the United States,
over 1.1 billion pounds of pesticides are used every
year. World pesticide usage is at nearly 6 billion
pounds, according to EPA estimates.\xv\
We stand ready to work with Republicans and Democrats in this
committee, and beyond, to stop unnecessary illnesses and deaths, and
advance national standards that protect the most vulnerable workers and
communities from climate change.
\i\ See U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training
Administration, Office of Foreign Labor Certification, ``H-2A Temporary
Agricultural Labor Certification Program--Selected Statistics, FY 2019,
available at https://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/pdf/
PerformanceData/2019/H-2A_Selected_Statistics_FY2019_Q4.pdf.
\ii\ See U.S. Global Change Research Program, Fourth National
Climate Assessment (2018), available at https://
nca2018.globalchange.gov/downloads/NCA4_2018_FullReport.pdf.
\iii\ ibid.
\iv\ See Larry L. Jackson & Howard R. Rosenberg, Preventing Heat-
Related Illness Among Agricultural Workers, 15 J. Agromedicine 200
(2010) (``The crop worker fatality rate averaged 4 heat-related deaths
per one million workers per year--20 times higher than the 0.2 rate for
US civilian workers overall.'').
\v\ See 8 CCR Sec. 3395, 8 CA ADC Sec. 3395, Heat Illness
Prevention in Outdoor Places of Employment, available at https://
www.dir.ca.gov/title8/3395.html.
\vi\ See WAC Sec. 296-62-095, Outdoor Heat Exposure, available at
https://app.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=296-62&full=true#296-62-
095.
\vii\ See Organized Migrants In Community Action, Inc. v. U.S.
Department of Labor (1975) at https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/
reporter/F2/520/520.F2d.1161.74-2062.html.
\viii\ USDA/ERS Farm Income and Wealth Statistics, Cash receipts by
commodity 2008-2019F, available at https://data.ers.usda.gov/
reports.aspx?ID=17845#P5f4072bb859f4ffc99c413a4eee73e 71_4_17iT0R0x5.
\ix\ USDA, National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2017 Census of
Agriculture, State Data, Table 7. Hired Farm Labor--Workers and
Payroll: 2017, available at https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications /
AgCensus / 2017 / Full _ Report /
Volume _ 1, _ Chapter _ 2 _ US _ State _ Level / st99 _ 2_0007_
0007.pdf.
\x\ See U.S. Census Bureau, Quick Facts: California; United States,
available at https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/CA,US/
PST045218#.
\xi\ 8 CCR Sec. 3395, 8 CA ADC Sec. 3395, Heat Illness Prevention
in Outdoor Places of Employment, available at https://www.dir.ca.gov/
title8/3395.html.
\xii\ See testimony by Bryan Little before the House Education and
Labor Committee at https://edlabor.house.gov/imo/media/doc/
LittleTestimony0711191.pdf.
\xiii\ Delegates to the First National People of Color
Environmental Leadership Summit held on October 24-27, 1991, in
Washington DC, drafted and adopted 17 principles of Environmental
Justice. The Principles have served as a defining document for the
growing grassroots movement for environmental justice, available at
https://www.ejnet.org/ej/principles.pdf.
\xiv\ See U.S. Global Change Research Program, Fourth National
Climate Assessment (2018), available at https://
nca2018.globalchange.gov/downloads/NCA4_2018_FullReport.pdf.
\xv\ See U.S. EPA--Pesticides Industry Sales and Usage 2008-2012,
available at https://www. epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-01/
documents/pesticides-industry-sales-usage-2016_0.pdf.
Ms. Castor. Thank you very much.
And all of your testimony was very helpful and elucidating.
Ms. Brownley, I understand you have to get to another
hearing. So I am going to recognize you first for questions for
5 minutes.
Ms. Brownley. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
And thank you all of our witnesses for being here with your
powerful testimony.
Mr. Rodriguez, I wanted to start with you. I know you know
my district, Ventura County--actually, Ventura County has
experienced the greatest temperature increase of any county in
the continental United States, and the basis of Ventura's
economy is agriculture and the work that your farm workers do
in our county. And you mentioned the issues around pesticide
and heat exposure, and I would add one more thing to that, and
that is farm workers' children. As a former school board
member, I know that asthma's the number one cause for children
to miss school and when we talk about environmental justice, it
is the children of farm workers, I think, that are most
affected by that and the stress it brings, the mental health
stress that that brings, but also the care for their children,
and they are required to be home with their children and
probably can't be home with their children.
So I just--I guess the first question I really have is, is
UFW collecting any data on health impacts of farm workers? Do
you have hard data on that? Is it something that you are
collecting?
Mr. Rodriguez. You know, unfortunately, we don't have any
hard data, but we work very closely with the Robert F. Kennedy
medical plan, which is a medical insurance plan that we
founded, that Cesar Chavez founded back in the late 1970s when
we first began to get our contracts, and through that, we have
noticed in terms of the types of illnesses that farm workers
experience. Unfortunately, we haven't been able to detect it
all the way down to the children, but we are working now with
other universities in Fresno County and other researchers to
really measure what is the impact on farm workers, on their
children as a result of not only climate change, but you
mentioned the very important thing, the pesticides. Because in
addition to the fact that farm workers are exposed to the heat
and everything else, they wear a lot of clothing to protect
themselves, and oftentimes that comes in contact with the
pesticides that are used on the various crops out there. And
too often, as soon as they get home, the children come to hug
them before they have had the chance to take off their clothes
and so forth and get exposed to those pesticides, but we know
it definitely has had a serious impact on Ventura County and
all of the rest of the major agricultural counties there in the
State of California. Thank you.
Ms. Brownley. Thank you, sir.
And, Dr. Bole, you know, as it relates to children, again,
mentioning that asthma is the number one cause for children to
miss school, but I am also very concerned about their mental
health. Again, in my district in Ventura County, we have had
two of California's largest wildfires in its history, and so I
have seen the stress on families who have lost their homes and
particularly their children. And schools and school sites are
having to sort of rethink how they address these issues. And
still these fires were a couple of years ago, but you can't go
to a school campus or anywhere without first talking about the
impacts of those fires. People are still talking about it and
trying to work through it.
So I guess my question to you is, you know, how do we need
to rethink the mental healthcare in this country as it relates
specifically to climate and climate change?
Dr. Bole. Thank you for the question. Just briefly, I would
like to comment on the fact that, for children of farm workers,
it is important to point out that extreme heat is a factor in
asthma exacerbations itself but also in birth outcomes. So
preterm birth and extreme heat are related. So I just want to
point out that our pregnant farm workers and young children and
those teenagers who are outside are at risk for multiple
reasons. So I appreciate you pointing that out.
On the topic of mental health, I think it is a really
important one. And when we think about young children who are
dependent on adults for their daily needs, dependent on a
healthy community infrastructure for their ability to grow and
thrive, these lasting mental health impacts of extreme weather
events, whether it is wildfires or storms in the southeast, we
have increasing data that the post-traumatic impacts really
interfere with children's ability to grow, develop, and learn.
And so to be able to be prepared for that response and also to
help children sort of cope with their fears about the future
and I think climate action that is hopeful, solution-oriented,
and urgent has to be part of addressing children's mental
health needs at this time. So thank you for that question.
Ms. Brownley. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I yield back as well.
Ms. Castor. Mrs. Miller, good morning. You are recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mrs. Miller. Good morning, and thank you, Chair Castor, and
Ranking Member Graves who isn't here, for having everyone here
and thank you all for taking the time to be with us today.
A few years back, West Virginia made an attempt to require
major energy utilities to have at least 25 percent of their
energy come from renewable sources by 2025. This shift resulted
in high energy cost where many had to make decisions about
keeping the lights on or getting necessities, like prescription
drugs and food, putting food on their table, and the
legislation finally was subsequently repealed.
I can remember retired school teachers who are living on
hundreds of dollars a month, and it was really very difficult
for them. Our witness, Mr. Hollie, who, unfortunately, was
unable to be here today, discussed the prevalence of energy
poverty. I have seen energy poverty with my own eyes, within my
own community, and the negative impacts that it has on health,
economics, and more. As I have said in this committee before,
it is important, it is so important for us to be good stewards
of our environment. However, that does not mean that we need to
completely get rid of key, inexpensive base load energy.
Innovative technology like carbon capture, the science is
there. They can help reduce emissions for the base load energy
year-round no matter what the weather is.
Dr. Bole, when we have extreme weather events in the United
States, we need to ensure that our Nation's hospitals are
prepared and can support the influx in energy consumption in an
efficient way to provide for continuity in care. How important
is reliable base load energy to provide energy for hospitals
during an extreme weather event?
Dr. Bole. Thank you for the question. Certainly, the
resilience of our healthcare facilities is something that is
extremely important, and we are finding that combining energy
efficiency--really aggressive energy efficiency measures are
incredibly important for enhancing our resilience as a
healthcare system in this country, as well as a lot of really
innovative strategies around, for example, combined heat and
power, other kinds of mixed sourcing of energy that is really
kind of advancing healthcare facility resilience, something
that we are seeing come into play. Increasing number of
hospitals are understanding climate action to be a really
important part of our ability to remain resilient in this time
of changing climate.
So you are absolutely right that reliable energy is
incredibly important for hospitals during times of crisis, and
we know that investing in efficiency, transitioning to
renewable energy is sort of part of the solution. And
increasingly the healthcare sector is playing a leading role in
that transition.
Mrs. Miller. I live near a hospital, and I feel very
fortunate because, when we do have extreme weather, say, a
terrible snow or ice that affects people's electricity, mine is
still on. But I know the time when we will be in complete
darkness, you can still see that hospital with the lights on
and what a secure feeling it gives you. How can we ensure
energy remains reliable during influxes of consumption?
Dr. Bole. I think that question goes beyond hospitals; it
goes to communities. And so, if I may, I invite some of my
other fellow panelists to comment because your question I don't
think is confined to hospitals. I will tell you, as I said,
that, depending on the region, that hospitals are employing a
variety of different strategies, and we are finding
increasingly there are hundreds of hospitals committing to
efficiency, to increased renewable sourcing, to strategies that
can really help mitigate the root causes of climate-related
events that are becoming more and more frequent that threaten
our ability to serve the patients who need us the most.
Mrs. Miller. Well, I have only got one more minute and I
have two more questions. The select committee has discussed a
lot about resilience and how important it is that we ensure our
Nation's infrastructure is prepared for extreme weather events,
and how resilient do you feel that our Nation's health systems
are?
Dr. Bole. I think we are very fortunate that our healthcare
sector and healthcare leaders have been very engaged in
disaster preparedness for a very long time. Many of my
pediatric colleagues are very active in that space. So I think
that we have made a lot of advances around healthcare facility
resilience, and we continue to do that. I think what we need to
do is really incorporate climate-change-related events and
forecasting about climate-related events, severity and
frequency in our disaster preparedness. And I would say
centering a child's health and the ability to continue to
deliver pediatric health services in this changing climate is
going to be incredibly important for our disaster preparedness
efforts going forward.
Mrs. Miller. Have you seen the impacts of energy poverty in
children who seek medical care?
Dr. Bole. You know, in my State of Ohio, we do see issues
with all kinds of resource insecurity, including utility
insecurity, and actually home weatherization, energy
efficiency, even residential solar generation are all part of a
true root cause kind of solution to energy and security in my
community. We are seeing that happen every day.
Mrs. Miller. Thank you.
I yield back.
Ms. Castor. Thank you.
Ms. Bonamici, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Chair Castor.
Thank you to all of our witnesses.
We know that the climate crisis will disproportionately
affect the health and well-being of low-income communities,
people of color, children, and older adults. We have a
responsibility to take action to address that.
Ms. McCarthy, during your tenure at the Environmental
Protection Agency, the social cost of carbon was a foundation
of important environmental regulations, including the Clean
Power Plan. We had many conversations about that in the
Science, Space, and Technology Committee over the years. The
social cost of carbon has been used to express the dollar value
or cost of climate damage caused by 1 ton of carbon dioxide,
and it actually reflects the socioeconomic and ecosystem
damages from emissions and helps us translate to the long-term
consequences into present value.
Unfortunately, in 2017, President Trump signed an executive
order disbanding the Interagency Working Group on the Social
Cost of Carbon. I am concerned that the absence of that
analysis is being used to justify or rationalize harmful and
regulatory decisions, and I know that Natural Resources Defense
Council released a report titled ``Bitter Pill: The High Health
Cost of Climate Change,'' and that report recommended examining
how the social cost of carbon could be updated.
So, beyond reinstating the interagency working group, how
should Congress incentivize the reinstatement of an accurate
social cost of carbon, and how can we support Federal agencies
in better quantifying the health damages in a renewed social
cost of carbon analysis?
Ms. McCarthy. First of all, thank you for the question. We
all know that the challenge of Federal agencies is to look at
all of the cost and benefits of the actions that it takes.
Clearly, the social cost of carbon was established to allow us
to understand the full breadth of consequences of the carbon
emissions that are fueling climate change and how we can reduce
those and account for those in decisionmaking. And you are
right. This administration is--has decided to move away from
looking at the full cost, but I would also caution you to think
about their fundamentally stop looking at climate change
period, not just the full breadth of social consequences with
our changing climate. And to me that is like a bank statement
where you only look at deposits and not withdrawals, and I
think that we need to go back and take a look at this.
I do know that people outside of the government continue to
look at updates on the social cost of carbon because I think we
seriously underestimated those costs, and so I think there will
be many people fully prepared to both challenge rules that
don't consider climate change every step of the way, including
actions and accounting for the broad social cost. NRDC is one
of those.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. I appreciate the panel today
helping to highlight that issue. I want to get to Mr.
Rodriguez. Your testimony you shared those powerful stories--
thank you so much--of the farm workers who felt pressure to
keep working in harmful conditions. And as a member of the
Education and Labor Committee, I am certainly pleased to
support Congresswoman Chu's bill to adopt a final standard on
the prevention of occupational exposure to excessive heat. What
additional steps can Congress take to safeguard outdoor workers
from heat-related illnesses and death and provide workers with
appropriate remedies in the event their rights are violated?
Mr. Rodriguez. For me?
Ms. Bonamici. Yes.
Mr. Rodriguez. Okay. Sorry. Well, thank you, again, for the
question. You know, Congresswoman Judy Chu, my understanding,
at least, has already introduced legislation here in Congress.
Ms. Bonamici. Right. I am proud to cosponsor that.
Mr. Rodriguez. Oh. Fantastic. So we are very hopeful that
really that there is going to be support for that legislation,
and I was mentioning earlier that, in negotiations this past
year, around the immigration bill for farm workers, H.B. 5038,
we were actually there sitting down with the agricultural
industry with the leaders throughout the Nation. And we
discussed this particular issue with them, and I think all of
them voluntarily agreed that this is an issue that we don't
have to really look further than what has already transpired
and what has taken place, and we included that actually in the
legislation. So we are of the mind that the agricultural
industry has really recognized the importance of this, and we
should all come together at this particular point with
Congresswoman Judy Chu's and your bill to be able to really
pass that legislation.
Ms. Bonamici. I hope so. I represent a district in Oregon,
your neighbor to the north in California, and I know how
important our agriculture community is, and the workers
absolutely need to have that protection. One more quick
question for Ms. McCarthy, harmful algal blooms you mentioned.
We know that is a problem across the country, coastal
communities as well as Great Lakes, rivers, streams. The EPA
lacks an authorization or adequate appropriations to respond to
that. So what resources does the EPA need to adequately respond
to the health threats posed by algal blooms, particularly in
terms of access to safe and clean drinking water?
Ms. McCarthy. It needs a couple of things. One is it needs
resources to be able to continue to track and make these
harmful algal blooms better visible to people. So transparency
is going to be important. But we do--the EPA does have some
authority here. Unfortunately, the waters of the U.S.--that is
not what it is called anymore, but any ways, whatever was just
finalized which looks at what waters are protected, it really
has cut the legs out of the ability to be able to look at some
of the waters in streams and wetlands that are important to
protect, that would eliminate some of the sources of
contamination that are causing harmful algal blooms. And let's
just very quickly remind ourselves that this isn't just about
keeping waters swimmable and fishable; this is directly about
drinking water. Those harmful algal blooms created the
cyanotoxins that shut down an entire city of Toledo for a 4-day
stretch, and we need to remind ourselves that these are issues
that are bad for our economies but fundamentally threaten our
drinking water.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you. I see my time is long expired.
I yield back. My apologies.
Ms. Castor. Mr. Graves, welcome. You are recognized if you
would like to make some opening comments and then lead into
your questions.
Mr. Graves. Sure. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank
all the witnesses for being here today. I appreciate you being
here and appreciate your testimony. We have had a chance to go
through your written remarks.
Administrator McCarthy, it is nice to see you, again.
Ms. McCarthy. You too.
Mr. Graves. I think we did a good bit of work together on
the BP oil spill, and I don't think I have seen you since, but
nice to see you.
Ms. McCarthy. I remember. It is good to see you too.
Mr. Graves. I appreciate you being here.
Dr. Bole, this hearing has been about the health impacts of
greenhouse gas emissions. If the United States was a party to
an agreement that would result in a net increase in emissions,
is that heading in the right direction?
Dr. Bole. Thank you for the question. Can you clarify what
you mean?
Mr. Graves. Sure. Sure. If we were a party to an agreement
that resulted in a net increase, a net increase in emissions,
is that--are we heading in the right direction?
Dr. Bole. Well, I appreciate the question. You know, it is
true that climate change is a global problem and requires a
global solution. It requires the United States to lead in that
space. What I can tell you--and I am not sure if I am quite
getting to what you are asking--what I can tell you is that
reduction in greenhouse gas emissions has both long-term health
benefits for children--so I focused a lot on those long-term
health benefits in terms of the effects of increased
temperature on things like surface ozone, aeroallergens,
changing patterns of infectious disease, but it is important to
note that there are also immediate co-benefits of decreasing
those emissions, both locally and globally. So some of those
local impacts and immediate impacts relate to decreasing
particulate emissions from the immediate effects of burning
fossil fuels and also creating some of those walkable more
active transit-friendly communities that I mentioned in my
testimony. So I guess what I am saying is a reduction of
emissions has both immediate and long-term benefits. I am not
sure if I am fully understanding what you are asking.
Mr. Graves. So, if I were to flip that over and an increase
in emissions basically is not heading in the direction that,
based on your professional opinion, is where we need to be
going?
Dr. Bole. To increase fossil fuel, burning of fossil fuels,
is not the right direction, no.
Mr. Graves. Well, let's distinguish those, though. It is
not--it is not the utilization of fossil fuels; it is the
emissions.
Dr. Bole. Well, it is both. I mean, transitioning to a--
maybe I am not following.
Mr. Graves. Well, let me--two separate points. I think it
is important distinguishing the difference between fossil fuel
utilization and emissions. The fossil fuel utilization
themselves, that doesn't cause health impacts. It is the impact
of the emissions is what your testimony is about and where the
concerns are. Let me separate these out and happy to give you
more time to answer the second part, but on the first part, the
Paris accords that folks are out there touting and saying are
great, for every 1 ton of emissions the United States has
reduced, China has increased emissions by 4 tons. This is a
global issue. It is a global problem, and it is going to
require global actions, global solutions. And it is concerning
to me when folks talk about the Paris Accords and how great
these are whenever the reality is, under the agreement, China
was allowed to increase emissions. And it seems contrary to the
very direction that I believe everyone up here hopes that we
can head in.
The United States has been the world leader in emissions
reduction, and we need to continue moving in that direction.
And so my point is I just wanted to emphasize that, under the
Paris Agreement, China is actually able to increase their
emissions by 50 percent through 2030, and to date they have
actually quadrupled the emissions increases for every 1 ton--
for every one unit of reduction we have had in the United
States.
Now moving on to the second point. So many people during
this hearing and in testimony, it is--folks are talking about
fossil fuels and saying fossil fuels are the enemy; keep it in
the ground. The science actually shows that it is the
emissions. There are many products, there are many things that
we deal with every single day, and, as a physician, you do
and--but the deal is, is there are safe ways of handling
things. There are ways of neutralizing the adverse
constituents, components, or outcomes of that product, and an
example is, in the Houston area right now, there is an
electricity generation facility known as Net Power. It is
natural-gas-fired electricity, meaning it is a natural gas
electrification facility, but it has net zero emissions, net
zero emissions. So I don't want to confuse fossil fuels--just
like we don't throw out the baby with the bathwater and
everything else--if we can find ways to utilize those products
in a way that reduces or eliminates emissions. In fact, there
are some technologies that are being researched now that would
be a net reduction in emissions. And so I want to urge
everyone, as we think forward in terms of our solutions, let's
be careful about how we talk about things and be thoughtful
about basically not preventing ourselves from being able to
bring real solutions to the table, which would be emissions-
free energy technologies such as like what is being done in the
Houston area right now.
Madam Chair, I think you may have something to say, if you
don't mind, just giving her a few seconds to respond if you
wanted to. You looked like you wanted to say something.
Dr. Bole. I didn't know if you had a question for me about
that.
Mr. Graves. Well, I think it just goes back to what I was
saying earlier. We have got to be careful about separating--oil
and gas are just conventional fuel usage--with our objective,
which is actually reducing emissions.
Dr. Bole. I appreciate the point about a variety of
different technologies. I am not an engineer. I am a
pediatrician. But what I can say is that--I can say,
respectfully, is that, in general, a transition to clean and
renewable energy for both power generation and transportation
is going to be a critical underpinning of protecting children's
health, both immediately from the immediate impacts of burning
those fuels that create emissions right now, but also in the
future.
Mr. Graves. That create emissions. And Dr. Bole, I agree.
Reducing emissions, I will say it again: I agree with you in
regard to that objective. I think we also need to look
holistically--and I want to also be clear, I fully support the
utilization of renewable energy sources. I think it needs to be
part of our portfolio. We need to look at the holistic impact
of environmental impact of those, such as the mining impacts in
Asia and Africa and other places. We need to look at the
limitations on battery storage technology. We need to look at
the carbon that is utilized in wind turbines and other products
as well to make sure that we understand the full environmental
impacts.
Madam Chair, thank you for the liberties there.
I yield back.
Ms. Castor. Mr. Levin, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Levin. Well, thank you, Chair Castor, for holding
today's hearing. Very pleased we have the opportunity to
discuss the health impacts, and I grew up in southern
California where we used to have smog alerts all the time. We
got tough and smart. We dramatically reduced air emissions. It
is not just greenhouse gas emissions. It is also criteria
pollutant emissions, NOX and SOX and particulate matter, and I
thank you all for the great work you have done.
Administrator McCarthy, we need you back because I have
seen five or six decades of bipartisan progress on working
together--The Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, Endangered
Species Act, National Environmental Policy Act: it is all under
threat in a way that I never expected. As an environmental
lawyer practicing in California where we have had a waiver
under the Clean Air Act because we got tough and we got smart
on emissions long before it was popular to do so. And now I
have a 7-year-old and a 5-year-old, and they are able to
breathe cleaner air than I did because of the work that we did.
That is all under threat as well, but I wanted to ask a couple
of related questions.
My district today in northern San Diego County, South
Orange County is feeling the impact of sea level rise in a very
profound way, and it is clear to me that the costs of inaction,
of doing nothing, far exceed the cost of action as particularly
true with regard to health, where, again, if I heard you
correctly, ten climate events in 2012 alone drove $10 billion
in healthcare costs. My guest at the State of the Union last
night was a gentleman named Dr. Pat Davis who tragically lost
his wife, his daughter, and his sister-in-law when a bluff
collapsed on them. He was right next to them when a bluff
collapsed, and we are seeing unprecedented coastal erosion and
all the rest, flooding and fires as we have not seen before in
California. We know it is impacted by climate change because
the researchers and the science talk about the science. The
scientists in my district at the Scripps Institution of
Oceanography know that this is directly related to climate
change.
So, Ms. McCarthy, Dr. Bole, can you explain some of the
most serious public health impacts of sea level rise, coastal
erosion, and coastal flooding?
Dr. Bole. Go ahead.
Ms. McCarthy. Let me just start, and it seems awkward that
I am answering the health question, but that is okay.
Mr. Levin. I think you are qualified to answer any of these
questions.
Ms. McCarthy. You know, I think it is important to
recognize that the challenge you mentioned, which is human
lives are being lost immediately as a consequence of our oceans
rising and the challenges that we are seeing in these extreme
weather events, but what people tend not to think about is,
every time you have those flooding events, you are
contaminating potentially significant drinking water for a very
long time.
And we see that with wildfires happening. The same thing.
There are long-term consequences. When you respond, like EPA is
required to do in the event of these emergencies, you are
responding because we have oil tanks that have flooded. You
have systems that don't work. The ability of Congress to move
forward with infrastructure as you want to do investments is
going to be essential for that protection, but each of them has
to be designed with climate change in mind.
We have to get real and recognize that 100-year storms when
they happen every year are badly named. And we have to get real
and address these issues because it is not just an extreme
weather event and what happens that day, but it is the
consequence of year after year of looking at contaminants in
our drinking water that we either don't know about or can't
fix.
Mr. Levin. Dr. Bole.
Dr. Bole. Thank you for the question. And thank you for
reminding us that, when we talk about emissions, we are talking
about those criteria air pollutants, and that is what I mean
when I talk about immediate co-benefits of making this
transition, but about health impacts of flooding and issues and
coastal regions with sea level rise, Gina mentioned some of
them. And I will just add that, in addition to some of the
drinking water contamination that she mentioned, we may also
see that vector-borne illnesses, especially when there are
vectors like mosquitoes that thrive in standing water,
especially if it is warm, that can be an issue in some of our
coastal communities, as well as other water-borne illnesses
that are not vector borne can really start to plague
communities that never saw some of those illnesses before that
were not previously endemic regions for those illnesses and
that, therefore, may not be really equipped from a public
health perspective to handle it. So I think that is part of
what we need to think about when we talk about climate smart
planning for disasters in those coastal regions. We are talking
about infectious diseases, about drinking water, and then, of
course, also displacement, property damage and some of the
catastrophic events you described.
Mr. Levin. I am out of time. I greatly appreciate--Mr.
Rodriguez, you had one last comment.
Mr. Rodriguez. Just one quick point. I know Orange County
no longer is a big agricultural county like it used to be, but
what is happening in those counties that still provide
agricultural products like Ventura County and Monterey County,
Salinas Valley, the salad bowl of America, we have been
suffering a lot as a result of water intrusion and so forth.
And in Monterey County, saltwater intrusion there is eroding
the valley. That is one of the prime counties in America for
providing fruits and vegetables to Americans and to other
people across the world. And so we are in danger of really
losing these agricultural communities because of sea level rise
and water intrusions and so forth.
And thank you very much.
Mr. Levin. Thank you for that. Thank you for reminding us
all how many great things come from California.
And I will yield back.
Mr. Carter. Did he name both of them?
Mr. Levin. There is a lot more, buddy. There is a lot more.
Ms. Castor. All right. Mr. Carter, you are recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. Carter. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you
for holding this hearing.
Thank all of you for being here. We appreciate it very
much.
I have the honor and privilege of representing the First
Congressional District of Georgia, which includes the entire
coast of Georgia and a lot of rural area in south Georgia. As
we say quite often, there are two Georgias; there is Atlanta,
and then there is everywhere else. And I represent everywhere
else in rural Georgia. And I want to talk about--but before I
do talk about this, let me also mention--and this may come as
news to my colleagues up here--that Georgia is the number one
forestry State in the Nation. And I just want to make sure that
everybody understood that and knew that, and we are.
But, nevertheless, I want to talk about rural America
because I think it is extremely important. Mr. Rodriguez, would
you agree that the rural areas in our country have unique
challenges when it comes to creating solutions to climate
change, and it is essential that our rural areas have a voice
in this process?
Mr. Rodriguez. Well, definitely. I mean, as a result of the
climate change now, we have seen in your State in Georgia as
well as many other States across the country, the increase in
temperatures, especially during the harvest season times. And
just recently, within the last 2 years, we had a farm worker
die in your State as a result of exposure to heat illness. And
the temperatures have risen.
When we don't provide shade or provide drinking water or
supervisors and foremen and ranch managers are not adequately
trained on how to deal with these particular situations, we
have a really severe impact in terms of what is taking place
with agriculture and agricultural workers in those particular
communities. So, yes, it is definitely having an impact in
rural areas, in your State as well as many other States across
the country.
Mr. Carter. Let me ask you--and I will ask you, and then I
will ask Dr. Bole the same question--but should we be focusing
on making sure that our rural hospitals are resilient and that
they--especially to severe weather events because we have had
so many rural hospitals, particularly in Georgia, that have
closed and this creates a real challenge to our area?
So is it important that we concentrate on that as
legislators, Mr. Rodriguez, on our rural hospitals?
Mr. Rodriguez. You know, definitely we have to be--ensure
that the doctors, that the medical facilities, that they are
also very knowledgeable about heat exposure and the impact that
it has on workers, on the lives, and what that can do to folks.
And I know oftentimes we have not found that to be the case in
particular areas and so forth. Now I think people are becoming
much more--they are recognizing what this heat exposure does to
folks, and they are dealing with it in a much more meaningful
way in terms of avoiding further deaths of farm workers and
folks within rural communities.
Mr. Carter. Okay. Thank you.
Dr. Bole, what would you say in regards to our rural
hospitals? How important is it that we make them resilient and
that they are trained to deal with these severe weather events
and make sure that we have these safety net hospitals?
Dr. Bole. Thank you. Thank you for the question. We
certainly have rural hospitals in my region, though I practice
in Cleveland, northeast Ohio is home to many rural hospitals
and also many communities who are challenged for access to care
in rural regions. So, to answer your question, I do think it is
important that rural hospitals be part of the solution when it
comes to resilience to some of these extreme weather events.
When you talk about access, your comment about those hospitals
closing and some of those--impaired access for some of those
communities, I think that gets into a much broader issue that
may be out of scope for this particular group related to
healthcare reimbursement and some of the financial pressures on
those hospitals that are causing some of them to close. But
from the standpoint of resilience and preparedness and
training, as Mr. Rodriguez said, I concur that those points of
access are important.
Mr. Carter. Just a general question, even to you, Ms.
McCarthy, do you think that we are directing too much of our
resources to the urban areas and not enough to the rural areas?
Ms. McCarthy. I don't know if I have a good breakdown of
what that allocation might be, but I totally agree with you
that attention in rural communities is extremely important, and
I know this committee has been looking at some of those issues,
in particular, with hospitals and the fact that we have only
one program--and that is at the CDC--that really helps both
States and local communities to address hospitals and ensure
that they are resilient.
And so I would totally agree with you that we have to look
at those issues, and I have not seen a great commitment on the
part of this administration to do that, and it should be fully
funded. There should be activity looking at where access is
available, not just where the hospitals are resilient. There is
something called a hospital stress test that I know folks have
been talking about which is great. It is an opportunity to look
at what are we missing, what are we not thinking about, how do
we plan for those extreme weather events, how do we have our
supplies ready, and we have seen some of that work highlighted
in terms of its importance with the challenges that Puerto Rico
has faced, which actually shut down medical equipment that
impacted the entire country. And so I agree with you. This is a
big deal issue, and it should be resourced effectively.
Mr. Carter. Great. Thank you very much all of you.
And I yield back.
Ms. Castor. Mr. Huffman, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thanks to the
witnesses for a great conversation.
I want to continue a few of the threads that my friend, Mr.
Graves, started in his comments.
And, Director McCarthy, you are pretty familiar with the
Paris accord?
Ms. McCarthy. Yes.
Mr. Huffman. So, lest we just accept this notion that it
allows a net increase in emissions, I want to drill in a little
deeper because my understanding is that, while the United
States is committed to a reduction, developing countries,
although they will continue to increase emissions for a period
of time, it is a much lower increase and eventually will cap
and decline as well.
So I wanted to see if you agreed with the fairness of Mr.
Graves' characterization that the Paris accord calls for a net
increase in emissions relative to the status quo?
Ms. McCarthy. I think it is clear that we are looking for
every country to contribute. And China's commitment, and one of
the major parts of the commitment, was to cap its emissions
because it has numerous communities that it's trying to build
out of poverty, and they are looking at strategies now to do
that in a way that is reliant more on clean energy than it is
on coal. And so there is actually an accelerated process in
China to do even better than what they committed to about
capping their emissions.
And so one of the challenging things we have to look at
that wasn't mentioned is that the U.S. has been on a trajectory
up until 2018 of lowering its carbon emissions, and now we are
going----
Mr. Huffman. We are sliding back.
Ms. McCarthy. And so, at best, we can see maybe a 4-percent
reduction in the U.S. in 2050 when we have to be net zero.
Mr. Huffman. The bottom line, even China, under the Paris
accord, lower emissions than without the Paris accord, correct?
Ms. McCarthy. But it certainly doesn't help to have the
U.S., which is number two now, actually increasing our
emissions considerably and changing that trajectory that we
have been all hoping that would be on a much steeper downward
trend.
Mr. Graves. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Huffman. Well, if I have time at the end, I will. But
couldn't agree more. Now, on the notion that we only need to be
concerned about the emissions from fossil fuel. First of all,
with respect to these--we hear this a lot under the term
``innovation'' from some of our colleagues across the aisle. As
far as I know, every carbon capture project out there,
including the one in Houston that was referenced, is simply
taking the carbon captured from that particular emission source
and then putting it back in the ground to enhance oil recovery.
In other words, yes, you could say it is a net zero natural gas
plant in Houston; however, that carbon is being used to develop
more oil that is in turn burned without capture in various
ways. So that is not really net zero. Do I have anything wrong
with those facts?
Mr. Graves. Yes.
Mr. Huffman. My time for now, and I will see if I can get
to Mr. Graves.
Ms. McCarthy. Just very quickly. I know there is a lot of
new creative thinking about CCS, but the thing we are not
looking at is the fact that you extract the fossil fuels itself
is a decision point of emitting significant amounts of methane
volatile organic compounds. These are challenges for
communities both from a health perspective and a climate
perspective.
Mr. Huffman. So I will come back to that because it is more
than just the burning that causes the issues, but when we
capture carbon only to use it to develop more oil that is
burned without capture, that is not exactly a closed loop----
Ms. McCarthy. As far as I know, that is the only
financially viable way that anyone has come up with. So it
seems like you are robbing Peter to pay Paul.
Mr. Huffman. Yes. I agree. Now, also, I was just in Mr.
Graves' beautiful state of Louisiana, and he showed me some
amazing places. From the air, we got to see areas that were hit
very hard by the BP oil spill. And so I am immediately reminded
when we talk about emissions being the only aspect of the
public health problem with fossil fuels, well, there is also
that other type of catastrophe, the catastrophic oil spills,
which did hit, I think, a lot of struggling, low-income
disadvantaged communities very hard.
Mr. Graves lived through it. He showed me some of the
continuing legacy effects of that. And we also, you know, seems
like, every few weeks, there is an explosion in a refinery. You
have got entire communities that are located near these fossil
fuel facilities that live in fear of things going wrong. I have
never heard of a catastrophic wind or solar spill or a
catastrophic wind or solar refinery explosion. So let's just
push back for a minute on the notion that it is only the
emissions that cause the public health concerns. You are
welcome to comment on that as well.
Ms. McCarthy. Well, there is huge cost associated with
fossil fuel extraction and use and in products. So let's not
forget that plastics aren't going away in our ocean because
they are fossil fuel based. Let's not forget about the toxics
that are in our blood as a result of fossil fuels products
being in the products that we buy and consume. So there is a
lot of challenges here that we need to face, but the bright
spot is that fossil fuel energy is simply less attractive and
more expensive in many ways directly across the country now. So
we should celebrate that.
Mr. Huffman. And I am sorry, Mr. Graves, that I didn't have
time for a colloquy. I always enjoy them. Maybe the chair will
find some time for us to do that.
Ms. Castor. Thank you very much.
Mr. Palmer, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Palmer. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I will be happy to yield 30 seconds to my colleague, Mr.
Graves.
Mr. Graves. See how that works. Thank you. I want to thank
the gentleman from Alabama.
A few quick points. Number one, China being considered a
developing nation is completely laughable and any agreement
that includes that. They are spending not millions but
trillions of dollars in military activities and investment in
other countries. Absurd that anyone pretends to say, ``Oh, let
them go. They are a developing nation.'' Totally inappropriate.
I understand it is not your fault, but inappropriate.
Number two, other impacts of the oil spill. Look, this is
the point I make all the time: When we don't produce energy
domestically facts, facts have shown what happens is we import
it from other countries, which means you have a less--a higher
chance of spilling it. A higher chance of spilling it by
importing it from other countries. Statistics are crystal
clear----
Mr. Huffman. Will the gentleman yield for just a
clarification?
Mr. Graves. I would love to----
Mr. Huffman. Does that mean we only have two choices----
Mr. Graves. Renewables are not without impacts. Madam
Chair? Madam Chair, I did not yield.
Renewables are not without impacts. They are not without
impacts. It has been proven. They have environmental impacts as
well. You look at the manufacturing that they have stolen from
us in intellectual property. You look at the child labor that
is happening in China. These things are unbelievable in some
cases, and we cannot just say, ``Oh, look, it is wind; it is
okay.'' The bird blender thing and other impacts as well.
Lastly, yes, we did have an increase after a 15-year
decrease under Republican and Democratic administrations in
emissions. We cannot forget--none of us can--Republicans or
Democrats, we are the global leader in emissions reduction,
period. Stop sitting there saying we have got to take a 180.
What we need to be doing is looking and seeing how we have been
the global leader and build upon those successes. And, of
course, that does include renewables. It has got to. But we
have got to be thoughtful and make sure that we are making
fact-based decisions and not out there chasing unicorns.
Now, last year, yes, they went up. But you know what else
happened? We lifted people up out of poverty. We have the
lowest unemployment rate that we have had in decades. That is
exactly right. That is exactly right. I remember seeing you sit
down. Sorry we put that super glue in your chair, but, Madam
Chairman, this is a huge deal. We lifted people out of poverty,
and for 2020, we are going to be back to a net reduction. I
want to thank my friend from Alabama.
Mr. Palmer. The magic 30 seconds. I thank the gentleman.
I want to make a few points here that you talk about asthma
rates, and the fact is, is that we don't know what causes
asthma. The National Institute of Environmental Health, CDC,
makes clear we don't know what causes asthma. We know things
that exacerbate it, and a lot of that is related to emissions,
but the interesting thing is, since 1970s, since we have passed
the Clean Air Act, the economy has almost tripled. It has grown
by 295 percent, yet emissions have declined by 74 percent. And
that includes nitrogen dioxide, which is related to traffic
congestion, which is a factor in exacerbating asthma. And so
you come in here and you talk about these things that--as
though climate change or CO2 or something like that
is causing asthma. That is a misrepresentation.
In terms of Massachusetts, you know, your government in the
State of Massachusetts will not buy gas that is produced in the
Marcellus Shale Formation from Pennsylvania. You have got some
of the highest household energy costs in the country. You are
literally--and these are stats from Nationwide--well, 24
percent of the families are going without food for at least 1
day because they are having to choose between buying food or
paying their household energy costs, you know, keeping them
from freezing to death or burning up in the summertime; 37
percent went without medical or dental care; 34 percent did not
fill a prescription or took less than a full dose; additionally
23 percent kept their homes at a temperature that was unhealthy
or unsafe. And the interesting thing about Massachusetts--and
you come in here, and you want to talk to us about emissions--
you are buying gas from Russia, which is at best an adversary,
at worst an enemy, and it is 41 to 47 percent emissions are
dirtier than the natural gas you could buy right down the road
from Pennsylvania. That makes no sense whatsoever.
My last point in my last few seconds is when you talk about
extreme weather events, would you consider a 200-year drought
in California to be an extreme weather event? Anybody?
Mr. Rodriguez. The drought?
Mr. Palmer. Yeah, 200-year drought.
Mr. Rodriguez. It is having a very big impact on
agriculture.
Mr. Palmer. Now here is the thing. The climate is changing.
The geologic record shows the climate is changing. And if you
look at the history of drought in California in the last
thousand years around the 9th century, you had a drought that
began in the middle of the 9th century lasted 200 years. Then
you had a 50-year wet period, then you had another drought that
lasted 180 years. We are not preparing for the climate change
that is going to occur, and we are going to pay an enormous
price, the people of this country are going to pay an enormous
price if we keep chasing some of these issues that my
colleagues are so focused on and we don't prepare for what is
going to occur. And just study the science, study the geology,
and you will figure that out.
I yield back.
Ms. Castor. I am going to give the--there was a lot there,
Mr. Palmer. I am going to give the witnesses just a brief
opportunity to answer quickly.
Dr. Bole. Thank you. Thank you for the comments and for the
opportunity. I just would like to briefly clarify the points
about asthma. Number one, there is a lot of information about
what exacerbates childhood asthma, and I want to clarify that I
did not state that CO2 causes asthma. That is not true. That is
not what I stated. But we do know a lot about what exacerbates
asthma and that there are air pollutants that exacerbate asthma
that result from burning fossil fuels, in addition--both from
transportation and from power plants, but in addition, that
rising surface temperatures--so rising surface temperatures in
the context of climate change are resulting in alterations in
air quality itself when it comes to increased surface ozone and
increased aeroallergens that do have an impact on pediatric
asthma.
I also want to point out that asthma is only one common
pediatric condition. I used that as an example in my remarks,
but just want to clarify that those increased surface
temperatures are causing complex changes, as I mentioned some
examples earlier, that are also resulting in some pretty
important pediatric health issues. So I think we talk a lot
about asthma as we should because it is a very common pediatric
health condition, but there are a lot of other conditions that
I mention in my remarks, and I just want to clarify sort of
what is causing what.
And I don't know if, Ms. McCarthy, you want to clarify the
second point.
Ms. McCarthy. Yes. I just wanted to talk a little bit about
Massachusetts, which I know a little bit about. I just wanted
to point out I don't know where the data that you articulated
comes from, but I would love to see it because, in my
experience, Massachusetts has done a wonderful job and, in
fact, throughout the region to take a look at how we can rely
more heavily on renewable fuels and how that can help us keep
energy demand down and how we can have that build a healthier
future for ourselves.
Now, the regional greenhouse gas initiative is a program in
point. That started in 2009, and since then, it has created
45,000 job years of work. It has grown the region's economy by
$4.3 billion. It has provided public health benefits that are
worth $5.7 billion, and energy bill savings of $1 billion. It
has not caused individuals to have less money in their pockets;
it has provided more money in their pockets. But I totally
agree with you that no child should go hungry. We should figure
out a way to resolve those issues, but I don't think it is the
decision on energy in New England or Massachusetts that has
caused that to happen.
Ms. Castor. Thank you very much.
Now I am going to ask to take my 5 minutes. This has been
an interesting discussion.
Ms. McCarthy, you stated that climate change is the most
significant health challenge of our lifetimes, but I see it as
an enormous opportunity when it comes to the public health. We
are on the cusp of an exciting transition, for example, in
school buses that children will be riding electric, clean
school buses and the air that they breathe will be cleaner.
Dr. Bole, you also mentioned the impact of asthma, as Ms.
McCarthy did, if you live next to a highway. Think about the
transition in the energy sector as the vehicles we drive become
cleaner and greener and the air is improved for families across
this country, energy efficiency that will put money back into
the pockets of families.
Ms. McCarthy, what else do you see on the horizon as an
opportunity for America and for folks across the globe to
harness the clean energy transition?
Ms. McCarthy. Well, I am really excited. I realize that we
spend a lot of time talking about Federal action, and I think
this committee is going to be developing some policy
recommendations that will be great to see. But I am excited
about what is going on at the State and Federal level--at the
State and local levels. I am excited about renewable energy. I
am excited about ways in which we can invest in different types
of transportation, like work that is being advanced through the
transportation and climate initiative. I mean, these are multi-
state efforts where we are binding together and realizing that
it is the future and the health of our kids and that we can
have both. I am with you that it is an opportunity. We have
solutions available to us. They can be as simple as addressing
heat stress, not just for our farm workers, but in our inner
cities for the elderly. We can do more, and we must.
Ms. Castor. And, Mr. Rodriguez, God bless the farm workers
who provide the food that families enjoy every day, and thank
you for your work in California working with the agriculture
industry to make sure that farm workers have basic protections,
that they are not working outside without water and in the
highest of heat indexes.
So you have--they have adopted the standards in California,
was there any impact on agricultural productivity or the
economy there due to the adoption of heat standards in
California?
Mr. Rodriguez. No. In fact, we have seen the industry
continue to prosper, and we are all very happy about that. And
then we have seen some really innovative changes that some of
the agricultural employers have made. I know when we first
passed the regulations, there was tarps that were put out in
the fields where workers could go for shade, and there was
aluminum chairs set out. Now when you travel up and down
Highway 5 and Highway 99 and see the agricultural areas there,
you will oftentimes have trailers that are pulled out there
with roofs on tops, tables, and benches there so that the
workers can go there for not only to take a break but also go
eat their lunch there. And it is a huge change, and that was
primarily done by the industry itself.
So we are very excited about what has already taken place,
and we hope to see a lot more.
Ms. Castor. Well, I would hope that farm workers and folks
who work outside all across this country could enjoy the same
protections, and I look forward to this select committee's
recommendations to Congress to do just that.
Mr. Rodriguez. Thank you very much on that.
Ms. Castor. I would like to end, Dr. Bole, with you because
our work here at the select committee has really highlighted
our moral obligation that we have to our children and future
generations to make sure that they grow up in a livable world.
When the select committee makes its recommendations to the
Congress, it is going to have to be built upon a foundation of
environmental justice recognizing that our working class
communities and communities of color have really bared the
burden over the years of carbon pollution and fossil fuel
development. Will you reference, when it comes to kids, this
vulnerable group that we want to ensure that they have every
opportunity to succeed in life, why hasn't it been, in your
opinion, that it has been children of color, African American
children, Latino children, children from working class
communities that have borne the brunt of pollution? And what
should we have in the front of our minds as we develop these
recommendations for the Congress?
Dr. Bole. Thank you for the question. So a couple comments.
With respect to those communities of color, you know, when we
have sort of a not-in-my-backyard kind of a mindset around some
of these sources of pollution and some of the end results of
pollution or where do we put our highways or what kinds of
housing ends up near those highways, traditionally, politically
marginalized or less powerful groups oftentimes are the
recipient of those injustices. And so the first thing I would
say when it comes to solutions is that members of those
communities, we are seeing young people and leaders from
historically marginalized communities just really coming out as
strong, well-informed energetic leaders advocating for their
own communities. So I think having a seat at the table for
historically marginalized communities, their leaders, and their
youth is critically important, and I just want to also circle
back quickly to your opening comment about this being an
opportunity.
I absolutely agree, and I would really like to underscore
that climate solutions are child health solutions. They have an
impact on birth outcomes. If we are serious about infant
mortality, we need to get serious about climate action. They
have an impact on school readiness and neural development. We
talk about school readiness all the time. If we want kids whose
brains are growing in a healthy way and are ready for school,
we got to be serious about clean air, climate action, and
sustainable communities. Obesity, asthma, mental health issues,
a lot of the thorniest chronic conditions that we pediatricians
are dealing with when we see our patients, we know that climate
solutions are truly upstream preventive solutions that can make
a real difference on some of these intractable problems. So I
see it as an opportunity as well, especially for our most
vulnerable communities. So I thank you for framing it that way.
Ms. Castor. Well, thank you all. Your testimony has been
very helpful.
And, without objection, all members will have 10 business
days within which to submit additional written questions for
all of our witnesses.
I ask you all to respond as quickly as you possibly can.
And at this time, I will recognize the ranking member for a
UC request.
Mr. Graves. Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, the one
thing I said was inaccurate, just one, and I want to clarify
that I said that emissions went up in 2019; they actually went
up in 2018.
I want to ask unanimous consent that we submit for the
record a Rhodium Group report that shows that emissions
actually decreased in 2019 by 2.1 percent and that we had the
greatest reduction in emissions in the energy sector ever in
2019, which was a 10-percent reduction.
The report also shows that we have actually exceeded the
emissions targets set by the Clean Power Plan, which was 32
percent by 2030. We have actually hit 34 percent as of now,
which is remarkable.
Secondly, I want to submit a report indicating the price of
electricity per State showing that those States that are more
aggressive on climate have higher energy costs having a
disproportionate impact on the poor.
And, thirdly, and most importantly, Madam Chair, I want to
submit a report showing that it is actually the State of Maine
that has the highest percentage of forestry in the State.
Georgia is down near number nine, which is somewhere in
proximity of where their football team ended in the college
football rankings.
I yield back.
Ms. Castor. Well, we, unfortunately, did not get copies of
those reports. If you--so I am going to reserve ruling on that.
And, in turn, since we have heard a lot about emissions
today, I would like to point out that last week DOE's energy
information outlook projected the current policies will mean
that U.S. energy-related CO2 emissions, unfortunately, are
poised to grow in the future. To get to net zero carbon
pollution by at least 2050, as we have heard from scientists at
our second hearing and as made clear in the National Climate
Assessment and in the IPCC report, we need bold, Federal policy
action on climate solutions, and that is what this committee
intends to do.
So thank you. We will reserve ruling on these UC requests,
but I imagine we will take it up at our next hearing.
Thank you to the witnesses today.
We are adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 10:28 a.m., the committee was adjourned.]
Submissions for the Record
Representative Garret Graves
Select Committee on the Climate Crisis
February 5, 2020
ATTACHMENT: Preliminary US Emissions Estimates for 2019. Houser,
T., & Pitt, H. 2020, January 7.
The report is retained in the committee files and available at:
https://rhg.com/research/preliminary-us-emissions-2019/
ATTACHMENT: State Electricity Profiles. U.S. Energy Information
Administration. 2019, December 31.
The data is retained in the committee files and available at:
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/state/
United States House of Representatives
Select Committee on the Climate Crisis
Hearing on February 5, 2020
``Creating a Climate Resilient America:
Overcoming the Health Risks of the Climate Crisis''
Questions for the Record
The Honorable Gina McCarthy
President and Chief Executive Officer
Natural Resources Defense Council
the honorable kathy castor
1. The impact of extreme heat on a person's health is relatively
straight forward to understand. However, recent research has also found
that these extreme weather events like extreme heat can impair a
person's behavior and cognitive development. Can you explain more about
this research?
Extreme heat can exacerbate schizophrenia, suicidality, and other
serious conditions among people with existing mental health illnesses,
and affect cognitive abilities and sense of well-being among those
without.\1\ \2\ \3\ \4\ \5\ \6\ The stress of unhealthy heat and other
weather extremes has also been linked to impaired learning and behavior
disorders in children.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Yoonhee Kim et al., ``Suicide and Ambient Temperature: A Multi-
Country Multi-City Study,'' Environmental Health Perspectives 127, no.
11 (November 2019): 117007,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP4898.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Jamie T. Mullins and Corey White, ``Temperature and Mental
Health: Evidence from the Spectrum of Mental Health Outcomes,'' Journal
of Health Economics 68 (December 2019): 102240, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jhealeco.2019.102240.
\3\ Nai-Tzu Chen, Po-Hsiu Lin, and Yue-Liang Leon Guo, ``Long-Term
Exposure to High Temperature Associated with the Incidence of Major
Depressive Disorder,'' Science of The Total Environment 659 (April
2019): 1016-1020, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.12.434.
\4\ Rupa Basu et al., ``Examining the Association Between Apparent
Temperature and Mental Health-Related Emergency Room Visits in
California,'' American Journal of Epidemiology 187, no. 4 (April 1,
2018): 726-735, https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwx295.
\5\ Clemens Noelke et al., ``Increasing Ambient Temperature Reduces
Emotional Well-Being,'' Environmental Research 151 (November 2016):
124-129,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envres.2016.06.045.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Jose Guillermo Cedeno Laurent et al., ``Reduced Cognitive
Function during a Heat Wave among Residents of Non-Air-Conditioned
Buildings: An Observational Study of Young Adults in the Summer of
2016,'' ed. Jonathan Alan Patz, PLOS Medicine 15, no. 7 (July 10,
2018): e1002605, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002605.
\7\ Frederica P Perera, ``Multiple Threats to Child Health from
Fossil Fuel Combustion: Impacts of Air Pollution and Climate Change,''
Environmental Health Perspectives 125, no. 2 (2017): 141-148.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The mechanisms by which extreme heat harms mental health and
cognitive function are not well understood. One possibility is that
high temperatures affect how different parts of the brain ``talk'' to
each other.\8\ For example, exposure to extreme heat may affect
serotonin function, leading to increases in violence, impulsive
behavior, or aggression.\9\ \10\ Another possibility is that hotter
nighttime temperatures reduce sleep quality and quantity.\11\ \12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Mare Lohmus, ``Possible Biological Mechanisms Linking Mental
Health and Heat--A Contemplative Review,'' International Journal of
Environmental Research and Public Health 15, no. 7 (July 18, 2018):
1515, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph15071515.
\9\ Yoonhee Kim et al. ``Suicide and Ambient Temperature: A Multi-
Country Multi-City Study.'' Environmental Health Perspectives 127, no.
11 (November 2019): 117007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP4898.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Ryan Harp and Kristopher Karnauskas, ``Global Warming to
Increase Violent Crime in the United States,'' Environmental Research
Letters, January 14, 2020, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab6b37.
\11\ Nick Obradovich et al., ``Nighttime Temperature and Human
Sleep Loss in a Changing Climate,'' Science Advances 3, no. 5 (May
2017): e1601555, https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1601555.
\12\ Mullins, Jamie T., and Corey White. 2019. ``Temperature and
Mental Health: Evidence from the Spectrum of Mental Health Outcomes.''
Journal of Health Economics 68 (December): 102240. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jhealeco.2019.102240.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The disturbing evidence gathered so far on the link between heat
and brain health points to the need for more research in this area.
Further, climate and health adaptation plans should have a greater
focus on mental health and cognitive functioning.
2. In your testimony, you cite figures that could compromise our
military's readiness posture. From 2014 to 2018, the rate of heat
stroke among active duty members increased 73 percent and the rate of
heat exhaustion increased nearly 53 percent. What are the national
security implications if these figures increase?
The Department of Defense (DOD) has reported that extreme heat is
already affecting troop readiness.\13\ This is particularly true in the
Middle East and the U.S. Southwest and Southeast, where extreme heat
has interfered with training and testing operations.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and
Sustainment, ``Report on Effects of a Changing Climate to the
Department of Defense'' (Department of Defense, January 2019), https://
media.defense.gov/2019/Jan/29/2002084200/-1/-1/1/CLIMATE-CHANGE-REPORT-
2019.PDF.
\14\ Government Accountability Office, ``Climate Change Adaptation:
DOD Needs to Better Incorporate Adaptation into Planning and
Collaboration at Overseas Installations,'' November 2017, https://
www.gao.gov/assets/690/688323.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Extreme heat and drought can also damage roads and infrastructure
at military bases, reduce the effectiveness of computer servers, cause
water shortages, increase energy use, and increase social and political
instability in some regions.\15\ \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Ibid.
\16\ Kate A. Guy et al., ``A Security Threat Assessment of Global
Climate Change: How Likely Warming Scenarios Indicate a Catastrophic
Security Future'' (Security, Military, and Intelligence Panel on
Climate Change, The Center for Climate and Security, February 2020),
https://climateandsecurity . files . wordpress . com / 2020 / 02 / a -
security - threat - assessment - of - global-climate-
change_nsmip_2020_2.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thanks to the U.S. military's aggressive approach to identifying
and treating heat-related illnesses, the death rate from extreme heat
among service members has been relatively low in recent years.\17\
However, the Government Accountability Office found in June 2019 that
``DOD installations have not consistently assessed risks from extreme
weather and climate change effects.''\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Benjamin P. Donham et al., ``Low Incidence of Death and Renal
Failure in United States Military Service Members Hospitalized with
Exertional Heat Stroke: A Retrospective Cohort Study,'' Military
Medicine 185, no. Supplement--1 (January 7, 2020): 362-367,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://doi.org/10.1093/milmed/usz214.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Government Accountability Office, ``Climate Resilience: DOD
Needs to Assess Risk and Provide Guidance on Use of Climate Projections
in Installation Master Plans and Facilities Designs,'' June 2019,
https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-19-453.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The DOD needs to more ambitiously plan for and implement measures
to both protect the health of service members and maintain our national
security in the face of climate disruption.
3. Our health care sector is of the utmost importance to prepare
for and respond to disasters. The health sector must become climate
resilient. What are some actions that Congress can take to make this
critical health infrastructure climate-resilient?
Climate change imposes huge cost burdens on the U.S. healthcare
system by increasing illnesses and deaths, inflicting major damage on
hospitals and other healthcare facilities, and creating extended
disruptions in operations.\19\ \20\ For example, the NYU Langone
Medical Center suffered nearly $1 billion in damages after Hurricane
Sandy in 2012, and was unable to provide emergency room services for a
year and a half after the storm.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ Vijay S. Limaye et al., ``Estimating the Health-Related Costs
of 10 Climate-Sensitive U.S. Events During 2012,'' GeoHealth 3, no. 9
(September 2019): 245-265,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GH000202.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Health Care Without Harm, ``Safe Haven in the Storm:
Protecting Lives and Margins with Climate-Smart Health Care,'' 2018,
https://noharm-uscanada.org/safehaven.
\21\ Nate Seltenrich, ``Safe from the Storm: Creating Climate-
Resilient Health Care Facilities,'' Environmental Health Perspectives
126, no. 10 (October 2018): 102001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://doi.org/10.1289/EHP3810.
Despite progress in the wake of Hurricane Katrina and other major
events, a recent review by Johns Hopkins' Bloomberg School of Public
Health found significant room for improvement in the healthcare
sector's resilience to large-scale natural disasters.\22\ Improvement
is hampered by the current piecemeal approach to federal regulation of
hospitals and other facilities, recent declines in funding for
emergency preparedness in hospitals, and the complicated
interdependence between privately-owned facilities and public
infrastructure such as roads and electric utilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Eric Toner et al., A Framework for Healthcare Disaster
Resilience: A View to the Future, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of
Public Health Center for Health Security, 2018,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/our-work/pubs_archive/pubs-pdfs/
2018/180222-framework-healthcare-disaster-resilience.pdf.
Congress should:
Increase funding for the Hospital Preparedness
Program, which fell from $500 million in 2004 to $254.5 million
in 2019.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Steven Ross Johnson, ``Federal Hospital Preparedness Funding
Weaker as Requirements Tighten,'' Modern Healthcare, August 20, 2019,
www.modernhealthcare.com/government/federal-hospital-preparedness-
funding-weaker-requirements-tighten.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ensure healthcare practitioners have ready access to
reliable climate risk data and the technical support they need
to make decisions. For instance, nearly a third of the 16
Harris County hospitals that flooded during Hurricane Harvey
were outside the flood hazard areas designated by the Federal
Emergency Management Administration, and half were outside the
hurricane's projected inundation boundary.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Emmanuelle Hines and Colleen E. Reid, ``Hurricane Harvey
Hospital Flood Impacts: Accuracy of Federal Emergency Management Agency
Flood Hazard Areas in Harris County, Texas,'' American Journal of
Public Health, February 20, 2020, e1-6,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2019.305520.
Condition federal funding for hospitals and other
healthcare facilities on climate vulnerability assessments and
adaptation plans, using documented application of the
Sustainable and Climate Resilient Health Care Facilities
Toolkit as a minimum requirement.\25\ These assessments and
plans should account for both acute hazards such as wildfires,
and more gradual climate hazards such as sea level rise and
increases in average temperature.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ U.S. Climate Resilience Toolkit,
``Building Health Care Sector Resilience,'' modified November 22, 2016,
https://toolkit.climate.gov/topics/human-health/building-climate-
resilience-health-sector.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Invest in modernization of our electric grid and
transportation and drinking water systems, which are all vital
to the overall climate resilience of hospitals.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ NRDC, ``Invest in 21st Century Infrastructure,'' 2020, https:/
/www.nrdc.org/issues/invest-21st-century-infrastructure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Questions for the Record
Aparna Bole, MD, FAAP
Chair, AAP Council on Environmental Health
American Academy of Pediatrics
the honorable kathy castor
1. Could you please elaborate on how climate change contributes to
the exacerbation of asthma, including both the direct contributions of
fossil fuel-related emissions as well as the changing climate itself?
Climate change contributes to asthma exacerbation by multiple
mechanisms. Higher concentrations of carbon dioxide and warmer
temperatures lead to increased pollen counts, longer allergy seasons,
and elevated ground-level ozone that makes it harder to breathe,
especially for those with underlying lung disease.\i\ In some areas of
the United States, increased temperatures and changing precipitation
patterns are contributing to longer and more intense wildfire seasons,
which produces harmful particulate pollution that has been associated
with increased severity of asthma exacerbations for children.\ii\ All
of these factors exacerbate respiratory disease and asthma, leading to
higher rates of asthma exacerbations.\iii\ \iv\ In general, children
have increased exposure to many air pollutants compared with adults
because of higher minute ventilation and relative time spent outdoors
and thus are at increased risk of poor outcomes related to air
pollution.\v\ \vi\ In addition, because children's lungs are still
developing, they are at increased risk of long-term harm from exposure
to air pollution.
Fossil fuel combustion also directly contributes to worsening air
quality through the release of harmful pollutants such as nitrogen
dioxide, sulfur dioxide, ozone, and particulate matter, which have been
linked to premature death, asthma exacerbations, and other respiratory
symptoms that are most likely to affect children. In addition to
contributing to climate change, these emissions have a direct influence
on child health and have been associated with increased health care
utilization and missed school days.\vii\ The interaction of emissions
from fossil fuel combustion and climate change-related temperature
elevations poses an increased risk for anyone with underlying lung
disease such as asthma. This presents difficult decisions for children,
families, and physicians who must balance the importance of physical
activity such as outdoor sports practice with the increasing risk of
dangerous asthma exacerbations on high ozone days.
2. Can you explain the ways in which reducing carbon pollution also
generates additional health benefits through promoting reductions in
other harmful pollutants impacting children?
While climate change disproportionately impacts child health,
reducing carbon pollution also presents an enormous opportunity to
improve child health by maximizing the co-benefits of carbon pollution
reduction. Reducing emissions of hazardous traditional air pollutants
such as particulate matter, sulfur oxides, and air toxics along with
carbon dioxide can yield greater health outcomes for children. In
addition to asthma exacerbations, child exposure to hazardous air
pollutants can cause neurologic deficits, respiratory tract illness,
and decreased lung function,\viii\ \ix\ leading to downstream effects
including increased school absences, emergency department visits, and
hospitalizations.\x\ \xi\ \xii\ Studies have also found associations
between ambient air pollution and postneonatal infant mortality,\xiii\
\xiv\ low birth weight,\xv\ \xvi\ \xvii\ \xviii\ and preterm
birth.\xix\ \xx\ \xxi\ \xxii\ Reducing these pollutants under the Clean
Power Plan would have prevented up to 6,600 premature deaths. In
addition, it would have resulted in 3,700 fewer cases of child
bronchitis, up to 150,000 fewer asthma exacerbations in children, and
180,000 fewer missed school days in the year 2030.\xxiii\ Reducing
fossil fuel combustion can improve children's health and development
over their entire life course.
Future decarbonization efforts should prioritize this potential for
drastic improvements in child health outcomes through leveraged
reductions of multiple pollutants within efforts to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions. It is crucial to transition from clean, renewable energy
sources such as wind, solar, and hydropower while improving energy
affordability for consumers. Utility insecurity is a patient health
issue that can force families to make impossible decisions between
heating their house, putting food on the table, and accessing health
care. The families and communities most impacted by utility insecurity
are also likely to bear a disproportionate burden of the health harms
of fossil fuel combustion. The good news is, we know that we can
effectively address climate change while also addressing utility
insecurity. As the U.S. makes the necessary transition from energy
sources that contribute to climate change and poor health outcomes,
policymakers should consider ways to increase access to affordable
energy to maximize the health benefits of reducing carbon pollution.
Addressing utility insecurity should include improving home energy
efficiency and supporting local renewable energy generation to support
community health and sustainable energy security. Beyond the energy
sector, reducing the carbon footprint of other sectors of the U.S.
economy can yield important child health co-benefits, such as increased
active transportation, healthier plant-based diets, and access to green
spaces. Urban planning efforts that reduce sources of air pollution and
create mitigation strategies like green spaces also have the co-benefit
of community design that ensures safe places to walk and play, greater
social cohesion, and the mental and physical health benefits of access
to nature. These policies bring important child health co-benefits and
present a tremendous opportunity to improve child health while reducing
carbon pollution.
references
\i\ American Lung Association. Health Risks of Climate Change for
People with Lung Disease.
https://www.lung.org/getmedia/cfe2481d-1478-4cea-8a77-1ac3eb112e71/
what-you-should-know-ways.pdf. Accessed March 3, 2020.
\ii\ Slaughter JC, Lumley T, Sheppard L, Koenig JQ, Shapiro, GG.
Effects of ambient air pollution on symptom severity and medication use
in children with asthma. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 2003; 91:346-353.
\iii\ White MC, Etzel RA, Wilcox WD, Lloyd C. Exacerbations of
childhood asthma and ozone pollution in Atlanta. Environ Res. 1994;
65:56-68.
\iv\ Ahdoot S, Pacheco SE, American Academy of Pediatrics Council
on Environmental Health. Global climate change and children's health.
Pediatrics. 2015;136:e1468-e1484. Available at: www.pediatrics.org/cgi/
doi/10.1542/peds.2015-3233.
\v\ Sheffield PE, Knowlton K, Carr JL, Kinney PL. Modeling regional
climate change effects on ground-level ozone and childhood asthma. Am J
Prev Med. 2011; 41:251-257.
\vi\ Matsui, EC, Abramson, SL, Sandel, MT. Indoor environmental
control practices and asthma management. Pediatrics. 2016;138.
Available at:
https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/138/5/e20162589.
\vii\ American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Environmental
Health. Ambient air pollution: Health hazards to children. Pediatrics.
2004; 114:1699-170.
\viii\ American Thoracic Society, Committee of the Environmental
and Occupational Health Assembly. Health effects of outdoor air
pollution. Part 1. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1996; 153:3-50.
\ix\ American Thoracic Society, Committee of the Environmental and
Occupational Health Assembly. Health effects of outdoor air pollution.
Part 2. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1996; 153:477-498.
\x\ Thurston GD, Ito K, Hayes CG, Bates DV, Lippmann M. Respiratory
hospital admissions and summertime haze air pollution in Toronto,
Ontario: consideration of the role of acid aerosols. Environ Res. 1994;
65:271-290.
\xi\ Tolbert PE, Mulholland JA, MacIntosh DL, et al. Air quality
and pediatric emergency room visits for asthma in Atlanta, Georgia,
USA. Am J Epidemiol. 2000; 151:798-810.
\xii\ Gilliland FD, Berhane K, Rappaport EB, et al. The effects of
ambient air pollution on school absenteeism due to respiratory
illnesses. Epidemiology. 2001; 12:43-54.
\xiii\ Woodruff TJ, Grillo J, Schoendorf KC. The relationship
between selected causes of postneonatal infant mortality and
particulate air pollution in the United States. Environ Health
Perspect. 1997; 105:608-612.
\xiv\ Bobak M, Leon DA. The effect of air pollution on infant
mortality appears specific for respiratory causes in the postneonatal
period. Epidemiology. 1999; 10:666-670.
\xv\ Ritz B, Yu F. The effect of ambient carbon monoxide on low
birth weight among children born in southern California between 1989
and 1993. Environ Health Perspect. 1999; 107:17-25.
\xvi\ Bobak M. Outdoor air pollution, low birth weight, and
prematurity. Environ Health Perspect. 2000; 108:173-176.
\xvii\ Dejmek J, Solansky I, Benes I, Lenicek J, Sram RJ. The
impact of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and fine particles on
pregnancy outcome. Environ Health Perspect. 2000; 108:1159-1164.
\xviii\ Wang X, Ding H, Ryan L, Xu X. Association between air
pollution and low birth weight: a community-based study. Environ Health
Perspect. 1997; 105:514-520.
\xix\ Bobak M. Outdoor air pollution, low birth weight, and
prematurity. Environ Health Perspect. 2000; 108:173-176.
\xx\ Ritz B, Yu F, Chapa G, Fruin S. Effect of air pollution on
preterm birth among children born in Southern California between 1989
and 1993. Epidemiology. 2000; 11:502-511.
\xxi\ Ha EH, Hong YC, Lee BE, Woo BH, Schwartz J, Christiani DC. Is
air pollution a risk factor for low birth weight in Seoul?
Epidemiology. 2001; 12:643-648.
\xxii\ Xu X, Ding H, Wang X. Acute effects of total suspended
particles and sulfur dioxides on preterm delivery: a community-based
cohort study. Arch Environ Health. 1995; 50:407-415.
\xxiii\ U.S. EPA. Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Clean Power
Plan Final Rule. https://www3.epa.gov / ttnecas1 / docs / ria /
utilities _ ria _ final - clean - power - plan - existing-units_2015-
08.pdf. Updated October 23, 2015. Accessed November 5, 2019.
Questions for the Record
Arturo S. Rodriguez
President Emeritus
United Farm Workers, UFW Foundation
the honorable kathy castor
1. In your testimony before the committee you mentioned some of the
risks that farmworkers face from the impacts of climate change. What is
the age distribution of these farmworkers and how does their age impact
the risks that they face?
Overall, there are approximately 2.4 million \i\ farm workers
across the country, including hundreds of thousands of minors, ranging
in number from 300,000 \ii\ to 500,000.\iii\ In terms of family
structure, the majority of farm workers surveyed (55 percent) reported
having minors in their household. In fact, although nationally-based
surveys of farm workers \iv\ don't include children under the age of
fourteen, in farmworker families, it is common for children to begin
work alongside their parents at ages as young as 12.\v\
Farmworkers are also relatively young, with two-thirds of the
population (67%) under the age of 44:
14-19 years old (7%)
20-24 years old (11%)
25-34 years old (26%)
35-44 years old (23%)
45-54 years old (19%)
55-64 years old (11%)
65 years or older (4%)
Outdoor workers, children, adults over the age of 65, and low-
income communities are among the most vulnerable to extreme heat.\vi\
For years, farmworker families have been on the frontlines of exposure
to extreme heat and pesticides, a reality that we've underscored at the
state and national level, and via Congressional testimony before the
Energy and Commerce Committee,\vii\ the Education and Labor
Committee,\viii\ and most recently, the Select Committee on the Climate
Crisis.\ix\
2. What are some of the challenges that farmworkers and rural
communities face in protecting themselves from the impacts of climate
change? Are the challenges unique to rural areas?
Roughly half of farmworkers are undocumented, most face language
barriers and lack access to health care and employment benefits. On the
economic front, farmworkers have a mean and median income that ranges
from $17,500 to $19,999 for personal income, and from $20,000 to
$24,999 for family income.\x\ These factors limit the ability of
farmworkers to be adequately informed about occupational and
environmental hazards, to speak out in the workplace or have access to
timely medical attention when illness or injury strikes. Limited income
also affects the affordability of housing and air conditioning that can
provide refuge from extreme temperatures.
When it comes to pesticide exposure, every year, over 1.1 billion
pesticides are applied in the United States. Climate change is expected
to result in increased pesticide use. Farmworker women work while
pregnant. Most farmworkers have minors in their households and that
there are hundreds of thousands of minors who work in agriculture. When
you consider that, there are serious health implications for all
farmworkers but in particular, for farmworker children whose bodies and
brains are still developing and could face irreparable harm and reduced
IQs through prenatal, on the job, and take-home exposures to neurotoxic
organophosphate pesticides.\xi\ Salinas, CA is one of the leading
agricultural regions in the country and UC Berkeley's Center for the
Health Assessment of Mothers and Children of Salinas (CHAMACOS) Study
has been instrumental in shedding light on pesticide exposures among
farmworker children.\xii\
Indeed, some of these challenges are unique to rural and
agricultural areas. Compared to urban areas, rural areas have higher
concentrations of people that live in poverty and are more likely to
have limited access to medical services and housing with air
conditioning. And compared to urban areas, agricultural areas face
greater exposure to pesticides.
As such, we urge members of Congress to consider the unique
vulnerability of the agricultural workforce (both young and old) to
climate change, the additional occupational and environmental hazards
that farmworkers will face from the combined threat of rising
temperatures and increased exposure to pesticides, and the national
safeguards that will be needed to protect the people that feed us. In
part, this will mean a national heat illness and fatality prevention
standard, additional resources to rural and agricultural communities,
as well as cancelling the registrations of toxic pesticides and a shift
to alternatives that don't threaten the health and development of
children in agricultural communities, and across the country.
3. During your testimony you mentioned that farmworkers are on the
frontlines of rising heat, wildfires and pesticide exposure. How does
air pollution impact farmworker families and rural communities?
In addition to rising heat, wildfires and pesticide exposure,
farmworkers are also on the frontlines of exposure to unhealthy air.
The UFW Foundation and the United Farm Workers union serve communities
located in the leading agricultural regions in the country and in
states that are home to the largest number of farmworkers in the
country, including California, Washington, Oregon and Arizona. Based on
the 2017 Census of Agriculture, when it comes to farmworkers California
(377,593), Washington (228,588), Oregon (86,240), and Arizona (24,648)
rank first, second, fourth and thirty-first in the nation,
respectively.\xiii\
In addition to being home to largest number of farmworkers, all of
these states are also home to some of the most polluted cities in the
nation for ground-level ozone (``smog''), year round particle
pollution, and short-term particle pollution, according to the American
Lung Association.\xiv\
Constant exposure to air pollution threatens the health, life
expectancy and quality of life farmworker families and rural
communities. While ozone pollution harms the lungs, particle pollution
increases the risk of lung cancer, shortened life-expectancy,
respiratory and cardiovascular problems.\xv\ When it comes to air
pollution, the subpopulations that face a greater risk are both
children and the elderly, as well those that are low-income and/or
suffer from asthma, lung disease, cardiovascular disease or
diabetes.\xvi\ We recognize that rising temperatures and extreme heat,
facilitate the creation of ground-level ozone and the risk that air
pollution causes to human health.
Furthermore, droughts facilitate the environment that is conducive
to Valley Fever, a potentially deadly infection caused by a soil-borne
fungus that thrives in dry soil. The Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention shares that tens of thousands of cases of Valley Fever are
likely to occur, many will go misdiagnosed because its symptoms can be
confused with the flu and many patients aren't tested for the disease.
The numbers indicate that new cases of this harmful fungal disease are
concentrated in the San Joaquin Valley, a leading agricultural region
in the country where most of California's farmworkers are located.
Experts warn that climate change will expand the areas in the country
that will be affected by Valley Fever.\xvii\
Consistent exposure to rising temperatures, ground-level ozone,
particle pollution, pesticides, and the soil-borne fungus that thrives
in droughts underscores the importance of protecting farmworkers and
agricultural communities from climate change.
references page
\i\ https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2017/
#Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_2_
US_State_Level/st99_2_0007_0007.pdf.
\ii\ https://afop.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Children-in-the-
Fields-Report-2007.pdf.
\iii\ https://www.hrw.org/news/2010/05/05/us-child-farmworkers-
dangerous-lives.
\iv\ https://wdr.doleta.gov/research/FullText_Documents/ETAOP_2019-
01_NAWS_Research_Report_13.pdf.
\v\ ibid.
\vi\ https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2019/07/
killer-heat-analysis-full-report.pdf.
\vii\ https://energycommerce.house.gov/sites/
democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/files/documents/
Giev%20Kashkooli%20TestimonyPESTICIDES031319.pdf.
\viii\ https://edlabor.house.gov/imo/media/doc/
A_RodriguezTestimony0711192.pdf.
\ix\ https://docs.house.gov/meetings/CN/CN00/20200205/110433/HHRG-
116-CN00-Wstate-RodriguezA-20200205.pdf.
\x\ https://wdr.doleta.gov/research/FullText_Documents/ETAOP_2019-
01_NAWS_Research_Report_13.pdf.
\xi\ https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/warning-signs-how-
pesticides-harm-young-brain/.
\xii\ https://cerch.berkeley.edu/research-programs/chamacos-study.
\xiii\ https://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/AgCensus/2017/
#Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_2_
US_State_Level/st99_2_0007_0007.pdf.
\xiv\ http://www.stateoftheair.org/city-rankings/most-polluted-
cities.html.
\xv\ http://www.stateoftheair.org/air-quality-facts/.
\xvi\ http://www.stateoftheair.org/key-findings/people-at-
risk.html.
\xvii\ https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/potentially-deadly-
valley-fever-hitting-california-farmworkers-hard-worrying-researchers-
n1017806.