[Congressional Record Volume 162, Number 61 (Wednesday, April 20, 2016)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E534-E536]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 JOHN ENGLANDER TESTIMONY TO HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND MINERAL 
                               RESOURCES

                                 ______
                                 

                         HON. ALAN S. LOWENTHAL

                             of california

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, April 20, 2016

  Mr. LOWENTHAL. Mr. Speaker, I submit the July 28, 2015 testimony of 
John Englander to the House Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral 
Resources.

        Chairman Lamborn, Ranking Member Lowenthal, and members of 
     the Committee: I am John Englander, an oceanographer, 
     independent consultant, and author of the book, High Tide On 
     Main Street: Rising Sea Level and the Coming Coastal Crisis. 
     (2nd Ed, 2013, The Science Bookshelf)
        Thank you for inviting me to comment on the implementation 
     of the Coastal Zone Management Act. Your oversight of that 
     important legislation is a good opportunity to consider the 
     profound changes in the coastline that are just beginning to 
     occur and will almost certainly accelerate in the decades 
     ahead. I believe that looking forward to new perspectives 
     about our coastal zone management is a truly important role 
     for your subcommittee and the Natural Resources Committee and 
     deserves a high priority.
        Throughout human civilization we have recognized the 
     highly dynamic aspects of the broad coastal zone, 
     particularly the varying tides and storms, and shoreline 
     erosion or accretion. Yet, it was generally assumed that the 
     base sea level was rather stable. That was a commonsense 
     belief as the fundamental height of the ocean had changed 
     little in all of recorded human history, going back some five 
     or six thousand years.
        Understanding of the ice age cycles, however, gives a 
     critical perspective that is key to recognizing the new era 
     we are now entering. Thus I would like to briefly explain the 
     ice ages and the implications for future sea level change, as 
     that will directly impact how we define and manage the 
     coastal zone.

[[Page E535]]

     Over long periods of time, centuries and millennia, the 
     amount of ice and sea level vary inversely, in response to 
     climate shifts, that is, long-term average temperature 
     change.
        With the natural cycles of glacial advance and retreat, 
     sea level moves up and down roughly 300 to 400 feet, moving 
     typical coastlines many miles inland or seaward. This 
     phenomenon has been occurring in a regular pattern roughly 
     every hundred thousand years (more precisely varying between 
     95 and 125 thousand years).
        The most recent ice age extreme (Last Glacial Maximum) was 
     some twenty thousand years ago. At that time ice sheets miles 
     thick covered much of the northern hemisphere. Sea level was 
     390 feet lower than at present. As the ice melted, the sea 
     rose for some fifteen thousand years when it stabilized at 
     roughly the current height. That sea level change is shown in 
     attached Exhibit A, illustrating how sea level rose since the 
     last glacial maximum.
        In Exhibit B, a chart of the last four hundred thousand 
     years, that last glacial warming period is put in a larger 
     perspective, looking at several full ice age cycles with the 
     accompanying up and down of sea level. The red graph in the 
     middle, shows global average temperature, and easily 
     identifies four ice age cycles. The blue graph at the bottom 
     shows the respective sea level. The green graph at the top, 
     represents the carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration.
        At the last warm point in the cycle, 120,000 years ago, 
     average global temperature was approximately the same as 
     present and base sea level reached a height approximately 
     twenty-five feet above the present. It is almost inevitable 
     that our future sea level will eventually exceed that height. 
     The key question of course is how long it will take to occur. 
     The consensus thinking among scientists is that it will take 
     centuries, though the evidence of increased melting in key 
     locations continues to accumulate in recent years.
        Over the last twenty-five years, the Intergovernmental 
     Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has published projections for 
     SLR, though even they have rather consistently been on the 
     low side. In Exhibit C, the 1990 projections are shown in 
     blue with various spreads of possibility. The 2002 
     projections are shown in green, a little higher than the 
     previous projection. Actual sea level is shown in gold, with 
     a smoothed out trend line in red. While there is considerable 
     variation, it is clear that even for the last decade or two, 
     that official projections for sea level, underestimate the 
     rise, more often than not.
        The fact is that there is large uncertainty as to just how 
     quickly the glaciers and ice sheets on land will melt. That 
     depends on how warm the planet becomes, which in turn largely 
     depends on the levels of the `greenhouse gases' (GHG) and the 
     unknown tipping points and feedback loops for the collapse of 
     the ice.
        Again referring to the three-part chart in Exhibit B, 
     there is a long-term close correlation of sea level, average 
     global temperature and carbon dioxide levels, with CO2 being 
     the GHG of greatest concern.
        In that regard, I was very pleased to see the statement by 
     your subcommittee featuring the support of alternative energy 
     sources such as wind, solar, hydropower, biomass, and 
     nuclear. They are most likely the key to reducing the growth 
     of GHG and slowing the warming.
        However, it needs to be noted that even if all GHG 
     emissions were stopped today there is enough heat already 
     stored in the ocean to guarantee sea level will rise for 
     centuries. The rate of rise can be slowed but it can no 
     longer be stopped in the foreseeable future.
        We need to recognize that rise sea level rise is quite 
     different than the temporary flooding from storms along the 
     coast. The damaging wave action of storms is typically 
     confined to the shoreline with storm surge affecting adjacent 
     coastal waterways, all of which recedes in a very short time.
        With rising sea level saltwater percolates through porous 
     rock, getting into the fresh water table, flooding highly 
     productive and ecologically sensitive marshlands, and 
     extending up tidal rivers. Though not as dramatic as a severe 
     storm, the affected area is far broader. As a result for each 
     foot of vertical sea level rise the average shoreline is 
     estimated to move inland roughly three hundred feet.
        Given the importance of higher sea level to coastal 
     facilities such as refineries, transfer terminals, wind 
     farms, hydropower, ocean energy, and the infrastructure 
     associated with traditional energy sources, I submit that 
     this is a very important topic for consideration by your 
     Committee.
        There will be tremendous losses of assets, ``write offs'', 
     as vast areas of land go underwater with increasing frequency 
     during flood events, and eventually permanently. What is 
     often overlooked is that there will also be tremendous 
     opportunities for economic growth as we adapt to this new 
     reality.
        Now is the right time to see the future that is just over 
     the horizon and will soon be at our shores--just like a 
     tsunami racing invisibly across the sea at four hundred miles 
     an hour, only becoming visible moments before impact. In this 
     case I am using the tsunami as a metaphor for the relatively 
     slow sea level rise.
        But make no mistake the speed of the ice that is now 
     melting on Greenland and Antarctica is happening at ``warp 
     speed' in geologic time. The pace of warming is tens or even 
     a hundred times faster than at any known period in the last 
     five hundred million years of geologic history.
        Since this is without precedent in recorded human history 
     and is often misunderstood, it may be worth reviewing the 
     factors that contribute to sea level rise. Primarily it is 
     the melting of ice on land, the glaciers and ice sheets, 
     which can enter the ocean as icebergs (glacier fragments) or 
     melt water. Another factor is the slight expansion of 
     seawater as it warms. Such thermal expansion has been a major 
     factor in the last century causing nearly four inches of 
     global sea level increase, but that will almost certainly be 
     overwhelmed by the ice melt in the coming century. (There are 
     also other nuanced factors that can affect sea level, such as 
     changing ocean currents and global mass redistribution, 
     though I suspect those are beyond the scope of the 
     subcommittee's inquiry.)
        Certain locations vary considerably from the global 
     average sea level change and warrant special attention even 
     sooner. Over the last century, global average sea level has 
     been approximately eight inches as shown in Exhibit D. 
     However during the same period of time the New Orleans region 
     has had approximately forty six inches of SLR, Norfolk thirty 
     inches, Miami twelve, but Los Angles only four. Most of 
     Alaska has had lower SLR in the same period. The differences 
     are mostly due to land subsidence or uplift, which increases 
     or reduces the global average sea level change. The point is 
     that historical and future sea level change will not be the 
     same everywhere and in fact will vary greatly.
        The effects of sea level rise are often confused with 
     storm surge, coastal erosion and the regular extreme high 
     tide events, (`king tides'). Except for erosion, those other 
     types of flooding are temporary, making it possible to 
     rebuild and recover. Sea level rise is different in that it 
     is essentially permanent, and will not recede for at least a 
     thousand years.
        I trust you will see that this insight has strong 
     relevance for critical assets and infrastructure including 
     ports, power plants, and military bases that have long 
     durability and are difficult to elevate or relocate. Of 
     course there will be an even broader effect on homeowners, 
     businesses, communities, local and regional economies in the 
     vulnerable low elevation coastal areas, where a majority of 
     the US population resides.
        I encourage this Subcommittee, the Committee on Natural 
     Resources, and the Congress to revise and reauthorize the 
     CZMA taking this seminal change in the land ocean boundary--
     the coastline--into full consideration.
        I would expect that your subcommittee is also interested 
     in the changing Arctic given its potential role for energy 
     exploration and shipping. Regardless of the associated 
     concerns with those activities, it is worth noting that the 
     melting of the polar ice cap has no effect on sea level, as 
     it is floating sea ice. The disappearance of that perennial 
     ice across the Arctic Ocean does however illustrate some key 
     points. The fact that it will be essentially ice-free for 
     increasing periods of time starting in some late September, 
     almost certainly within the next decade or two, points to the 
     profoundness of this new era. The sea around the North Pole 
     has been frozen for roughly three million years.
        I recall my first expedition in 1985 diving under the 
     polar ice cap, when we had to drill through ten feet of ice. 
     That multi-year ice is almost gone. Now we just have thin ice 
     that builds up and then melts each year. That thin ice, or 
     lack of ice, has very different energy characteristics, which 
     has a huge impact on the planet's weather.
        The changes to the Arctic are truly profound and raise new 
     issues. As I am sure you have considered there is the opening 
     of sea routes, the challenge of treacherous waters for our 
     Navy and Coast Guard to operate, and new areas of shoreline 
     rapidly eroding as the coastline is exposed by the 
     disappearing ice and melting permafrost.
        Your subcommittee has the opportunity to mark a place in 
     our nation's history by recognizing and planning ahead for 
     the dynamic changes in store for our coastal zone. Sea level 
     will almost certainly reach the upper limit cited in the 2014 
     National Climate Assessment regardless of exactly when it 
     occurs. That report explicitly said they had a 90 percent 
     confidence that SLR this century would be between upper and 
     lower bounds of 8 inches and 6.6 feet. It is difficult to 
     quantify the collapse rate of the West Antarctic marine 
     glaciers, due to the phenomenon of ``tipping points'', which 
     defy accurate modeling until they can be observed in detail.
        That challenge leads to an inadvertent conservative or low 
     figure, not because of a lack of risk, but rather due to the 
     inability to put a precise number on it. With other phenomena 
     where we have had prior experience such as earthquakes, 
     tornedos, and hurricanes we plan for low probability high-
     risk events. In the case of sea level rise, the worst-case 
     scenarios for this century now exceed ten feet, yet hardly 
     anyone is putting that scenario in their range of planning.
        A key point in that National Climate Assessment that is 
     often overlooked is that they acknowledge a one-in-ten chance 
     that it will not be within those bounds. In risk terms, a ten 
     percent chance is huge. In fact a risk assessment is exactly 
     how we should be considering the effect of rising sea level 
     on the coastline and our management thereof.
        We are already seeing the destructive effects of sea level 
     rise today. Just to cite a few examples: In Miami Beach, they 
     recently installed $15 million of pumps to keep salt water 
     off the streets that now occurs every 28 days with the full-
     moon high tide. It is just the first phase of a $400 million 
     plan

[[Page E536]]

     that they admit has limitations as sea level continues to 
     rise. In Hampton Roads, both military and private locations 
     are seeing steadily worsening flooding, a combination of 
     higher global sea level, a slowing of the Gulf Stream, and 
     subsidence.
        From the Carolina banks to Cape Cod, coastal changes are 
     noticeable from year-to-year. Along San Francisco's seven-
     mile Embarcadero well inside the Bay, saltwater now comes 
     over the seawall onto the street with increasing frequency. I 
     could cite examples from Annapolis, Boston, Seattle, and the 
     Gulf Coast or dozens of others. These are manifestations of 
     rising sea level already increasing the problem of storm 
     impacts and abnormal high tides. It will continue to get 
     worse.
        In the longer term, mid-century and beyond, rising sea 
     level will dramatically change the coastal zone, probably 
     beyond what most of us can imagine, within the lifetimes of 
     our children and grandchildren. We can ignore reality and 
     leave future Americans to suffer the consequences.
        Or we can see the future in front of us and plan for 
     intelligent adaptation. Recent evidence from Antarctica makes 
     clear that the melting forces are well ahead of nearly all 
     the models and projections, similar to the way that the 
     melting of the polar ice cap is far ahead of the models. 
     Those who understand the dynamics of glacial collapse and the 
     uncertainty of specific projections, appreciate that the 
     models will almost certainly continue to underestimate the 
     rate of their collapse, and the sea level rise that will 
     directly result.
        To close my remarks, the sea does not care what we think 
     or want, or what laws we pass. Throughout history the ocean 
     has taught man humility. We ignore its power at our peril. 
     Along with crisis, there is opportunity. There can be 
     tremendous innovation and adaptation in the coming decades as 
     we anticipate and change our coastal oriented society and 
     economies. But getting a good return on investment requires 
     that we see where things are headed.
        I often cite the Dutch as an example of how it is possible 
     to do bold engineering, but also to illustrate the potential 
     trap of inadequate design. Many have seen pictures of the 
     amazing gates at Rotterdam harbor, the Maeslantkering. 
     Designed in the 1980's with construction finished in the 
     early 90's, it is a key part of their innovative coastal 
     defense system. The cost was almost a billion dollars. It was 
     designed for a one-in-ten thousand-year storm, and the worst 
     historical downstream flooding from the three rivers that 
     merge there.
        Plus they added an allowance for one foot of sea level 
     rise, as that was the worst they considered possible when it 
     was designed. Now they recognize that will soon be 
     inadequate. If they had been able to foresee the possibility 
     of five to ten feet of SLR back in the 1980's they admit they 
     would have designed the barrier with greater height for 
     longer effectiveness and a better ROI--return on investment.
        Our coastline is largely unchanged since the founding of 
     the United States, a nation founded in recognition of truth 
     and science. Our founders specifically recognized that the 
     world of man and nature was dynamic and would need to adapt 
     accordingly.
        Our changing coastline, a significant feature of the 
     United States, is an appropriate place to implement that 
     attitude, respecting the collaborative relationship between 
     the Federal government and the States. From my perspective 
     the CZMA seems like the right forum to have that discussion 
     about public policy. The sea is rising and the shoreline is 
     shifting. We have time to adapt, but no time to waste.
        Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. I would be 
     pleased to answer questions.

                          ____________________