[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
AMPLIFYING THE ARCTIC:
STRENGTHENING SCIENCE TO RESPOND
TO A RAPIDLY CHANGING ARCTIC
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE,
AND TECHNOLOGY
OF THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
SEPTEMBER 20, 2022
__________
Serial No. 117-68
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
48-528 PDF WASHINGTON : 2023
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman
ZOE LOFGREN, California FRANK LUCAS, Oklahoma,
SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon Ranking Member
AMI BERA, California MO BROOKS, Alabama
HALEY STEVENS, Michigan, BILL POSEY, Florida
Vice Chair RANDY WEBER, Texas
MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey BRIAN BABIN, Texas
JAMAAL BOWMAN, New York ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio
MELANIE A. STANSBURY, New Mexico MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida
BRAD SHERMAN, California JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana
ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida
JERRY McNERNEY, California MIKE GARCIA, California
PAUL TONKO, New York STEPHANIE I. BICE, Oklahoma
BILL FOSTER, Illinois YOUNG KIM, California
DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey RANDY FEENSTRA, Iowa
DON BEYER, Virginia JAKE LaTURNER, Kansas
SEAN CASTEN, Illinois CARLOS A. GIMENEZ, Florida
CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania JAY OBERNOLTE, California
DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina PETER MEIJER, Michigan
GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin JAKE ELLZEY, TEXAS
DAN KILDEE, Michigan MIKE CAREY, OHIO
SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
C O N T E N T S
September 20, 2022
Page
Hearing Charter.................................................. 2
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Chairwoman,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 9
Written Statement............................................ 10
Statement by Representative Frank Lucas, Ranking Member,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 10
Written Statement............................................ 11
Witnesses:
Dr. Larry Hinzman, Assistant Director of Polar Sciences, Office
of Science and Technology Policy and Executive Director,
Interagency Arctic Research and Policy Committee
Oral Statement............................................... 13
Written Statement............................................ 16
Dr. Mike Sfraga, Chair, U.S. Arctic Research Commission
Oral Statement............................................... 24
Written Statement............................................ 26
Ms. Vera Kingeekuk Metcalf, Executive Director, Eskimo Walrus
Commission
Oral Statement............................................... 36
Written Statement............................................ 38
Dr. Susan Natali, Arctic Program Director, Woodwell Climate
Research Center
Oral Statement............................................... 47
Written Statement............................................ 49
Discussion....................................................... 61
Appendix: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Dr. Larry Hinzman, Assistant Director of Polar Sciences, Office
of Science and Technology Policy and Executive Director,
Interagency Arctic Research and Policy Committee............... 88
Dr. Mike Sfraga, Chair, U.S. Arctic Research Commission.......... 90
Ms. Vera Kingeekuk Metcalf, Executive Director, Eskimo Walrus
Commission..................................................... 91
AMPLIFYING THE ARCTIC:
STRENGTHENING SCIENCE TO RESPOND
TO A RAPIDLY CHANGING ARCTIC
----------
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 2022
House of Representatives,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:01 a.m., in
room 2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Eddie
Bernice Johnson [Chairwoman of the Committee] presiding.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Johnson. This hearing will come to order. And
without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recess at
any time.
Before I deliver my opening remarks, I wanted to note that,
today, the Committee is meeting both in person and virtually. I
want to announce a couple of reminders to the Members about the
conduct of this hearing. First, Members and staff are--
attending in person may choose to be masked, but it is not a
requirement. However, any individuals with symptoms, a positive
test, or exposure to someone with COVID-19 should wear a mask
while present.
Members who are attending virtually should keep their video
feed on as long as they are present in the hearing. Members are
responsible for their own microphones, so please keep your
microphones muted until you are speaking.
Finally, if Members have documents they wish to submit for
the record, please email them to the Committee Clerk, whose
email address was circulated prior to the meeting.
Good morning, and welcome to our witnesses. The Arctic,
sometimes referred to as the land of the midnight sun or the
top of the world, evokes images of the Northern Lights, the
running of the iconic Iditarod dogsled race, and of course
polar bears. We don't imagine increasing toxic algae blooms on
Alaska's seafloor or increasing burn areas of boreal forest
fires, nor do we picture the sinking homes and impassable roads
caused by thawing of the once-frozen ground they built upon.
But these are the realities faced by the 4 million people
living in the Arctic. These realities became even more dire
over the weekend as western Alaska faced the strongest
September storm seen in 70 years. The storm caused a record
storm surge of nearly 9 feet in some areas, flooding, and
buildings to be swept off of their foundation. Environmental
changes have had many social, cultural, and economic impacts,
including on the food security of many local communities.
The Arctic is warming faster than any other part of the
globe. Some changes are seen in a matter of years, not decades.
Now more than ever it is becoming clearer that what happens in
the Arctic has both local and global impacts. People in my home
State of Texas experienced a historic winter storm in February
of 2021 that left many without running water, power, or heat
for days. Researchers have linked this storm to Western
wildfires and other extreme weather events in the lower 48
States to warming of the Arctic.
Support of robust, coordinated Arctic research and science
is critical. I applaud the interagency effort and work of
experts to develop the 2022 to 2026 Arctic Research Plan. I
look forward to hearing how the plan will lay the foundation
for our priorities for the next 5 years. The changes in the
Arctic are happening today, and we must be agile and strategic
in our response. This starts with working meaningfully with
local and indigenous communities of Alaska and the Arctic who
know their needs the most.
Efforts have been made to bridge Indigenous Knowledge (IK)
and Western science, but more needs to be done to elevate co-
production of knowledge in the research enterprise. Research
opportunities such as field research and expedition are a
highlight for many scientists who study the Arctic.
Unfortunately, the feeling is not always mutual among local
communities. We must find ways to build better relationships if
the research is to be as productive as possible.
In addition to expanding participation in Arctic research,
we must also strengthen and increase our Arctic science
capabilities, including research vessels, infrastructure, and
facilities, which are constrained. If we are to continue our
leadership in Arctic science, what additional capabilities are
necessary? Likewise, what are our plans to support more robust
monitoring, observing, modeling, and prediction that will help
us better understand changes in the Arctic?
Well, we have a lot to address at this morning's hearing,
and I again want to thank our witnesses for being here.
[The prepared statement of Chairwoman Johnson follows:]
Good morning and welcome to our witnesses.
The Arctic, sometimes referred to as the Land of the
Midnight Sun or the Top of the World, evokes images of the
northern lights, the running of the iconic Iditarod dog sled
race, and of course, polar bears. We don't imagine the
increasing toxic algal blooms on Alaska's sea floor or
increasing burn areas of boreal forest fires. Nor do we picture
the sinking homes and impassable roads caused by thawing of the
once frozen ground they are built upon. But these are the
realities faced by the 4 million people living in the Arctic.
These realities became even more dire over the weekend as
western Alaska faced the strongest September storm seen in 70
years. The storm caused record storm surge of nearly 9 feet in
some areas, flooding, and buildings to be swept off their
foundations. Environmental changes have many social, cultural,
and economic impacts, including on the food security of many
local communities.
The Arctic is warming faster than any other part of the
globe. Some changes are seen in a matter of years, not decades.
Now, more than ever it is becoming clearer that what happens in
the Arctic has both local and global impacts. People in my home
state of Texas experienced a historic winter storm in February
of 2021 that left many without running water, power, or heat
for days. Researchers have linked this storm, western
wildfires, and other extreme weather events in the lower 48
states to warming in the Arctic.
Support of robust, coordinated Arctic research and science
is critical. I applaud the interagency effort and work of
experts to develop the 2022-2026 Arctic research plan. I look
forward to hearing how the plan will lay the foundation for our
priorities for the next five years. The changes in the Arctic
are happening today and we must be agile and strategic in our
response. This starts with working meaningfully with local and
Indigenous communities of Alaska and the Arctic who know their
needs the most.
Efforts have been made to bridge Indigenous knowledge and
western science, but more needs to be done to elevate co-
production of knowledge in the research enterprise. Research
opportunities such as field research and expeditions are a
highlight for many scientists who study the Arctic.
Unfortunately, the feeling is not always mutual amongst local
communities. We must find ways to build better relationships if
the research is to be as productive as possible.
In addition to expanding participation in Arctic research,
we must also strengthen and increase our Arctic science
capabilities, including research vessels, infrastructure, and
facilities, which are constrained. If we are to continue our
leadership in Arctic science, what additional capabilities are
necessary? Likewise, what are our plans to support more robust
monitoring, observing, modeling, and prediction that will help
us better understand changes in the Arctic?
Well, we have a lot to address at this morning's hearing,
and I again want to thank our witnesses for their testimony.
Chairwoman Johnson. The Chair now recognizes Mr. Lucas for
his opening statement.
Mr. Lucas. Good morning, Chairwoman Johnson, and thank you
for holding today's hearing to examine our national R&D
(research and development) efforts in the Arctic.
The Arctic presents us with a variety of scientific and
technical challenges and opportunities because of its unique
environmental, geopolitical, and resource structure. We're
currently experiencing a period of unprecedented changes in all
these areas, and our investments in fundamental Arctic-related
research will be critical to understand and adapting to these
changes.
In 2017, I had the opportunity to visit the Arctic and
witnessed firsthand the research being conducted there,
including the Barrow Arctic Research Center. One of the
highlights of this trip was being outfitted in cold weather
gear and touring Summit Station, a critical research facility
at the summit of the Greenland Ice Sheet. This trip to the
Arctic demonstrated to me the sensitivity that the
environment--to things like changing carbon dioxide levels.
The scientific data that is being collected at our Arctic
research centers and fuel stations are key to understanding the
factors affecting the Arctic's regional, atmosphere, ocean, and
sea ice over. And when we understand these changes, we can make
informed decisions related to the region, the continent, U.S.,
and the entire globe. So I appreciate the great work being done
by many of our agencies to further this understanding.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
is conducting extensive data-gathering and research activities
through multiple programs, informing decisions support for
unique Arctic hazards such as river ice breakup, fires, coastal
flooding. NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)
is gathering critical remote-sensing observations from
aircrafts and satellites to inform Earth system science and
Arctic research modeling.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is supporting
innovation, convergent research through ``Navigating the New
Arctic Program.''
The U.S. is only one of eight Arctic nations, and, as such,
it has a critical role to play in the future of the region.
This is essentially true--especially true, I should say, as we
look at the economic and geopolitical consequences of the rapid
changes occurring in the Arctic. Territorial disputes in this
region are taking on greater importance as resource-rich land
and new shipping routes are revealed. There are significant
economic implications from the energy rights, mineral deposits,
and tourism opportunities being uncovered.
I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the impact of
the--Russia's invasion of the Ukraine on international
cooperation in the Arctic. Russia's unprovoked invasion of the
Ukraine violated the core principles of sovereignty, and I
stand with the decision to suspend engagement in the Arctic
Council. As a result, the U.S. must leverage and expand our
research partnerships with our Arctic and non-Arctic allies to
ensure that the U.S. remains a leader in the region.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today about
how the research conducted in the Arctic plays a central role
in understanding and addressing the key consequences of change
in the region and how the U.S. can play a leading role in the
new Arctic. Thank you for being here today, and I yield back
the balance of my time, Madam Chair.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lucas follows:]
Good morning Chairwoman Johnson and thank you for holding
today's hearing to examine our national R&D efforts in the
Arctic.
The Arctic presents us with a variety of scientific and
technical challenges and opportunities because of its unique
environmental, geopolitical, and resource structure.
We're currently experiencing a period of unprecedented
changes in all these areas, and our investments in foundational
Arctic-related research will be critical to understanding and
adapting to these changes.
In 2017, I had the opportunity to visit the Arctic and
witness, first-hand, the research being conducted there,
including at the Barrow Arctic Research Center.
One of the highlights of this trip was being outfitted in
cold weather gear and touring Summit Station, a critical
research facility at the summit of the Greenland Ice Sheet.
This trip to the Arctic demonstrated to me the sensitivity of
that environment to things like changing carbon dioxide levels.
The scientific data that is being collected at our Arctic
research centers and field stations are key to understanding
the factors affecting the Arctic region's atmosphere, ocean,
and sea ice over. And when we understand these changes, we can
make informed decisions related to the region, the continental
U.S., and the entire globe.
So I appreciate the great work being done by many of our
agencies to further this understanding.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
is conducting extensive data gathering and research activities
through multiple programs, informing decision support for
unique arctic hazards such as river ice breakup, fires, and
coastal flooding.
NASA is gathering critical remote sensing observations with
aircrafts and satellites to inform Earth system science and
Arctic research modeling. The National Science Foundation (NSF)
is supporting innovative, convergent research through its
``Navigating the New Arctic Program.''
The United States is only one of eight Arctic nations, and
as such, it has a critical role to play in the future of the
region. This is especially true as we look at the economic, and
geopolitical consequences from the rapid changes occurring in
the Arctic.
Territorial disputes in this region are taking on greater
importance as resource-rich land and new shipping routes are
revealed. There are significant economic implications from the
energy rights, mineral deposits, and tourism opportunities
being uncovered.
I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the impact of
Russia's invasion of Ukraine on international cooperation in
the Arctic. Russia's unprovoked invasion of Ukraine violated
the core principles of sovereignty and I stand with the
decision to suspend engagement in the Arctic Council.
As a result, the U.S. must leverage and expand our research
partnerships with our Arctic and non-Arctic allies to ensure
the U.S. remains a leader in the region.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today about
how the research conducted in the Arctic plays a central role
in understanding and addressing the key consequences of change
in the region and how the U.S. can play a leading role in the
new Arctic. Thank you for being here today, and I yield back
the balance of my time.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you, Mr. Lucas.
If there are Members who wish to submit additional opening
statements, your statements will be added to the record at this
point.
At this time, I'd like to introduce our witnesses. Our
first witness is Dr. Larry Hinzman, who serves in the White
House Office of Science and Technology Policy, OSTP, as the
Assistant Director for Polar Sciences. He is also the Executive
Director of the Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee
(IARPC) and is leading the effort to implement the 2022 to 2026
Federal Arctic Research Plan. He recently served as the
President of the International Arctic Science Committee, and as
the Vice Chancellor for Research, and Professor of Civil and
Environmental Engineering at the University of Alaska in
Fairbanks.
Our next witness is Dr. Mike Sfraga, who is the Chairman of
the United States Arctic Research Commission and the founding
Director of the Polar Institute at Woodrow Wilson International
Center for Scholars. A geographer by training, his work focuses
on the changing geography of the Arctic and Antarctic
landscapes, Arctic policy, and the implications of a changing
climate on political, science, social, and economic,
environmental, and security regimes in the Arctic. He
previously served as a distinguished co-lead scholar for the
U.S. Department of State Inaugural Fulbright Arctic Initiative
from 2015 to 2017, a complementary program to the U.S.
Chairmanship of the Arctic Council.
Our third witness, Dr. Vera Kingeekuk Metcalf, since 2002,
she has served as the Director of the Eskimo Walrus Commission
(EWC) at Kawerak. The Commission represents 19 coastal Alaska
Native communities to promote community involvement and
research, document Indigenous Knowledge, and co-manage the
Pacific walrus population. She also is a Bering Strait
Commissioner for the U.S. Department of State, facilitating
travel between the indigenous people and Chukotka, Russia, and
the Strait region in Alaska.
Our final witness, Dr. Susan Natali, she is the Arctic
Program Director and a Senior Scientist at Woodwell Climate
Research Center. She is also a renowned Arctic Ecologist, whose
research focus is on permafrost. She is currently leading a
project called Permafrost Pathways, which is designed to
amplify efforts to collect the best data on Arctic carbon
emissions, contextualize this information within a global
budget, and transform the science into actionable policy.
As our witnesses should know, you each will have 5 minutes
to use for your spoken testimony. Your written testimony will
be included in the record for the hearing. When all of you have
completed your spoken testimony, you will begin with questions.
Each Member will have 5 minutes to question the panel. We will
start out with Dr. Hinzman.
TESTIMONY OF DR. LARRY HINZMAN,
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF POLAR SCIENCES,
OFFICE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY
AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
INTERAGENCY ARCTIC RESEARCH AND POLICY COMMITTEE
Dr. Hinzman. Thank you. Chairman Johnson, Representative
Member--Ranking Member Lucas, and distinguished Members of the
Committee, thank you for holding this important hearing. I am
Dr. Larry Hinzman. I am honored to appear before you today. I
serve as the Executive Director of the Interagency Arctic
Research and Policy Committee, and as the Assistant Director
for Polar Sciences at the White House Office of Science and
Technology Policy. I live in Fairbanks, Alaska, and have been
engaged in Arctic research for almost 40 years.
I'd like to take just a brief moment to first acknowledge
the suffering and loss occurring in both Alaska and Puerto
Rico. The Alaskan typhoon was a huge storm, and there has been
terrible damage that was spread over 1,000 miles of Alaska
coastline. I have worked in several of these Alaska communities
and worry about their recovery from the devastation before
winter sets in.
I will start by commending this Committee for your
visionary leadership in shaping Arctic policy both in current
times and in recent decades. Today, I will testify about the
necessity of Arctic research and the work of IARPC, and I also
will remark upon the importance of research infrastructure
required for Arctic research, international collaboration, and
respectful engagement with indigenous peoples as key facets of
Arctic research.
The United States is an Arctic nation. The ongoing
environmental and climate changes in the Arctic have impacts
across the American economy and society. Environmental changes
in the Arctic reverberate through the globe, affecting
coastlines, weather, and availability of resources in more
temperate regions. It is in the U.S. national interest to
understand Arctic processes and their impacts on the global
system. The Arctic territory is remote and data sparse, and
thus, understanding Arctic change requires significant effort,
expertise, and commitment to sustaining and recapitalizing
critical research infrastructure.
The Arctic is ongoing rapid change in ecological and
socioeconomic responses to climate and other drivers. Climate
effects are causing direct and indirect impacts on the region's
physical, chemical, and biological environments. Social,
cultural, and environmental changes alter the fabric of
indigenous and other communities and may inhibit the
preservation of Alaska Native cultures and Indigenous
Knowledge. Economic change can bring opportunities but also
dislocation as local residents are trained to work in fields
that may not exist or persist in their home regions.
This region is geographically vast, sparsely populated, and
characterized by strong connections among its indigenous
peoples, and the land and the sea. Adaptation to climate change
intersects with other environmental issues and needed policies
confronting Arctic residents, including those concerning food
security, human health and welfare, environmental security, and
quality of life, and the resilience of ecosystems.
IARPC facilitates partnerships and collaborations that
improve our understanding of the rapidly changing Arctic system
and its impact on the Earth system through critical advances in
cryosphere, atmosphere, ocean, and ecosystem science, advanced
modeling projections of environmental dynamics, and future
climate conditions, improved understanding of current and
future Arctic change, and advanced human-centered research
critical to the Alaskan community health, infrastructure, and
environmental safety.
This plan builds on the Administration's priorities for
racial equity and tribal engagement. This plan includes
participatory research and indigenous leadership in research as
a foundational activity to support true engagement and
community participation and co-production of knowledge.
The Arctic scientific community is very strong and
collaborative. The Federal agencies leading Arctic research are
making important contributions to help the people of the United
States and the world prepare for an uncertain future but one
that is certainly different from today. Our Nation must
continue to invest in Arctic research, as the Arctic is
demonstrating an outsized effect on the global climate system.
The benefits are clearly far greater than the cost. We must
place greater emphasis upon convergent science that draws
together relevant disciplines, scientific engineering, and
social changes to resolve more complex or sophisticated
challenges to our communities.
So I'll say again, it is in the U.S. national interest to
understand Arctic processes and their impacts to the global
system. I thank you again for convening this important hearing
and allowing me the opportunity to testify, and I look forward
to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Hinzman follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Dr. Sfraga.
TESTIMONY OF DR. MIKE SFRAGA,
CHAIR, U.S. ARCTIC RESEARCH COMMISSION
Dr. Sfraga. Chairwoman Johnson, Ranking Member Lucas, and
distinguished Members of the Committee, thank you for convening
this hearing today on Arctic research. I'm Dr. Mike Sfraga, and
I'm honored to appear before you today. Like Dr. Hinzman, I too
am a resident of Fairbanks, Alaska, and I also serve as the
presidentially appointed Chair of the United States Arctic
Research Commission.
The knowledge and understanding we gain from Arctic
research inform our Nation's Arctic policies and actions on
climate change, infrastructure development, energy security,
economic development, as well as community, homeland, and
national security. The United States Arctic Research Commission
is an independent Federal agency established by the Arctic
Research Policy Act that plays a central role in advancing
these issues. Sound research informs sound policy development
and implementation.
The Commission publishes a biennial report to the White
House and Congress on Arctic research goals and objectives.
This report guides the development of our Nation's Arctic
Research Plan that is produced by IARPC, as described by Dr.
Hinzman. In my written testimony, I've included a full
description of the Commission, our current members, and our
duties assigned by law.
Here's a preview of the five overarching Arctic research
goals that will be included in the Commission's next report.
The first is environmental risk and hazard. The superstorm that
just inundated and devastated so many communities along the
Bering Strait region of my home State of Alaska is a sad, yet
poignant reminder of the vulnerability of our Arctic
communities. Our report will recommend research to improve
coastal community resilience planning, enhance Arctic observing
and monitoring efforts, and encourage seafloor depth mapping to
improve marine commerce. According to our colleagues at NOAA,
only 4.1 percent of the United States maritime Arctic has been
mapped to modern standards.
Two, community health and well-being: The investment of
more than $11 billion into Alaska Native communities through
the Infrastructure Act will help communities adapt to a warming
climate. They'll build water and sanitation infrastructure and
expand access to broadband. Remaining challenges, however,
include the enduring presence of health disparities in many
parts of Alaska. Food, energy, water insecurity, housing, and
indoor air quality deficiencies, and work force development
insufficiencies are still present.
Our third area will be infrastructure. The Commission
recommends research to improve access to reasonably priced
broadband networks, telehealth, in-home running water, and
affordable heat and fuel, all of which must be operable and
scalable in Arctic conditions. Infrastructure that is practical
and functional at the community level is critical, and human
infrastructure, people to teach, create, operate, and maintain
technology is also essential, yet over--yet often
underappreciated and overlooked.
Our fourth area will be economic research, new for the
Commission. While economic research is vital to inform Arctic-
relevant policies and decisionmaking, few economists focus on
the region. Economic research can help achieve regional
sustainable development and provide a greater understanding of
market and non-market forces.
Our fifth area will be research cooperation. As many Arctic
issues are circumpolar in nature and inherently transnational,
they are best addressed by domestic and international research
cooperation, which brings me to an opportunity in interagency
cooperation. That opportunity is to equip for scientific
research purposes the commercially available polar icebreaker
that the Coast Guard intends to purchase with funds in its
Fiscal Year 2023 budget request to Congress. The Commission
recommends that if this icebreaker is procured and is refit to
meet the Coast Guard's requirements, that the refit includes
scientific research infrastructure to meet science mission
requirements.
Madam Chairwoman and Ranking Member Lucas, it is impossible
to discuss Arctic research without acknowledging that Russia's
invasion of Ukraine has halted cooperation with Russia on
international Arctic research activities. There have been many
programs impacted by this lack of cooperation. Nevertheless,
Arctic research will continue because it must. Changes in the
Arctic will not wait for geopolitical challenges to be settled.
The challenges can be met by doubling down on our Arctic
research efforts and by working with many of our partners in
and outside of the region.
Finally, I would like to express the Commission's support
for proposed updates to the Arctic Research Policy Act
contained in legislation introduced by Senator Lisa Murkowski
of Alaska in S. 4736, the Arctic Commitment Act. In particular,
I'd like to call attention to the need and value of an Arctic
research budget crosscut of the relevant Federal agencies. We
do not have an accurate account of what our Nation spends on
Arctic research, nor the funding trends over time. To improve
accountability and to help achieve our Nation's objectives in
the Arctic, we encourage the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) to conduct an annual budget crosscut, as it does for
other research initiatives such as nanotechnology and global
change.
Madam Chairwoman and Ranking Member Lucas and Members of
the Committee, thank you again for this opportunity to testify
today and provide the U.S. Arctic Research Commission's views
and priorities on Arctic research. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Sfraga follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you. Ms. Metcalf.
TESTIMONY OF MS. VERA KINGEEKUK METCALF,
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ESKIMO WALRUS COMMISSION
Ms. Metcalf. [Speaking Native language.] Good morning,
Chairwoman Johnson, Ranking Member Lucas, and Members of this
Committee. I am truly honored to be part of this hearing and to
present to you today.
Before beginning, I must say that it is my intention to--
that my words are proper and responsible to my ancestors, my
family, and my community, and to [speaking Native language],
which is our way of life and cultural values on St. Lawrence
Island, Alaska. My name is Vera Kingeekuk Metcalf, born and
raised on St. Lawrence Island, which lies in the Bering Strait
between Alaska and Russia's Chukotka Peninsula. I have been the
Executive Director of the Eskimo Walrus Commission in Nome,
Alaska, since 2002. The EWC was formed in 1978, with membership
from 19 Alaska Native communities on the Bering Chukchi and
Beaufort Seas, and works to be necessary and valuable partners
in Pacific waters, conservation management through actively
participating in research, striving for indigenous food
security, and contributing our Indigenous Knowledge.
It is important for me to state up front that Alaska Native
people cannot be separated from our environment and natural
resources. We are and always have been absolutely dependent on
this intimate relationship way with our environment and its
gifts. If they are healthy, so are we.
So what is Indigenous Knowledge? In my language, it is
[speaking Native language], which simply translated is our
knowledge, what we know. But it implies so much more that's not
so easy to explain and includes the understanding that we can
only know so much. It adds a bit of humility to how much we
think we know because, as my IK experts remind us sometimes,
[speaking Native language], there is always more to know.
IK is an ongoing synthesis of new information and
observations gathered firsthand and from others where--which
are considered by IK experts who together apply their cultural
understanding and IK to guide future plans and decisionmaking.
It is an active social process based in cultural protocols and
grounded in a way of knowing.
I have offered examples in my written testimony of how
Alaskan Native communities have contributed their IKs to co-
management and examples of co-production of knowledge projects
that I anxiously hope that are helpful to this Committee.
I have characterized the old school way science and
government has conducted research in the Arctic in the past as
one-sided and very extractive. And I have described the
mismatch of the science-research-government-industry with
Indigenous Knowledge community. I suggested it might be helpful
to recognize the difference between knowledge systems and how
that affects co-production research. It is very important to
realize that Indigenous Knowledge isn't any one person's
intellectual property, and no one person is the holder of a
community's Indigenous Knowledge. And that is not something
simply to be documented as data to be used by others for their
purposes. Instead, its true value is found when it is supplied
by our experts and knowledge bearers to questions about the
health and conditions of their world, the land, the water, air,
and all who inhabit it.
Engaging IK for co-production projects needs to involve the
larger community and should provide opportunities for multiple
IK experts to discover all the nuance and the wisdom of what
they jointly share. Their contribution together will be much
more powerful.
So I'll end with this thought. The Arctic is our home,
eternal and sacred. We will continue to adapt as we need to
live properly in it. Perhaps collaborating on co-production
knowledge research is simply another way that we are adapting.
We will share our Indigenous Knowledge to advance research.
While it is beyond translation, this profoundest IK, a way of
knowing my language is [speaking Native language]. It
encompasses and connects all things. This is what we will
continue to rely on, and we will have greater confidence
knowing it is included in future scientific study and in new
governance in the Arctic.
[Speaking Native language.] Thank you for this opportunity
again.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Metcalf follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Dr. Susan Natali.
TESTIMONY OF DR. SUSAN NATALI,
ARCTIC PROGRAM DIRECTOR,
WOODWELL CLIMATE RESEARCH CENTER
Dr. Natali. Chairwoman Johnson, Ranking Member Lucas, and
distinguished Members of the Committee, thank you for inviting
me to testify at today's hearing. My name is Dr. Susan Natali,
and I'm the Arctic Program Director and a Senior Scientist at
Woodwell Climate Research Center. Woodwell is a nonprofit
organization made up of research scientists and policy experts
dedicated to advancing climate policy solutions. My work
focuses on the local to global effects of permafrost thaw in
Arctic and boreal regions.
Next slide, please.
[Slide.]
Permafrost is ground that has been frozen for at least 2
consecutive years and often for hundreds to thousands of years.
It underlies about 15 percent of the Northern Hemisphere land
and 38 percent of Alaska's lands. Permafrost has exceptional
significance for global climate because it holds a massive
amount of ancient frozen carbon. There's an estimated 1.4
trillion tons of carbon in the permafrost region, which is
roughly twice as much carbon as is currently contained in the
Earth's atmosphere. This carbon has accumulated for millennia
from dead plants and animals, which cold and frozen conditions
have prevented from fully decomposing.
But rapid warming across the northern region, which is now
occurring three to four times faster than the global average,
is causing permafrost to thaw. An estimated 7 percent of near-
surface permafrost has already been lost across the Arctic, and
about 25 to 70 percent of permafrost is expected to thaw over
the next century. Once thawed, the accumulated carbon in the
soil can be decomposed and released into the atmosphere as
greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide, and methane.
Next slide, please.
[Slide.]
Over the coming decades, the amount of carbon released from
thawing permafrost could be equivalent to continued emissions
from major greenhouse gas emitting nations, perhaps even as
large as or larger than the United States at our current
emission rate. Greenhouse gas emissions from thawing permafrost
could use up 25 to 40 percent of our remaining carbon budget to
stay below 2 degrees Celsius warming, yet these emissions are
generally under-accounted in part due to major gaps in Arctic
carbon monitoring and modeling.
The failure to accurately account for permafrost emissions
undermines the integrity and efficacy of global mitigation
policy. By not accounting for permafrost emissions, we're
essentially aiming for the wrong climate target, making it that
much harder to mitigate climate warming.
Next slide, please.
[Slide.]
Improving understanding of permafrost thaw is also critical
for informing climate adaptation policies. When permafrost
thaws, it can induce ground collapse, which is impacting homes
and infrastructure, Arctic lands, water, wildlife subsistence,
resources, and indigenous ways of living. Further, the
interacting hazards of permafrost thaw, erosion, and flooding
are being exacerbated by more severe storm impacts, as was
witnessed in Alaska this past week.
More than 70--next slide, please.
[Slide.]
More than 70 villages across Alaska faced significant
threats from erosion, flooding, or permafrost thaw. For over a
decade, the GAO (Government Accountability Office) has warned
that impacted communities need Federal Government support to
adapt to climate change. And in the most severe cases, this may
include relocation. Yet there still is no national relocation
governance framework or dedicated and coordinated funding
mechanism to facilitate planned relocation, which will become a
critical need not only in Alaska, but across the Nation.
Next slide.
[Slide.]
Arctic residents and scientists have been observing
permafrost thaw for decades, but we cannot fully address this
problem without amplified research and policy support from
Congress. I highlight five areas that I feel should be
prioritized for increased research support. First, strategic
funding opportunities for permafrost as a larger scope and
long-term research priority.
Second, focused investment to reduce uncertainty in climate
monitoring and modeling.
Third, improved interagency coordination on Arctic research
planning and funding.
Fourth, recognition that permafrost thaw, like climate
change, is an international issue that warrants international
solutions, including pathways for data exchange, grant funding,
and equipment-sharing.
And fifth, direct support to Alaska Native tribes to co-
produce knowledge and to lead climate change research.
Today's hearing demonstrates the Committee's dedication to
confronting the climate crisis through a participatory and
transparent process. I look forward to seeing Members of this
Committee lead that effort, and I offer my continued support.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Natali follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Ms. Stevens [presiding]. Great. At this point, we'll begin
our first round of questions, and the Chair will recognize
herself for 5 minutes.
Dr. Hinzman, the Arctic Research and Policy Act was enacted
40 years ago, and Congress last amended it in 1990. Four
decades of changes in the Arctic have had social, cultural,
environmental, and economic impacts. How has research planning
evolved to address today's challenges? And what steps did the
IARPC take to balance fundamental research priorities and
research to address local research needs? And what are the most
important research questions that we need to address the most
significant unknowns?
Dr. Hinzman. Well, thank you Representative----
Ms. Stevens. Known and unknowns, yes, thank you.
Dr. Hinzman. Thank you, Representative Stevens. That's a
very large question. So the the Arctic Research and Policy Act
was established in 1984 and was initiated to facilitate
coordination, collaboration among Federal agencies and their
investment in Arctic research to ensure that we had minimal
duplication, to ensure that we could facilitate the
partnerships and collaboration needed. And I think that that
has been very successful over the last 40 years. I am very
pleased to see the coordination that we have today amongst the
partnerships and the collaborations among the agencies.
So IARPC does exist to facilitate that partnership. IARPC
hosts a platform we call IARPC collaborations, which exists to
enable the collaborations among Federal researchers, the
researcher scientists in the agencies with the non-Federal
researchers from universities, foundations, and international
researchers. And it has been very successful in identifying the
priorities that are of most urgent need to the United States,
to their--to our Federal agencies and focus this large
partnership of researchers on those issues. And so there's been
remarkable work done, and I think there is a need to up--as Dr.
Sfraga said, there is a need to update that policy, but I am
pleased with where we are today.
Ms. Stevens. Well, all hail research collaboratives like
IARPC, and thank you to the dedicated researchers who are part
of it.
And, Dr. Sfraga, the witnesses today have described rapid
changes in the Arctic, critical partnership and research needs,
limited research vessels, and sinking research infrastructure.
The Arctic Research and Policy Act directs OSTP to review
agency budget requests related to the Arctic and directs OMB to
consider all agency requests as one integrated multiagency
request and review it prior to submission of the budget for
adherence to the 5-year research plan. How would you
characterize the degree to which this has been carried out over
the years? And what should it look like moving forward to
ensure Congress can carry out sufficient oversight of the
Arctic research budget?
Dr. Sfraga. Thank you, Representative Stevens. Well, I can
say that, although Dr. Hinzman has provided us a very good,
practical, and informative narrative regarding the work that
has been done by IARPC and by the Arctic Research Commission
and the research community, I can say that definitively. What I
cannot say is that we have a very good handle on the amount of
investment our Nation makes in Arctic research. As you noted,
ARPA has been in place for 4 decades. We have not had a
comprehensive budget crosscut for our Federal research, Arctic
research done anytime that I can remember. And by that I mean
we simply don't know in aggregate what we're spending on Arctic
research in the United States. We simply don't know that we
have the resources available to us to implement, to fund, the
IARPC plan, as outlined by Dr. Hinzman.
And so what my recommendation and our Commission's
recommendation is that we have a budget crosscut done each year
by the Office of Management and Budget to secure good data on
what each Federal agency is spending on Arctic research so we
have a baseline and we can see our trending and funding over
time. That demand for Arctic research will only continue, which
means the request for resources from Congress will only
continue, but I think we need a solid baseline of what it is we
spend right at the moment on Arctic research. Then, I can
answer the second part, I think, of your question,
Representative Stevens, which is how can we take the IARPC
plan, which has spent--which they have spent so much time
building for our Nation in a rapid time of change? How do we
know and how can we secure the resources to implement that
plan? So, A, we need a good idea of our baseline over time,
what we have provided for Arctic research, and that should be
done every year. And two, we should take the plan that Dr.
Hinzman and his colleagues have put together and we should
crosswalk that with available funding to actually understand
whether or not we can implement, whether we can afford, whether
we can enable the research plan that his--he and his colleagues
have put together.
Ms. Stevens. Yes. Well, thank you for that. And, you know,
we understand that IARPC is comprised of 17 Federal agencies,
departments, and offices, again, a great example of a whole-of-
government approach. NSF and NOAA alone budget about $230
million annually toward Arctic-related work as part of IARPC.
And so we will get a question for the record to Dr. Hinzman as
we move to the next witness--or, excuse me, the next Member for
questioning. And I believe that's Mr. Lucas here----
Mr. Lucas. Thank you.
Ms. Stevens [continuing]. For 5 minutes.
Mr. Lucas. Dr. Hinzman and Dr. Sfraga, data collected in
2019 by a fleet of sail drone unmanned surface vehicles in the
Arctic was found by NASA and NOAA to have a remarkably strong
correlation to the measurements taken by satellite. Time and
time again, commercial data has proven accurate and beneficial
to Federal agencies at a cost-effective price. What role do you
see the private sector and commercial data playing in the
future of Arctic research? And along with that, should the
Administration better utilize commercial data buys and
partnerships?
Dr. Hinzman. Thank you. Thank you, Representative Lucas,
excellent question and really profound insight in that the
commercial capabilities have advanced remarkably in the past
few decades, and they have opened up our capabilities
tremendously, not just through sail drones but through sub-
ocean technology and through radio communications, through
telemetry that we can impart in the field, through data
loggers. It's been a remarkable accomplishment. And without the
contributions, without the engagement of the commercial
industry, we would never be where we are today. We are so
fortunate to have as good partners, that they have stepped up
to provide this technology to us. So I wholeheartedly endorse
that.
Mr. Lucas. Absolutely. Doctor?
Dr. Sfraga. Ranking Member Lucas, thank you for the
comment. I agree with my colleague Dr. Hinzman. Public-private
partnerships have worked well in many parts of our society.
Arctic research should not stand alone as something where we
don't encourage the public-private partnerships going forward.
Industry is innovative. They move faster than government can
move. Sometimes they're more innovative. Seated with Federal
research funds, we see that our Nation's industry can lead in
so many different sectors. I think it's probably part of our
DNA, and it should be going forward. When you have a top-down
nation that can dictate what happens within its nation, it's
very hard--it's very easy to put resources in particular
places.
Our country is built differently. Our country is built to
be inclusive. Our country is built to be innovative. And we
should take advantage of private industry and, as Dr. Hinzman
noted, in so many different sectors, including satellite and
fiber communications and telecommunications, in drones and
marine assets. We should bring the whole team to the game
because the Arctic is changing so fast. We have to bring the
whole team to game. And if we can bring industry to the table,
we can show them and provide an opportunity for them to make a
profit in the north while serving the north, I think that would
be a very good thing.
Mr. Lucas. Dr. Hinzman, as I mentioned in my statement, I
had an opportunity to visit Summit Station back in 2017, and it
was clear then that the facilities were inadequate for the
world-class science being conducted there. Dr. Hinzman, both
you and Dr. Sfraga stated in your testimony the importance of
this facility and the need to recapitalize its outdated
infrastructure. I know NOAA just upgraded the Barrow
Atmospheric Baseline Observatory. Can you speak to any plans
that are currently in motion to upgrade Summit Station?
Dr. Hinzman. Thank you, Ranking Member Lucas. That is--I am
so pleased that you were able to visit Summit Station, and I'm
so pleased that you bring that to the attention of this
Committee. So that station is in dire need of maintenance and
upgrades at this point. It is--the surface melt has extended
all the way to the summit, so that station is--over the past
few years is sinking into the ice, and it does need a serious
upgrade. It does need serious investments to enable it to
continue these--the important measurements that have been taken
over the last 40 years, 50 years since that's been in
operation.
The role of Greenland in influencing our global climate
dynamics just cannot be overstated. It is so important. It
affects the atmospheric circulation. It affects the oceanic
properties. It affects ocean circulations. We have to continue
those observations. Thank you.
Mr. Lucas. Absolutely. Dr. Sfraga, can you--could you
please provide--because part of my responsibility as a Member
of Congress is explain to the folks back home why we make these
investments. Could you provide one or two examples of how basic
research funded by the Federal Government science agencies sees
like NSF, NOAA, and NASA play a role in national security
decisionmaking in support of the Arctic? And along with that,
what role does the U.S. Arctic Research Commission play in
connecting defense and non-defense communities? I'm looking for
a town meeting answer here.
Dr. Sfraga. Thank you, Member Lucas. I can say that--well,
first of all, Greenland is emblematic of the new north. It--so
many of the issues at play right now in the new north, whether
it's social, political, economic, environmental. If you live in
Norfolk, Virginia, or Nome, Alaska, you will feel the impacts
of what happens in Greenland with melting ice cap.
But I can tell you that if you're interested in a national
security component of research, here's where we're at. The
United States needs to have a better idea of our domain. Why?
Our Arctic domain is changing drastically. And if you are a
resident citizen of our country, you need to know that Arctic
research is a part of our national security, so securing money
and resources for research secures our national security. If
you're interested in homeland security, understand full well
that we have a great power competition underway in several
different forms, Russia, China, even North Korea and other
countries. The Arctic now is a globalized Arctic. It is not a
place on a map far removed. It is now a part of geopolitics,
which increases our dependence on so many different things like
the ripple effect of global energy, global wheat supply and
demand, global commodities, shipping costs. If you're shopping
each day, you're being impacted by global commodities. So
energy, resources, shipping, I can continue on and on. All
facets of the economy now are woven into the Arctic, whether we
see that or not. It's really apparent to so many that that is
the case.
Mr. Lucas. I agree, Doctor, and yield back the balance of
what time I do not have, Madam Chair.
Ms. Stevens. All in good faith. And with that, we will hear
from 5 minutes of questions from the distinguished Science
Committee Member Ms. Lofgren.
Ms. Lofgren. Thank you very much. This is such an important
hearing, and I'm grateful to each of our witnesses for their
important testimony.
Pivoting to Mr. Lucas's question and the town hall meeting,
it's worth noting that we have had some studies, one, Lawrence
Livermore National Lab did a study in 2017, and just this year,
the Pacific Northwest National Lab both linked wildfires in
California to Arctic melting. The dry, hot conditions in
California are directly linked. And so since we've learned
these connections in our understanding, I guess the question
is, what do we do? Can this information assist us as we prepare
in the western continental United States for wildfires, and
could it be an early warning to help us better cope with that
phenomena that we are seeing in Washington, Oregon, California,
New Mexico, and the like? Yes, Doctor.
Dr. Hinzman. Thank you, Representative Lofgren. That's a
very important issue and one that I think our government is
trying very hard to address.
So there are several advances going on. And I'll--first,
I'll take the broader picture with respect to the role of the
Arctic in these increasing numbers of extreme events. There's--
you are absolutely correct. There are more severe--there's a
greater frequency of extreme events and a greater severity of
these extreme events, and that includes wildfire. And there is
a role of the Arctic in influencing these global climate
dynamics that are increasing these disastrous wildfires.
So what are we doing about that? So there is now a new
interagency, ICAMS, Advanced--Interagency Council on Advanced
Meteorological Services, excuse me, and one of the primary
focuses of that is on addressing wildfire behavior, predicting,
projecting where the wildfires will occur so we can be prepared
for them, and then being able to better predict the wildfire
behavior. And IARPC is participating in that group to try and
understand--to contribute what the Arctic's role is in that
effort, but it is--I agree with you. That's a very important
issue.
Ms. Lofgren. Well, thank you very much. Dr. Natali, as your
statement described the latest sixth assessment report for the
first time included the permafrost carbon in the Earth systems
models that informed the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change) report. And we've made it clear much more is
needed. How would--how will this research impact to allow for a
more accurate picture as we nationally determine contributions
in carbon budgets around the world. What--how do you see that
proceeding? You need to turn your mic on. Thanks.
Dr. Natali. Thank you, Representative Lofgren. Yes, so this
is--yes, thank you for this question. So first, I just want to
talk briefly about these models, Earth system models. Earth
system models explain, you know, the--how the climate is going
to work, and it incorporates biogeochemistry, so carbon
cycling, and it puts like human actions into that.
Earth system models were not developed with the Arctic in
mind, so things like permafrost and things--the connection
between the Arctic climate and the rest of the planet is not
built into these models, and it's not trivial to build them
into the models. And so this is one of the reasons why we are--
have surprises like wildfires in the West that--currently, in
order to be able to respond to these and be prepared for these,
we need to improve these models. And that's a really
challenging thing. It requires support from the top down for,
you know, U.S. climate-based models to advance these.
One of the key issues is the incorporation of permafrost
carbon. Yes, in this last IPCC report, two of the models did
incorporate permafrost carbon, certainly not fully, not in the
way that we understand that permafrost thaws. And what this
means is when we're thinking about how much carbon do we have
available for humanity to stay below 2 degrees Celsius, or 1.5
degrees Celsius, we're not hitting the mark. So even if all of
the nations, you know, put together a budget, and we say, yes,
we're going to keep to that, we're not--we're aiming for the
wrong target right now. And so the very least that we need to
do to start out with is to do our bookkeeping correctly, right?
We're not doing that bookkeeping correctly because the science
isn't up to pace with the needs.
Ms. Lofgren. Well, I think that's very important. And as we
look at the unfolding disaster around the world, it really does
lead to how are we going to turn a corner on this if we don't
accommodate in our models the carbon from the permafrost. And I
would add the link to the wildfires. I mean, you know, the
forests burn. Well, if they're no longer capturing carbon,
they're emitting carbon throughout the West, and unless we
adjust our models to accommodate for that, and it's not
obviously just here, it's around the world, we're not only
going to miss the mark because of inaction, we're going to miss
the mark because we haven't adequately set the mark.
So my time is up, and I yield back. And I thank these
witnesses for their tremendous testimony.
Ms. Stevens. Thank you. And with that, we will hear from
Mr. Posey for 5 minutes of questioning.
Mr. Posey. Thank you, Chairwoman Stevens.
Dr. Hinzman, the National Science Foundation recently
announced it was relying on Starlink satellite internet to
support McMurdo Station in Antarctica. That's a mouthful. Can
you highlight how high-speed, low-latency satellite broadband
systems like Starlink can enhance scientific efforts and
connect research projects in the remote Arctic?
Dr. Hinzman. Absolutely. And I have been fortunate to be
able to utilize that system in the past. And it is a remarkable
boon to science in that it does provide access in very remote
locations, provides quick, reliable access that can be used to
collect data from stations that are not manned and that are
left for long periods of time. It's an incredible asset that we
are very fortunate to have.
I am--I understand that it's working very, very well in the
Antarctic, and I--we do utilize it at several remote stations
in the Arctic. And I think that it's--such capability will
enable our science to do more activities that we've never been
able to achieve in the past where we've had to have people in
the process in the field to do that work. So thank you.
Mr. Posey. Thank you. Dr. Sfraga and Dr. Hinzman both on
this one, we're trying to increase their scientific missions to
the Arctic, which we know are frequently dual use. What is the
United States doing to counter their influence in the region
and within international bodies such as the Arctic Council?
Dr. Sfraga. Thank you, Representative. Indeed, China has--
China is playing the game Go around the world, the classic
board game Go. The Arctic is a part of that game for them. They
simply want to influence the political landscape and, you know,
exert their will around the globe. We see that in a lot of
their hard and soft power investments. Certainly, research is
one of them. They now have the ability to indigenously build
their own icebreakers. They have a relationship with the
Russian Federation that allows them domain awareness in the
Arctic. We see their expeditions in the Arctic navigating the
Arctic Ocean in a way that is research-based but could be dual
use and multiuse as well.
The best counter to that, obviously, we can get into the
national security side of this. I guess the best possible
counter to that is to ensure that the United States, that the
United States leads in Arctic research as well. That means that
we have the icebreaking capacity, the research capacity in the
north. And we have something that China and Russia frankly do
not have, and that is a set of partners and allies that are in
the Arctic and outside of the Arctic that have an incredible
amount of expertise in Arctic research.
And this--if there ever was a time to double down to invest
more in Arctic research, more in our presence in the Arctic,
more of our research capacity in the Arctic, and better
leveraging and integration with our partners around the north,
I think now is the time because of what you just mentioned,
Representative, and that is that both Russia and China do see
the Arctic as an opportunity for a number of things, including
more presence and influence in the north, along with, of
course, basic research that can be used for other goals and
motives that they might have.
Mr. Posey. Yes, that was great. Dr. Hinzman, you want to
add to that?
Dr. Hinzman. I think Dr. Sfraga was very eloquent in his
assessment. I do share our concerns that have been expressed
with respect to the Chinese advancements into the Arctic. They
are developing stations in collaborations with the Russians.
They are incredibly investing into Arctic research, and just as
they're doing in many other other parts of the globe. So their
long-term motives and their short-term actions are of great
concern to our government. And I appreciate the caution and the
concern that our government has put forth with respect to these
actions. Thank you, Representative Posey.
Mr. Posey. Yes, same two--question the same two witnesses.
With Russia currently chairing the Arctic Council, has this
hampered the ability for international cooperation like, you
know, what efforts has Russia made to cooperate with China
concerning research?
Dr. Hinzman. So I'll take the first crack really quickly,
Dr. Sfraga. So yes, that has had a serious impact on
collaborative research. The U.S. Government has ceased Federal
collaborations in Arctic science. I am disappointed to see this
impact of science, but I fully support this action of the U.S.
Government. So Dr. Sfraga?
Dr. Sfraga. I agree with Dr. Hinzman, fully support the
actions that the United States and our other six partners in
the Arctic Council have taken. It has hindered research in the
Arctic. If you're trying to put together a puzzle and you only
have half the pieces, you really don't have a great shot at
completing a good picture of the puzzle. And you've just taken
out Russia, which is 50 percent of the Arctic. So many of the
issues we've just talked about, whether it's fire, permafrost
thaw, ocean acidification, all of the issues facing all of the
Arctic, which means the globe, we've just parked 50 percent of
the Arctic to the side.
Having said that, I am in full agreement with the actions
that the United States and other nations have taken. It has
hindered our ability to have solid international cooperation.
The Arctic has prided itself, for good reason, for being a zone
of peace and cooperation, even through the cold war. However,
the invasion of Ukraine is beyond the pale. And so what best to
do now? What best to do now is to work with our allies and
partners and double down in our investments right now so that
we can leverage the expertise of our allies in a way that we
can continue the research that needs to be done at a time of
dramatic change. But make no mistake, it really will hinder our
research and our understanding of the north more fully, but we
can't be held hostage to what has happened. We have to move
forward. And we're lucky enough to have allies and partners to
move forward with.
Mr. Posey. I thank the witnesses. And I thank you, Madam
Chair, for letting him finish answering that question. And I
yield back.
Ms. Stevens. Absolutely. And with that we were going to
hear from one of Oregon's finest, Congresswoman Bonamici, for 5
minutes of questioning.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you to the Chair and Ranking Member and
to our witnesses.
Experts predict that by the end of the century, hundreds of
towns, cities, and villages across the United States and around
the world will be all or partially underwater. I'm grateful
we're having this hearing today to amplify the role of the
Arctic and, as it says, strengthening science to respond to a
rapidly changing Arctic. And I hope that what we're hearing
today, the solutions that we find in this Committee and in this
Congress meet the moment with the gravity of what we're hearing
today.
Dr. Hinzman, you talked about the infrastructure needs for
Arctic researchers and adaptations along shorelines or they're
typically in, you know, gray solutions like concrete or green
solutions such as absorbing floodwaters in urban areas. So will
you please elaborate on how priorities are set regarding
adaptation that's needed for the infrastructure to support
researchers? And I know Ranking Member Lucas asked about
research facilities, but if you could also mention the
challenges of travel now and how that has changed in light of
the thawing permafrost.
Dr. Hinzman. Thank you, Representative Bonamici. Again,
excellent questions. And so the way the priorities are set, we
exist--IARPC collaborations, IARPC exists to facilitate the
collaborations, the partnerships with the Federal agencies and
with non-Federal partners. And so we've gone to great efforts
to solicit input from the Federal agencies what the urgent
research needs are but also from the Arctic communities, from
the individuals, from indigenous organizations, and from the
State of Alaska. So we've identified those urgent priorities
that must be identified and then worked with the Federal
agencies, the indigenous communities to try and understand the
best approach to address these urgent priorities.
As far as, you know, what the urgent needs are and the the
priority approaches to address the rising climate--or, I'm
sorry, the rising sea levels, that is a huge challenge, which
requires again, as Dr. Sfraga was talking, about huge
international collaborations in partnership to address the--
we're seeing remarkable degradation of glaciers around the
world, which in the past several decades, it's been primarily
the glaciers that have contributed to the sea level rise, and
now we're facing the incredible degradation of Greenland and
the losses from the Antarctic. It is a tremendous problem. What
we're trying to do now is just trying to characterize--best
understand what that sea level rise is going to be over what
time so that we can help our communities adapt. And I'll stop
there. Thank you.
Ms. Bonamici. Thank you, Dr. Hinzman. I'm want to ask Ms.
Metcalf. Welcome. You discussed the importance of better
connection between Indigenous Knowledge and what you refer to
as the science-research-government-industry. One issue
mentioned is a mismatch or disconnect. That's harmful algal
blooms, or HABs, which with warming temperatures are creating a
new threat to the Arctic. This is an issue that I've worked on
on a bipartisan basis, particularly with Representative Posey
over the years. In fact, we just recently received a GAO report
about the interagency NOAA-EPA (Environmental Protection
Agency) workgroup confirming that we need to do more.
So, Ms. Metcalf, what are your suggestions for addressing
that disconnect so that you can access the reliable testing you
need for the water and for the food you eat that comes from the
ocean?
Ms. Metcalf. Well, thank you for that question.
Congresswoman. One of the issues that we constantly deal with
is that our communities are well-adapted to providing
biological samples to science who can do the assessment of if
it's safe to eat some of our food resources. The problem is
that sometimes it's very, very difficult to get results back in
a timely manner to our--back to our communities who harvest,
you know, bowhead whales and Pacific walrus and ice seals and
birds. You know, is it safe to eat these resources when we
don't get any results back in a timely manner? Although our
communities have been providing samples for many, many years,
that's the issue that we have. How can we incorporate
Indigenous Knowledge, local input in adapting or mitigating
coastal erosion, for example, that was mentioned, or changes
along our coastline? How can we incorporate our knowledge into
these issues that we've been saying----
Ms. Bonamici. Ms. Metcalf, I don't mean to cut you off, but
I want to get one more question in. My time's running out.
Ms. Metcalf. No problem.
Ms. Bonamici. Quickly, Dr. Natali, you testified in Foreign
Affairs--the Foreign Affairs Committee you mentioned last year.
And then in your testimony today, you said less than 1 year
later, we discovered that the negative consequences of inaction
are much higher than we previously understood. What happened in
the last year?
Dr. Natali. I think each year and each day and each week
that goes by the scientific community [inaudible] continuously.
Ms. Stevens. Could you please turn----
Dr. Natali. Sorry about that--continuously surprised by the
rapidity of the changes and the interactions that are
happening. And I'd say this storm that happened in Alaska,
I'm--is not--maybe is not a surprise, but it was a surprise,
and it's something that I think we need to be continuously
prepared for. And I think what's happening now is that I think
the climate is actually changing faster than the science can
happen. And so what that means is that we're seeing extreme
events both in the Arctic and also in lower latitudes as a
result of the rapid Arctic changes that are happening. And
these extreme events are impacting Arctic residents and also
the rest of the planet.
Ms. Bonamici. I appreciate that. I see my time has expired.
Thank you to the witnesses for your excellent answers. I yield
back.
Ms. Stevens. OK, and with that, we will move to Mrs. Bice
for 5 minutes of questioning from the great State of Oklahoma.
Mrs. Bice. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. And I want to say
thank you to the witnesses for joining us for this discussion
today.
Dr. Natali, in your bio, you mentioned that you had
testified to the Foreign Affairs Committee about some of the
challenges with the changes with the Arctic and particularly
Greenland ice shelf. Do you want to maybe expand a little bit?
As someone who sits on the Armed Services Committee, certainly,
national security is something that I, you know, take very
seriously. Can you talk a little bit--since some of the other
witnesses have broached the topic, what are your perspectives
on these changes and how it impacts our national security?
Dr. Natali. Yes, thank you for that question. So there's
very direct impacts when you think about the changes that are
happening on the ground, and so I focus a lot on permafrost
thaw, but permafrost thaw does not happen independent from the
rest of the system. So these changes that are happening on
lands in the Arctic are impacting communities that live in the
Arctic, but also military facilities and in other
infrastructure, gas and oil pipelines. And so I'm talking about
ground collapsing when the ice and the permafrost melts and the
ground starts to collapse. That in turn then causes flooding
and increases coastal erosion and makes infrastructure more
vulnerable to storm damage. And so this is a very direct
impact.
And I guess I would say another priority that needs to be a
focus when we're thinking about, I guess, security, I guess I
would also really want to highlight security of human systems
and food security and food sovereignty because this is also
being impacted not only by permafrost thaw, but by the number
of other changes that are happening across the Arctic. And I
think others on this panel can speak more directly to that from
their personal and professional experiences, but the impact of
the climate changes on both the human communities, the
infrastructure, the economic impacts that is happening are far
and wide-reaching beyond the Arctic.
Mrs. Bice. And to follow up on that, and this is actually
for Ms. Metcalf, or Dr. Hinzman. Aside from the release of
carbon and methane emissions, are there any other threats from
thawing permafrost that could potentially pose a threat to
local or global community's health, and can you gauge the
seriousness of those?
Ms. Metcalf. Thank you for that question. Yes, sinkholes
are something new that is happening in our region. We see that
because moose hunter--moose hunting just ended, but hunters are
reporting large sinkholes along the roads that are affecting
our ability to harvest these resources that are very important
to us.
Dr. Hinzman. If I may add, thank you for that question,
Representative Bice. If I may add, it is a very important issue
for national security in that all of our--in the Arctic, all of
our military facilities are built upon permafrost, which is
also degrading, so the infrastructure is at risk. And we need
to develop better techniques to improve our design criteria and
our construction techniques so that the facilities that are
built are functional throughout their projected lifespan, so we
have to come up with better building techniques and we have to
come up with better design criteria.
Mrs. Bice. That's a great, I think, perspective there. This
is to all of the witnesses. Given the harsh environment in the
Arctic, can you talk about the need to invest in Arctic
technology that is developed to maintain and to remain
operational and sustainable under these extreme circumstances?
We've talked a little bit and I know that we're putting
together sort of this holistic view, but what are some of the
technologies you think are really maybe crucial currently?
Dr. Hinzman. May I?
Mrs. Bice. Please.
Dr. Hinzman. So thank you again for that question. So I
think what we need to do--the mistakes we've made in the past
is that when we were building--we were building facilities,
pipelines, roads, we built upon the historic weather data. We
didn't look forward. We weren't using climate projections to
understand how the--how this environment was going to change,
and to build the--our facilities to design our infrastructure
to last for that design criteria. So what we need to do, we
need to come up--we need to use climate models to integrate
with our building techniques, with the engineering designs so
that these facilities are appropriate for the environmental
conditions they are going to see throughout their lifespan. And
that's something we--we're not doing now but we really need to.
Ms. Metcalf. May I add quick?
Mrs. Bice. Yes, Ms. Metcalf.
Ms. Metcalf. Yes, Indigenous Knowledge and local
perspectives need to be included in these plans, so that's very
important to consider. So thank you.
Mrs. Bice. Thank you. And that concludes my time. Madam
Chairman, I yield back.
Ms. Stevens. Thank you. And with that, we will hear from
Congressman McNerney for 5 minutes of questioning.
Mr. McNerney. Well, I thank the Chairwoman. You didn't say
anything about California, so I'll live with that.
Ms. Stevens. From the wonderful State of California, the
jovial State of California.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you. Well, I thank the witnesses. Dr.
Hinzman, the Arctic Observing Network is a system of
atmospheric, land, and ocean-based environmental monitoring
capabilities. Data is received from ocean buoys, satellites,
and other sources. How would you characterize the current state
of Arctic monitoring, observing, and modeling in the prediction
efforts?
Dr. Hinzman. Our observing system in the Arctic is very,
very sparse at this point. And so it--as far as the role that
it plays in observing, predicting, it's tenuous at best in that
our models are developed--they--our models require validation,
verification, and it is very difficult with the extent of the
observations that we have now to really rigorously validate
those models. And so it does hurt our ability for even short-
term predictions with respect to weather predictions, which has
a big impact on the more temperate regions but also with
respect to the long-term projections of future climates.
Mr. McNerney. Is there an opportunity to fill in those
gaps?
Dr. Hinzman. I certainly hope so. We are trying to enhance
and improve the observing network in collaborations with many
of our international colleagues, and with other institutions,
other governments. We are trying to build a reliable, robust
Arctic Observing Network.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you. Now, Dr. Natali, a top priority of
the Permafrost Pathways is to fill in the gaps again and
monitoring greenhouse gas emissions across the Arctic. What are
your recommendations of a Carbon Flux Monitoring Network?
Dr. Natali. Thank you for this question. So as part of the
Permafrost Pathways Project, we're trying to fill in gaps in
carbon cycling on land from the Arctic so that we can know now
is the Arctic a carbon source or a sink as it has been? So is
it continuing to take up carbon as it has been for thousands of
years? And what will this look like into the future?
One of the challenges we've recognized are these major
gaps. And so we're taking a--I'd say a top-down approach,
saying if you want to know the carbon budget of the Arctic,
where would you strategically put these monitoring sites? And I
feel like in terms of Arctic carbon cycling, that hasn't
happened in the past. Sites generally get established somewhat
opportunistically by grants, and so I think that kind of more
coordinated effort. There is a challenge right now because we
cannot be working on the ground in Russia.
I think another major need here in order to help us to fill
this gap is this satellite data. So right now, high-resolution
satellite data is critical for seeing places in the Arctic that
we can't access on the ground. Some of the commercial data
right now is only accessible if you're an NSF- or a NASA-funded
scientists--accessible, I would say like for free. So making
these data widely available and beyond the funding cycles would
greatly advance the scientific community's ability to continue
monitoring these sites, even in places and to get the ground
truth data, even from the--from satellites in order to verify
these models.
And I'd say the last thing we need is really dedicated
commitment toward improving these models. There are a number of
U.S.-based Earth system models that could use that support.
Mr. McNerney. Well, has there been any research on how
solar radiation management, for example, by injecting sunlight
reflecting particles into the stratosphere, would slow the
permafrost thawing?
Dr. Natali. I think there are a lot of challenges with this
and solar radiation management I think--I'm not opposed to
exploring all options, but I would strongly, strongly suggest
that that conversation is--that indigenous Arctic residents are
brought into the room and others as part of that.
Mr. McNerney. Anyone else on the panel want to take that?
Dr. Hinzman?
Dr. Hinzman. Yes. Thank you for that questions. So there
has been extensive discussion within the Arctic research
community, within the whole scientific community as far as
geoengineering, and they're--at present, the United States does
not support research into geoengineering as far as any of those
activities. We're not really--we're more concerned about the
possible consequences. But there are right now active
investigations going on into potential modeling studies to try
and understand that, if that occurred, what the consequences
would be.
Mr. McNerney. That was my question. Thank you.
Well, major changes in the Arctic can be seen within a
single generation. Now we're seeing that happen. And I don't
have time to ask anyone specifically, but I'll throw the
question out there before I retire. How many--how will the
biennial implementation approach for the Arctic Research Plan
impact research effectiveness?
And with that, I'll yield back.
Ms. Stevens. Well, thank you. And as I had passed the 5
minutes of questioning over to my colleague who has served this
Committee very admirably, I did so with a lot of admiration.
And, you know, the remaining weeks that we have of this months
that we have of this term, it's just been such an honor to
serve with my friend and colleague, Jerry.
And with that, we're going to pass it over to Mr. Feenstra
of Iowa for 5 minutes of questioning.
Mr. Feenstra. Thank you, Madam Chairman. And thank you,
Ranking Member Lucas. And thank you all to our witnesses for
your testimony and sharing your extensive experience and
knowledge on this subject.
There's been a lot of research on the Arctic, and that--and
could--can be very important, but we should build off what
we've already done. For example, the DOE's (Department of
Energy's) Biological and Environmental Research Program used
drones to conduct high-resolution monitoring for changes in the
Arctic vegetation. There was also collaboration between the DOE
and the NSF to study microbes in Arctic soil that can absorb
carbon dioxide, as well as adapted to take advantage of a
thawing of permafrost.
So my question is this, Dr. Sfraga. Can you tell us more
about incorporating these terrestrial research investments with
the Arctic? And are there studies and data produced by
agricultural--agriculture and life sciences research like Iowa
State University that can also be used in the new Arctic
research?
Dr. Sfraga. Thank you, Representative Feenstra. Yes, the
answer is yes. I think where your comments and your questions
are coming from is, is there a better way to integrate and
leverage what we already have invested as a country, not just
in financial resources, but in our intellectual capacities and
capabilities as a way to feed that into the more broader Arctic
research indefinitely? And the answer is yes because the
systems are connected. This is a globalized Arctic now.
So if we're doing research in Iowa on the hydro cycle, if
we're doing research on vegetation, water cycles, we're looking
at pestilence, migrations, all of those issues, since the
global patterns have changed, we can see the benefit of
understanding what the impacts are across our country and
indeed, across the world. So if there are assets like drones
being used, if there's research, as you have noted, on
microbial research endeavors, then I think there is a way and
there are ways to leverage those areas of expertise and show
the interconnectedness, the cause and effect, the impacts of
what's happening in the Arctic to places around the world,
including crop yields.
Mr. Feenstra. Can I further ask that question of--so I'm an
academic myself. How do we get more involvement in the academic
world in this arena? Dr. Sfraga?
Dr. Sfraga. Yes. Thank you. Thank you again for that. I
think there's an understanding. You know, as fellow scholars
[inaudible], and we're seeing more and more institutions,
whether they be in Iowa or in Florida or in California, have
increased capacity and interest in the Arctic. And that is
where one academic may--one scholar may have had a particular
focus in their area and that might have been a region outside
of the Arctic, and now we're seeing the transfer of their
intellectual capacities and their research to the Arctic and
even in the Antarctic as well. So we're--we see a lot of this
referencing and transition of their work [inaudible] with
scholarship. It comes with publications, it comes with
conferences, but it also comes with the understanding
[inaudible] throughout the Arctic community and throughout the
academic community that these global systems are indeed tied.
And we're seeing the----
Mr. Feenstra. Absolutely.
Mr. Sfraga [continuing]. Cause and effect of it.
Mr. Feenstra. Yes. Yes. Thank you. Thank you for that. So
Iowa State also recently received an award from NSF for the
project entitled ``Collaborative Research Toward Resilient
Water Infrastructure in Alaska Native Communities Through
Knowledge and Co-Production.'' One of the major research
objectives for this grant will be to outreach efforts aimed at
training community members in the use of water supply and leak
detection sensing equipment. Ms. Metcalf, from your
perspective, how receptive are Alaskan indigenous communities
to implementing Federal research ideas like this? So it's
coming out of the academic world, so how do we apply it and how
do we implement it based on the community members that are out
there?
Ms. Metcalf. Yes, thank you for that comment and question.
We have a similar project here that we are doing called SEARCH
that is funded by NSF and it utilizes our 12 IK experts in that
project that is looking at health policy and knowledge systems
within the Arctic to conduct that project. So I think I keep
emphasizing Indigenous Knowledge, the use of and incorporating
that in any kind of project is important, so thank you. I hope
I answered the question.
Mr. Feenstra. Absolutely. Thank you so much for your
comments. I'm very grateful for each one of your testimonies.
And I yield back.
Mr. Tonko [presiding]. The gentleman yields back, The
gentleman yields back. The Chair now recognizes the gentlewoman
from North Carolina. Representative Ross, you're recognized for
5 minutes, please.
Ms. Ross. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and the
Ranking Member. And thank you so much to all of the witnesses
for your testimony.
I recently returned from a climate and energy meeting with
several Members of Congress. It was bipartisan in Iceland. And
we looked at geothermal energy, we looked at carbon capture,
and we talked to a wide variety of people in Iceland, working
in both climate and energy. One of the biggest takeaways that
we took from that trip was how there were many, many women
involved in energy and climate. And for some of the largest
companies dealing with these issues, 50 percent of the board of
directors. And of course, we have a female Prime Minister of
Iceland, who's in D.C. this week.
And so one of the focuses of this Committee has been
increasing the STEM (science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics) pipeline so that we can have many different
perspectives and talents addressing the most difficult problems
that we have. And so I wanted to know what the STEM education
and work force needs are in the Arctic, including supporting
the continuity of Indigenous Knowledge, and what are the
challenges?
Dr. Hinzman. Are you--can you--who would you direct that
question to?
Ms. Ross. Anyone. You can start, sir.
Dr. Hinzman. Well, thank you. Thank you for that question.
So I will--I'll certainly jump in and then perhaps pass to my
colleagues. So IARPC, the Interagency Arctic Research Policy
Committee, has recently released the Arctic Research Plan. A
component of that plan, one of the foundational activities of
that plan is, of course, STEM education. That is very important
to us. So we are--and another component of it is--actually is
indigenous engagement, and--I'm sorry, participatory research
and indigenous leadership in research. And part of that is we
want to utilize the co-production of knowledge. We want to gain
from the expertise and the culture that exists, but we also
want to improve the capacity of the--in the community so that
they can address the issues and take these challenges on
themselves. And STEM education is a critical part of that. And
so we've been directed by the agencies to address that to the
best of our abilities, and we are definitely trying to respond.
Thank you.
Ms. Ross. And, Ms. Metcalf, I would love to hear from you.
Ms. Metcalf. Yes. Thank you for that question. I am a big
proponent of co-production of knowledge. I would suggest
including Indigenous Knowledge or local communities from the
beginning of any project development. I think we are--always
have been part of the solution, so it's very important to note
that. Thank you.
Ms. Ross. Does anyone else have anything to add before I
ask my next question?
OK. My next question, right before we went to Iceland,
President Biden announced that he's interested in creating a
position of Ambassador to the Arctic. And I know that we--we've
talked a lot about the international challenges in the Arctic.
I'd like any reaction that any of the panelists have to that
and how you see dealing with climate and science as a role for
whoever that Ambassador might be. And why don't we start with
Dr. Hinzman and then anybody else who wants to chime in?
Dr. Hinzman. So the United States is one of the very few
Arctic nations that does not have an Arctic Ambassador, so we
are very pleased to learn of this new announcement. And I think
that there are some wonderful people who can really play a
great role for us and facilitating these engagements we need
with our other Arctic nations partners. And so this is a great
step forward, particularly at this time when we've ceased the
active engagement of the Arctic Council, so this is a critical
role at this time. And I'll pass the floor from that. Thank
you.
Dr. Sfraga. Representative Ross, I would just--please.
Dr. Natali. OK. I guess I'll just quickly add I think from
a science perspective, the climate and the changes that are
happening don't see national boundaries, and so I think this is
really a critical point in helping us to advance the science
across the Arctic outside of the United States as well.
Ms. Ross. Great. Dr. Sfraga?
Dr. Sfraga. Thank you, Representative Ross, I, too, think
that it's a pretty good idea for the United States to create
this Ambassador position. I see the role as someone who can
project and reflect United States policy across the board to
international partners, especially at this time, as Dr. Natali
just noted, someone who can communicate in aggregate all of the
U.S. policies, can communicate where we stand on many issues
across the board, one office, one individual with support that
can do that for all of the--our interests in the north would be
not only something good for the United States but I think our
allies and partners, too, are awaiting someone like this as
well.
Ms. Ross. OK. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield
back.
Mr. Tonko. The gentlewoman yields back. The Chair now
recognizes the gentleman from Kansas. Representative LaTurner,
you're recognized for 5 minutes, please.
Mr. LaTurner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And good morning to
all of our conferees.
Dr. Hinzman, how are the goals for the current Arctic
Research Plan--how do the goals for the current Arctic Research
Plan improve on previous iterations of the plan? And are you
concerned that overly broad priority areas will make
substantive change difficult?
Dr. Hinzman. So that's an excellent question. This plan is
very different from previous plans. And I think it's taken a
new approach because this is where we are with respect to the
science. Previous plans were really focused upon understanding
the disciplinary sciences, looking at sea ice processes or
permafrost dynamics or ecosystem evolution. At this point, what
we're trying to do is we're trying to take on the more complex,
the more sophisticated societal-level questions of health and
community resilience and economies, livelihoods, risk
management, hazard mitigation. Those are areas where we need to
draw together the many disciplines of science, the many, many
components of science, but also engineering and economics and
the other policy issues so that we can address these higher-
level questions, these more sophisticated questions that can't
be taken on from a more basic disciplinary perspective.
Mr. LaTurner. Can you talk about the economic change that
occurs in Arctic communities and how that influences your goal
setting for the IARPC?
Dr. Hinzman. Yes, unfortunately, Arctic communities have
very limited economic opportunities, and so what we're trying
to do is we're trying to understand how we can--what the
research components--what research can add to understanding
sustainable livelihoods, what--how we can help understand--help
communities understand what their resources are, how they can
utilize them to best move forward to maintain a thriving
community into the future. And so we're really looking at the
economies of the resources but also the human resources, the
capital and the capabilities and the culture that they have,
how we can pull all this information together to make
sustainable, thriving communities.
Mr. LaTurner. Thank you. Dr. Sfraga, how could
collaboration be improved between U.S. Arctic Research
Commission and other government agencies to promote research in
Arctic communities?
Dr. Sfraga. Thank you for the question, Representative. We
do that a great deal now. There's a lot of communication
between the Arctic Research Commission, our Commissioners.
They're representative of--five of the seven Commissioners are
Alaskans. They each have different seats on the Commission. So
there's a lot of integration and a lot of communication between
the Commission and communities throughout the State of Alaska.
So that's one.
Two is that we spend our days communicating to--throughout
the State of Alaska with the government, with indigenous
groups, with State Commissioners, but also with our Federal
partners as well. Most of the work of the Commission is not
creating a 2-year goals report. Most of the work of the
Commission is exactly what you know, Representative, which is
communicating to communities and having communities communicate
to the Commissioners to inform our work, and then work with our
Federal partners as well, as well as our international
partners.
Mr. LaTurner. I appreciate that. I want to stick with you.
And this is really important. How does the United States use
research and development programs as soft diplomacy tools to
build relationships with our allies?
Dr. Sfraga. Yes, that's a wonderful question. I would say
that--let me give you--I'll give you one example. You know,
research has always been a part of the U.S. soft diplomacy,
always, and it's a bedrock of what we do. If you look at the
Arctic and you think about it in arcs, just in these arcs to
and from the Arctic, there's an arc of, I would say,
commonality and an arc of cooperation in the North American
Arctic. That's Alaska, the United States, Canada, Greenland.
And by looking at that tranche of North American Arctic,
you can see many research projects that span the Arctic with
likeminded nations that already have working relationships in
research from Greenland, as noted, to our bilateral
relationship with Canada and Alaska through the United States.
So by reinforcing those areas, that's reinforcing a rules-based
order. It's reinforcing a transatlantic alliance and the
transatlantic partnerships, as you'd think about this arc of
commonality that goes into the Nordics and into Europe. So
these are the ties that bind us. Research is a bedrock of that
partnership and those ties that bind us.
Mr. LaTurner. Thank you very much. I appreciate your
answers.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Ms. Stevens [presiding]. Thank you. And with that, we are
going to hear from Mr. Tonko for 5 minutes of questioning.
Mr. Tonko. Well, thank you to Madam Chair. So, Chair
Johnson and Chair Stevens, and Ranking Member Lucas, thank you
for hosting us today. And to the witnesses, thank you for being
here to provide great insight.
The consequences of a rapidly changing Arctic landscape
have the potential to impact billions of people worldwide.
Alaskan residents and countless indigenous communities,
however, are already on the frontlines of the most observable
impacts of climate change such as thawing permafrost. As global
temperatures continue to rise, millions of lives and critical
civilian and military infrastructure in the Arctic are urgently
at risk.
So, Dr. Natali, we know that when permafrost thaws,
enormous quantities of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and
methane are released into the atmosphere, not to mention the
ancient bacteria and viruses that could trigger another global
pandemic. How are increasingly frequent extreme weather events
speeding up permafrost thaw? And what are the immediate and
long-term consequences of abrupt thaw events?
Dr. Natali. Thank you for your question, Representative
Tonko. So abrupt climate events like heat waves, like these
massive storms that we're seeing, can trigger rapid permafrost
thaw, the sinkholes that Ms. Metcalf had mentioned. And when
these rapid events happen, so when the--when the ground thaws,
it can happen very gradually where you have heat being
transformed, but you can also have these rapid events
happening, particularly in areas where you have a lot of ice in
the ground. Once those happen, then you have more ground
exposed, so it can happen faster and faster and faster. So
rapid events that trigger it then cause this exponential
increase in the rate of permafrost thaw.
Once that happens, it's essentially irreversible, at least
on a human-relevant timeframe. It's taken a long time for the
carbon, thousands of years in many cases for the carbon to get
into the ground. When you have this massive erosion, even if we
cool our climate, you're not going to get the shorelines back
that have eroded. And so these triggering events can--even
though they're happening perhaps on a--you know, on a smaller
spatial scale, can have outsized impacts, both on global
climate and on the ground for people who are living on
permafrost and the infrastructure that's on permafrost.
Mr. Tonko. So that being said, how does this impact on
accurate pictures for nationally determining contributions and
carbon budgets?
Dr. Natali. Yes, so that's the challenge because right now,
permafrost is rarely included in global climate models and
rarely incorporated into these budgets for how much carbon is
remaining to stay below 1.5 or 2 degrees Celsius. These abrupt
events are absolutely not included at all. They're quite
complex to put into a model. We can make estimates of it, and I
strongly suggest that, using the best information that you have
at hand. There are a number of models, and my group is one of
them, working on advancing the models to incorporate these
abrupt events. But when we're thinking about analyzing and
responding to risk, I think we need to really seriously
consider these upper extremes that we're being pushed to that
we perhaps haven't been able to consider in kind of the
traditional models that we've been running.
Mr. Tonko. And can you elaborate on your approach to
collaborative research with Alaska Native tribes?
Dr. Natali. Yes. So as part of a new project that I'm
leading called Permafrost Pathways, we'll be working with 10
tribes in Alaska who are making really difficult decisions
about climate change adaptation as a result of permafrost thaw,
flooding, and erosion. And so my approach for going into this
really is to let the tribes lead the research that's needed. So
what I do when I'm there is based on what their needs are. And
so yes, my specialty may be in permafrost science, but if the
needs come out that, you know, there's--the ground is sinking
and this is then impacting water quality, then I try to make
this happen.
And, as Ms. Metcalf mentioned, there's been a real
challenge for the tribes getting information back to them, so
any information that is collected, it belongs to the tribe,
it's driven by the tribe, and it's for their information in
terms of helping them making decisions for moving forward.
Mr. Tonko. Thank you. And my time is just about up, but
I'll ask that all of our witnesses consider any recommendations
that you could share with us as a Committee for making Federal
funding more accessible for Arctic research, and perhaps
provide that to us in writing since I have just seconds
remaining.
OK. With that, I yield back, Madam Chair.
Ms. Stevens. Well, thank you to our very dedicated
Committee Member, Mr. Tonko, for those 5 minutes of
questioning.
And with that, we're going to turn it over to Ms. Kim for 5
minutes of questioning.
Ms. Kim. Thank you very much. I want to thank our witnesses
for appearing before us today and answering our questions and,
you know, discussing this very important topic.
I know you just talked about--Dr. Natali, about the
permafrost emissions and all that so--but I--for my better
understanding, I want to continue on that line of questioning.
In your testimony, you call for increasing data coverage in
space and time and better connecting the measuring and modeling
communities to reduce uncertainty in climate monitoring and
modeling. So in recent years, we have seen the innovative
carbon and methane emission detection technologies come forward
in the oil and gas sector. So can you talk more about the
Woodwell Climate Research Center, how it is leveraging new and
emerging technologies like these to improve permafrost
emissions tracking, as well as those barriers to deploying
those technologies?
Dr. Natali. Yes, thank you, Representative Kim, for your
question. One of the challenges of working in the Arctic is
that it's dark and it's cloudy, and this makes it a real
challenge for using some types of satellites to detect changes
that are happening on land. The other issue with using
satellite data, say, for detecting greenhouse gas emissions
from thawing permafrost is that they're currently tuned to
detect peaks, very, very high spikes that, say, that may be
coming out of gas and oil industry, less so tuned for this
very, very large area where emissions from a very--you know,
one area itself may be relatively low, but it's this sort of
cumulative effect over this large area.
And so that's one of the real big challenges and barriers,
say, for using remote technology for detecting what's happening
on the ground, which is why we are working to set up on-the-
ground monitoring. And then we use satellite data to, what we
say, upscale that information. And then we are also working to
link that information into process models to make sure that the
monitoring information--monitoring and modeling are
communicating with each other because that currently,
surprisingly, is not the case. The scientific communities tend
to kind of get separated when when we're working by discipline
and also just by methodology. And so this is key for us. It's
a--called a data model simulation and it's a process that's
used by the weather forecasting community. It's made our
weather forecasts much better. And so we're working on a new
data model assimilation framework for carbon cycling for the
Arctic.
Ms. Kim. Thank you so much. I'd like to ask the next
question to all three doctors, Hinzman, Sfraga, and Dr. Natali.
In your testimonies, you also emphasized the need for
international research and scientific collaboration in the
Arctic. And you also share concerns regarding the barriers to
future science collaboration and explicit restrictions on data
sharing and financing of foreign investigators, right? So in
your opinion, how can we best navigate those transnational
collaboration on scientific and advancement in the Arctic amid
the ongoing geopolitical tensions, as well as future conflicts
that may arise? And how do we balance protecting our U.S.
national security and our allies and promoting scientific
collaboration with adversaries like Russia?
Dr. Hinzman. Thank you, Representative Kim. That's, again,
an excellent question. So I would like to go back to what Dr.
Sfraga said earlier, sorry if I steal your thunder, Mike. But
the collaborative research that we've had with our
international partners has been just a cornerstone of our
international relationships of our partnerships. And so the--
even now, we anticipate, we expect, we hope that this conflict
in Ukraine will end. And following that, that the scientific
collaborations will, again, open the door for better scientific
relationships, and hopefully better policy relationships among
our nations.
At the same time, we do--we must protect our intellectual
properties, we must protect our capabilities, but we can also
benefit by sharing our expertise and sharing our understanding.
And so hopefully, these partnerships, these collaborations can
open that door for that better policy relationship.
Ms. Kim. Would you like to chime in?
Dr. Natali. Data sharing is--I have to say, has been a
problem for a long time now. As a U.S.-funded scientist, all of
my data are publicly shared. That's required from the Arctic
funding agency. It's very challenging to get data from other
nations and I would say particularly Russia, and this has been
for a while now. So the solution to that, I don't know what the
solution to that is. You know, as a scientist, I work one-on-
one with other scientists, and we collaborate and we share
data. At some point, it would be great to see a top-down effort
to encourage data sharing, to encourage--you know, bringing
equipment in and out across nations is also another challenge.
So just really recognizing sort of that these boundaries are
creating a barrier for scientists trying to work across the
Arctic and to come up with a pan-Arctic answer to some of these
issues.
Ms. Kim. Do we have time to listen from--Dr. Sfraga, would
you like to chime in?
Dr. Sfraga. Oh, thank you very much. I'll make this--
hopefully make this brief. Again, encouraging the international
cooperation with allies and partners, as I noted before, but we
should not underestimate the power that--and expertise that
other countries bring to the table, countries that believe in a
rules-based order like Japan, South Korea, the United Kingdom.
The EU has a Horizons Europe Program with a significant
investment being made in Arctic research.
In aggregate, when you look at all of that together with
the United States in a leadership role here, you can leverage
the expertise and focus the Arctic research that needs to get
done not just for a nation-state, but also for the entire
Arctic region by encouraging that, by the United States
communicating its interest in continued leadership, but also
these international cooperations and partnerships. I think that
would be responded to well, but also with U.S. leadership,
areas in which we believe to be important, I know many other
nations do as well, and encouraging these international
partnerships going forward would be helpful.
I would also note that the United States is a part of the
International Science Cooperation Agreement signed through the
Arctic Council. That will--that has been helpful, but it has
not solved the problem of at least data and assets crossing
borders, as Dr. Natali has noted, but it is helpful to know
that there is an agreement in place. It will not help us with
the information in and out of Russia at the moment, but the
international community continues to try to think pan-Arctic.
Ms. Stevens. Thank you. And with that, we're going to hear
from Dr. Foster for 5 minutes of questioning.
Mr. Foster. Thank you, Ms. Chair.
Ms. Metcalf, I have some questions related to sort of
demographic trends and particularly in Inuit areas. Are the
Inuit areas, for example, facing the same sort of--in Russia
facing the same sort of demographic collapse that the rest of
Russia is facing? Or is it--is there a fairly uniform situation
around the Arctic? And how are they--these demographic trends
likely to be impacted by climate change? And what's the sort of
range of opinion on how to support the population under
different climate scenarios going forward? Has there been, you
know, some scenario planning done for what the future will look
like, depending on how well we deal with this?
Ms. Metcalf. Well, I hope so. Thank you for that question.
Well, the Arctic Council has stated that the Arctic should be a
conflict-free zone, so that's what we hope would be emphasized.
The Inuit Circumpolar Council, which is a permanent participant
to the Arctic Council, recognizes that and really emphasize
that the Arctic is supposed to be a conflict-free zone. We do
have people across the waters that are our family and friends
and neighbors, and they are living in Russia's Chukotka
Peninsula. We maintain that relationship, despite the
differences or despite the politics. We hope that research
continues to be conducted because this--we share the same
resources that they do. Marine mammals have no boundaries, but
we have a very straight region that separates us, so I hope
this is a good answer for you. Thank you.
Mr. Foster. Yes, and, Dr. Natali, you mentioned relocation
as--you know, what sort of scenario planning has been done for
relocation if, you know, we have 5 or 50 feet of sea level
rise? What does that do? Has that been looked at in any detail
about how this is going to play out?
Dr. Natali. I think on the Federal level, there perhaps
might be others here who may want to comment on this. But my
understanding of this is that there's limited Federal
governance framework for addressing relocation and other
adaptation needs related to climate change in the Arctic or
anywhere else in this country, so I think this is something
that is a very high priority. This would involve teams of
Arctic residents, of scientists, decisionmakers, engineers, and
policymakers because, right now, in addition to the really
difficult environmental challenges that are happening, there
are major, major policy barriers to communities who are having
to make these decisions about how to protect themselves from
the changes that are happening right now.
Mr. Foster. Yes. Dr. Hinzman, are there----
Dr. Hinzman. Yes, thank you. Thank you for that question,
Representative Foster. Community relocation is very important
in Alaska right now. There are--the GAO did a report on the
number of communities threatened. I believe it was 23
communities are actively being threatened right now by coastal
erosion or riverine erosion. Many of those communities are
actively considering relocation or actively making plans, and
so they're--they are working with several of our Federal
agencies. The Corps of Engineers is playing a very important
role, the Denali Commission, Housing and Urban Development.
It's--there is a very--a formal and coordinated process that is
going forward to help these communities consider relocation,
but it is--as Dr. Natali said, it does begin with the
community. The community must come together to decide if that
is in their best interest, if that is what they want to do, and
then to determine the locations that would be suitable for it.
And it is, as Dr. Natali did, I agree 100 percent. It is
such a complicated issue, involving biological sciences,
economics, social science, engineering, and so it's a very
difficult process. But we are fortunate right now that many
of--the bipartisan Infrastructure Act is helpful. There are
resources available. And I do believe also that the IRA
(Inflation Reduction Act) will also be beneficial in this
regard. Thank you.
Mr. Foster. Now, one of the areas where we have, I guess,
sort of diverged from Russia is that they're continuing to work
and develop and produce nuclear icebreakers, which are, of
course, much more--they're actually one of the technologies
that are--where nuclear reactors are really valuable. And
then--is that something that we suffer from a lot by not having
that capability in research?
Dr. Hinzman. So Russia has many nuclear icebreakers, and
they are currently planning on building more. And actually, as
Dr. Sfraga mentioned earlier, China has two icebreakers, and
they're considering--they're trying to develop a third nuclear
icebreaker. Nuclear icebreakers do have incredibly more power.
The United States research community has partnered with Russian
icebreakers in the past to do some midwinter research into the
deep ice. And so it does limit our capabilities. There are, of
course, many other considerations besides the value of the
research or the access, and so, you know, that's a more complex
question than than I'm capable of answering.
Mr. Foster. All right, thank you. My time is up, and I'll
yield back.
Ms. Stevens. All right, we're going to turn to Mr. Beyer
for 5 minutes of questioning from the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Mr. Beyer. Thank you, Madam Chair, very much. And thank you
for this incredibly important discussion and hearing.
Dr. Natali, you make the really powerful case about the
dangers of the permafrost melting, you know, that it has four
times the amount of carbon that humans have released since the
Industrial Revolution, twice as much carbon as is in the
Earth's atmosphere right now. And there were--you had a number
of recommendations. The first was about lengthening the grant
periods from a 3-year cycle to much longer. But overall, almost
all the recommendations were about greater investment in the
science, climate monitoring, research planning, data exchange,
grant funding. Is anything we can actually do, not just study,
but do to slow or stop the permafrost thaw right now?
Dr. Natali. Thank you, Representative Beyer. So a really
great question. I mean, the No. 1 priority I guess I would say
is to--you know, we've taken great steps in the United States
for reducing and planning to reduce our fossil fuel emissions,
but I think the main message is that that needs to be greatly
ramped up if we actually want to keep global climate below 2
degrees or 1.5 degrees Celsius. I think we also need to
recognize that we've already committed to a lot of changes in
the Arctic, and so the emphasis on understanding the science, I
think, is really critical in order for planning and for risk
assessment and for understanding both what's happening now but
what's happening in a year and in 10 years and 50 years and 100
years.
So I think--yes, I mean, I think the Arctic is a challenge
because really, it's a global problem. Greenhouse gas emissions
from thawing permafrost impact everywhere else on the planet,
but at the same time, protection of forests, keeping carbon in
agricultural soils, reducing fossil fuel emissions, all of
these things will impact permafrost. And, you know, permafrost,
can refreeze. There are some changes that are happening that
are irreversible. The carbon that's coming--or irreversible on
a human timeframe, these abrupt events that are happening. But
we're not at a point where we can't decide the future. We can
certainly reduce the amount of permafrost that will thaw by
sort of greatly increasing our ambition for mitigation.
Mr. Beyer. Thank you very much.
Dr. Hinzman, you wrote that we have had no choice but to
forego the regular collegial communication that enriched our
understanding of our science since the thawing of the cold war
because of the war in Ukraine. Dr. Sfraga had made the same
comment, I think Dr. Natali the same. You know, we're still
working with Russia on the International Space Station. We know
how horrific and upsetting the war in Ukraine is, but we also
know that the melting of the permafrost could change not just
tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of lives but
billions of lives on Earth. Is there no case to be made that
this should be the one area where we continue to work with
Russia?
Dr. Hinzman. Thank you, sir. I--that is such a difficult
question, and there is no good answer in that the threats to
democracy and the suffering in Europe are, you know, almost,
you know, terrible and compare--and so in comparison, you know,
the setback to the sciences is hard to place it on the same
scale.
I do understand what you're saying as far as looking at the
long-term threats to humanity with respect to the changing
climate, and so that--I guess I don't believe that we can
forsake our approach with respect to ceasing these
collaborations with Russia to stop this terrible conflict. I
think that's critically important. At the same time, I think we
can work with our researchers, with our collaborators,
researchers to--and with all nations to try and stop this
continued emissions of carbon and the effect on the climate
change and the effect that it does have on permafrost. I don't
believe that the partnerships with Russia on permafrost are
going to change the climate in the--over the next year or
whatever it takes to end this war. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Beyer. Yes, yes, thank you. The tradeoff there, too, is
not working with Russia on permafrost, is that going to be the
lever that somehow ends this war? But thank you very much. And
with 8 seconds left, Madam Chair, I yield back.
Ms. Stevens. All in good faith. With that, we're going to
hear from Mr. Casten of Illinois for 5 minutes of questioning.
Mr. Casten. Thank you, Madam Chair, and to our speakers.
The challenge with being late in the session is I got to try to
say something novel that hasn't been said before.
I also had the good fortune to travel with Congresswoman
Ross to Iceland recently, and we met, among others, with former
President Grimsson, who's now the Chairman of the Arctic Circle
organization, and fascinating conversations, a lot of it well
beyond the jurisdiction of this Committee. But a lot of our
conversation with him was around the fact that as these sea
lanes have opened up--his words, not mine--he said Russia has
basically been acting like a toll collector in areas that are
well beyond their international waters, but they've been
allowed to block some of those areas and limit access to those
areas.
And I guess my first question for you, Dr. Hinzman, is have
you seen that, and has Russian access to these melting waters
or limitations on access in any way interfered with our ability
to do research in the region?
Dr. Hinzman. So we have seen tremendous increase over the
last--you know, over the last decade, we've seen tremendous
increase of Russian traffic through the Bering Strait. The
current conflict has certainly affected the Arctic research,
you know, particularly the collaborations that we have with the
Russians, and Russia does occupy 50 percent of the Arctic. They
have, you know--most of it--or a large part of the land area,
at least 50 percent of land area, more than half the
population, probably more than 50 percent of the minerals. And
so it does have a big impact.
The important collaborations that have ceased are the the
major Arctic rivers, the biggest rivers that flow into the
Arctic Ocean are coming from Russia. We no longer have access
to that data. They also have important measurements on the
carbon emissions, as Dr. Natali mentioned. We don't have access
to that data. There are other issues, too, as far as we have--
in the past, we have partnered on polar bear distributions, on
walrus populations, on migratory waterfowl. And so there are so
many important things that have ceased, important research
activities that have ceased. But again, I believe at this time
that is the appropriate course of action.
Mr. Casten. OK. And you've touched on this before, but from
a scientific funding perspective, one of his other observations
was that the United States and our allies have strategic
superiority in the air, strategic superiority underneath the
ice cap but increasingly, because of our lack of icebreakers,
don't control the surface as much as we used to. There's a
military angle to that that's outside of this jurisdiction. But
can you give a little bit of color on to what the scientific
community is doing to expand our access to icebreakers? Should
we? Where are we limited? And what would you like to see our
Committee do to try to make sure--and I hate to frame it in a
militaristic sense, but there is that link to it. So your
comments, thoughts, requests?
Dr. Hinzman. Yes, thank you, Representative Casten. So I
cannot address the military aspects, but I can address what the
IARPC, the Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee, and
our Arctic research community is doing to help address the
scientific needs of our military. So you--we did talk about the
infrastructure needs before and how we're--we are trying to
develop more stable infrastructure, trying to develop a better
understanding of the sea properties, the ocean properties, the
ocean circulation, the weather forecasting. All of those
characteristics, all those scientific needs do affect our
military readiness and our domain awareness for our military.
And so the research that we're doing does benefit our national
security.
Mr. Casten. Dr. Sfraga, with the time left, anything that
you'd like to add on either of those questions?
Dr. Sfraga. Yes. Thank you, Representative Casten. I would
say that, back to my original testimony, which is if the Coast
Guard does purchase a commercially available icebreaker and
it's retrofitted, that we ensure that the scientific--the needs
of our scientific and research community is placed on that
research--on that vessel so that we can take advantage of that
research platform. And that should go for any research--any
icebreaker that the United States builds. Right now, we're
lined up to hopefully have six new polar security cutters built
over the next several years, maybe a decade. And the scientific
community, in my opinion, their needs should be incorporated
into those designs, along with other research vessels that the
Nation should build. That's on the research side.
Obviously, presence is influence, and so there's two parts
to your conversation with President Grimsson. One is the
research capacity of the United States. Here, we can partner
with other countries that do have far more icebreaking capacity
and research vessel capacity than we do. We have good relations
with these countries. We should continue to do that. And two is
on the security side, which is again, presence is influence in
the north, whether that's with our U.S. Navy or with our United
States Coast Guard.
Mr. Casten. Thank you all, and I yield back.
Ms. Stevens. OK. So before we bring this hearing to a
close, I want to thank and recognize our witnesses for
testifying before our Committee today. We want to sincerely
thank all of those dedicated to the pursuit of scientific
research in the face of enormous challenges. I came into this
hearing thinking ice, ice, ice, ice, ice. You know, I read a
lot of articles about a world without ice, and now I'm leaving
thinking permafrost, permafrost, permafrost. So thank you, Dr.
Natali, and--for your contributions today. And thank you all
for leaving this Committee with a program of thought on how we
can go forward for our Arctic. And particularly as those who
authorize on behalf of this Nation, a budget, a design, and a
scope of work for the future of this Nation.
And as a reminder to everyone watching at home that, yes,
the United States is an Arctic nation. And to have, you know,
this great representation here today of witnesses so connected
to the beautiful State of Alaska and what contributions that
that State makes to our Nation is certainly quite
determinative. And we have just witnessed a, you know,
representation change in Alaska with the passing of Mr. Young
and now the arrival of Ms. Mary Peltola, so, you know,
certainly encourage you to reach out to her today as well.
But know that our Committee as a whole stands committed to
what we discussed today. And thanks, you and your teams, by the
way, and certainly, Ms. Metcalf, for everything you represent.
We can't be doing this without our friends in the tribes and
who are connected to some of the incredible origin stories of
this Nation and how we do address what is changing in the
Arctic going forward without all of you. And thank you, too, to
Dr. Natali for your contributions on that front as well.
So the record is going to remain open for 2 weeks for
additional statements from Members or additional questions.
Some already made recognition that they were going to be
submitting questions for the record, and so they may submit
those for the 2-week period.
And at this point, the witnesses will be excused, and the
hearing will now be adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
Appendix
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Dr. Larry Hinzman
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Responses by Dr. Mike Sfraga
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Responses by Ms. Vera Kingeekuk Metcalf
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]