[Senate Hearing 113-749]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 113-749
NATURAL RESOURCE ADAPTATION: PROTECTING ECOSYSTEMS AND ECONOMIES
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
----------
FEBRUARY 25, 2014
----------
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys
S. Hrg. 113-749
NATURAL RESOURCE ADAPTATION: PROTECTING ECOSYSTEMS AND ECONOMIES
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 25, 2014
__________
Printed for the use of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public
Works
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
97-585 PDF WASHINGTON : 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman
THOMAS CARPER, Delaware DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
TOM UDALL, New Mexico MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon ROGER WICKER, Mississippi
KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey DEB FISCHER, Nebraska
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
Bettina Poirier, Majority Staff Director
Zak Baig, Republican Staff Director
----------
Subcommittee on Oversight
CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey, Chairman
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
BARBARA BOXER, California (ex DAVID VITTER, Louisiana(ex
officio) officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
FEBRUARY 25, 2014
OPENING STATEMENTS
Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode
Island......................................................... 1
Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma... 4
WITNESSES
John, Holdren, Hon. P., Ph.D., Director, Office of Science and
Technology Policy, Executive Office of the President........... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 9
Responses to additional questions from Senator Vitter........ 14
Ashe, Hon. Daniel M., Director, United States Fish and Wildlife
Service........................................................ 31
Prepared statement........................................... 33
Matson, Noah, Vice President for Climate Adaptation, Defenders of
Wildlife....................................................... 51
Prepared statement........................................... 54
Houghton, David, President, National Wildlife Refuge Association. 61
Prepared statement........................................... 63
Brown, Christopher, President, Rhode Island Commercial
Fishermen's Association........................................ 71
Prepared statement........................................... 72
Moore, Patrick, Ph.D., Chair and Chief Scientist, Ecosense
Environmental.................................................. 74
Prepared statement........................................... 76
Bryce, Robert, Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute for Policy
Research....................................................... 127
Prepared statement........................................... 129
Responses to additional questions from Senator Vitter........ 142
ADDITIONAL MATERIALS
Statement of Judith A. Curry Georgia Institute of Technology
Climate Forecast Applications Network, LLC..................... 216
Statement of Dr. Roger Pielke, Jr., Professor, Center for Science
and Technology Policy Research, University of Colorado......... 230
Article, American Meteorological Society, Bulletin of the
American Meteorological Society................................ 240
Article, Wallace P. Erickson, Gregory D. Johnson, And David P.
Young Jr.; A Summary and Comparison of Bird Mortality from
Anthropogenic Causes with an Emphasis on Collisions............ 270
Report, Environmental Health Perspectives and the National
Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, A Human Health
Perspective on Climate Change.................................. 291
Report, Critical Thinking on Climate Change, Questions to
Consider Before Taking Regulatory Action and Implementing
Economic Policies.............................................. 370
Comentary, John C. Fyfe, Nathan P. Gillett, and Francis W.
Zwiers, Overestimated global warming over the past 20 years.... 399
Report, U.S. Global Change Research Program and the Subcommittee
on Global Research, Our Changing Planet........................ 402
NATURAL RESOURCE ADAPTATION: PROTECTING ECOSYSTEMS AND ECONOMIES
----------
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2014
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Subcommittee on Oversight,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m. in
room 406, Dirksen Senate Building, Hon. Sheldon Whitehouse
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Senators Whitehouse, Markey, Inhofe, Vitter,
Sessions.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
Senator Whitehouse. The distinguished ranking member is on
his way, so I will open with my opening statement.
First of all, we will call the hearing to order and I will
open with my opening statement. Then when Senator Inhofe
arrives, if he is here at the conclusion of my opening remarks,
he can give his. If not, I will interrupt the witness and allow
whoever is speaking at the time to yield to my distinguished
ranking member.
We are here today for the committee to discuss the benefits
that our American natural resources provide to us and the need
for adaptation planning to protect these American resources in
the face of climate change. I have been proud to work on this
issue in recent years with former Senator Max Baucus. While Max
is no longer here in the Senate, I am glad that this committee
is meeting today to carry on this important work. From the
beaches of Rhode Island to the glaciers of Montana, nature's
bounty provides us with life's essentials: clean air and water,
crops and timber, recreation and our outdoor heritage. Climate
change threatens to rob us of these essentials.
I have gone to the Senate floor now nearly 60 times to urge
my colleagues to wake up to the facts of carbon pollution. But
the fact of the matter is that even if we stop carbon pollution
today, we still face decades of change in our air and water and
temperatures and in extreme weather.
So while we must take up the challenge to reduce greenhouse
gas emissions, we must also begin to prepare and adapt and
secure our natural resources against the changes that we cannot
avoid. Status quo management and planning will not be good
enough. A GAO report on the topic, citing several sources, says
``Natural resource management has historically been based on
the idea of maintaining current environmental conditions, or
restoring species and habitats to some desired former
condition. As the climate continues to change,'` GAO concludes,
``this approach will become increasingly more difficult, if not
impossible to maintain.'`
But adaptation to warming air and ocean temperatures to
catastrophic weather events, even to full ecosystem shifts,
isn't easy work. And the Federal, State and local leaders we
entrust to protect our property and our ecosystems are often
constrained by outdated laws and regulations.
That is why Senator Baucus and I introduced the Safeguard
America's Future and the Environment Act, the SAFE Act, for
short. It puts all climate adaptation tools and approaches on
the table and would engage local stakeholders as well. As a
first step, the SAFE Act requires adaptation planning and
management efforts by Federal natural resources agencies, those
that manage nearly 30 percent of land in the United States, as
well as our marine resources, like fisheries, and our exclusive
economic zone that extends 200 miles from our shore.
The Administration is already doing what it can on this
front. The President's climate action plan includes steps to
prepare us for the effects of climate change. And he further
focused the Administration's adaptation efforts in an executive
order he issued in November. John Holdren, the Director of the
White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, is here to
update us on these efforts, as well as the science behind what
we are seeing and why strategic adaptation planning is so
necessary in the face of climate change.
The executive order builds on the first national fish,
wildlife and plants adaptation strategy which Congress
requested in 2009 and the Administration released last March. I
look forward to hearing from Fish and Wildlife Service Director
Dan Ashe about implementation plans for the strategy as well as
other adaptation measures being championed by the Service.
I would also like to thank the witnesses on our second
panel who will provide much-needed perspective on what is
happening outside of Washington. In particular, I want to
recognize Chris Brown, President of the Rhode Island Commercial
Fishermen's Association. Chris's livelihood depends on the
oceans. Sadly, our oceans are becoming ground zero for damage
from carbon pollution. The oceans are warming. That is a
measurement, not a theory. Sea level is rising. That is another
measurement. Oceans are becoming more acidic. Again, a
measurement, not a theory.
These changes are already affecting marine life. Some
species are moving northward and southward toward the colder
water of the poles, as quickly as 10 to 45 miles per decade.
Events that are timed for spring or summer, like egg-laying or
migration, are happening several days earlier each decade. More
acidic waters caused a 70 to 80 percent loss of oyster larvae
at a hatchery in Oregon and crashed wildstocks in Washington
State.
In Rhode Island, Narragansett Bay has seen an overall
increase in annual water temperature of between 3 and 4 degrees
since 1960. According to Christopher Deacutis, the previous
chief scientist of the Narragansett Bay estuary program, ``Fish
species in Narragansett Bay are shifting, seemingly in step
with increased temperatures.'` UI Professor Jeremy Colley and
others have shown that coldwater marine species such as the
winter flounder, which used to be the dominant fish species in
the Bay, are radically decreasing in numbers. Meanwhile, warmer
water species such as summer flounder, scup and butterfish seem
to be increasing. As fish species shift, either farther north
or farther offshore, our fisheries management strategies are
going to have to keep up and so is our science. We need to
understand how environmental conditions are changing to better
predict how species will react and how to manage them for the
benefit of our fishermen.
I am grateful that Chris is here to remind us that in
addition to our national parks, forests and land species, our
oceans and coasts and fisheries and the economies they support
are also jeopardized by climate change. We must prepare for the
changes that are coming and as well do everything we can to
prevent future changes from carbon pollution.
I look forward to today's discussion, and before we turn to
the witnesses, let me turn to our distinguished ranking member.
[The prepared statement of Senator Whitehouse follows:]
Statement of Hon. Sheldon Whitehouse, U.S Senator
from the State of Rhode Island
Today the Committee will discuss the benefits our American
natural resources provide and the need for adaptation planning
to protect these American resources in the face of climate
change.
I have been proud to work on this issue in recent years
with former Senator Max Baucus, and while he is no longer here
in the Senate, I'm glad the Committee is meeting today to carry
on his important work. From the beaches of Rhode Island to the
glaciers of Montana, nature's bounty provide us with life's
essentials: clean air and water, crops and timber, recreation
and our outdoor heritage. Climate change threatens to rob us of
these essentials.
I've gone to the Senate floor now nearly 60 times to plead
with my colleagues to wake up to the facts of carbon pollution.
The fact of the matter is that even if we stop carbon pollution
today, we still face decades of changes in air and ocean
temperatures and extreme weather. So while we must take up the
challenge to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we must also
begin to adapt, and secure our natural resources against the
changes we cannot avoid.
Status quo management and planning will not be good enough.
A GAO report on the topic, citing several sources, says,
``natural resource management has historically been based on
the idea of maintaining current environmental conditions or
restoring species and habitats to some desired former
condition. As the climate continues to change, this approach
will become increasingly more difficult if not impossible to
maintain. ''
But adaptation--to warming air and ocean temperatures, to
catastrophic weather events, even to full ecosystem shifts--
isn't easy work, and the Federal, State and local leaders we
entrust to protect our property and our ecosystems are often
constrained by outdated laws and regulations. That's why
Senator Baucus and I introduced the Safeguarding America's
Future and the Environment Act. The SAFE Act, for short, puts
all climate adaptation tools and approaches on the table, and
would engage local stakeholders as well.
As a first step, the SAFE Act requires adaptation planning
and management efforts by Federal natural resource agencies.
The Federal Government manages nearly 30 percent of land in the
United States as well as marine resources, like fisheries, in
our exclusive economic zone that extends 200 miles from our
shore.
The Administration is already doing what it can on this
front. The President's Climate Action Plan includes steps to
prepare us for the effects of climate change and he further
focused the Administration's adaptation efforts in an Executive
Order he issued in November. John Holdren, the Director of the
White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, is here to
update us on these efforts, as well as the science behind what
we're seeing and why strategic adaptation planning is so
necessary in the face of climate change.
The Executive Order builds on the first National Fish,
Wildlife and Plants Adaptation Strategy, which Congress
requested in 2009 and the Administration released last March. I
look forward to hearing from Fish and Wildlife Service Director
Dan Ashe about implementation plans for the Strategy as well as
other adaptation measures being championed by the Service.
I'd also like to thank the witnesses on our second panel,
who will provide a much needed perspective on what is happening
outside of Washington. I especially want to recognize Chris
Brown, President of the Rhode Island Commercial Fishermen's
Association.
Chris's livelihood depends on the oceans. Sadly, our oceans
are becoming ground zero for damage from carbon pollution. The
oceans are warming. That's a measurement, not a theory. Sea
level is rising. That's another measurement. Oceans are
becoming more acidic. Again, a measurement, not a theory.
These changes are already affecting marine life. Some
species are moving toward the colder water of the North and
South Poles, as quickly as 10 to 45 miles per decade. Events
that are timed for spring and summer, like egg laying or
migration, are happening about 4 days earlier per decade. More
acidic waters caused a 70-80 percent loss of oyster larvae at a
hatchery in Oregon and crashed wild stocks in Washington State.
In Rhode Island, Narragansett Bay has seen an overall
increase in annual water temperature of between 3 and 4 degrees
since 1960. According to Christopher Deacutis, the previous
Chief Scientist of the Narragansett Bay Estuary Program:
``Fish species in Narragansett Bay are . . . shifting,
seemingly in step with increased temperatures. [URI Professor]
Jeremy Collie and others have shown that cold-water marine
species such as the winter flounder, which used to be the
dominant fish species in the bay, are radically decreasing in
numbers. Meanwhile, warmer-water species such as summer
flounder, scup and butterfish seem to be increasing.''
As fish species shift, either farther north or farther
offshore, our management strategies are going to have to keep
up and so is our science. We need to understand how
environmental conditions are changing to better predict how
species will react and how to manage them for the benefit of
our fishermen.
I'm grateful that Chris is here to remind us that in
addition to our national parks, forests, and land species, our
oceans and coasts and the economies they support are also
jeopardized by climate change. We must prepare for the changes
that are coming and do everything we can to prevent future
changes from carbon pollution.
I look forward to today's discussion.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't agree, but
let's----
Senator Whitehouse. You weren't expected to.
[Laughter.]
Senator Inhofe. Last month during the hearing on the
climate action plan, I spent the bulk of my time raising
concerns about the Environmental Protection Agency's rollout of
its greenhouse gas regulations, which I found to be alarmingly
hypocritical. On the one hand, the Administration says these
regulations are urgently needed. On the other hand, the EPA
intentionally delayed the rule's publication to prevent it from
being implemented prior to the mid-term elections this fall.
This is kind of reminiscent of the last elections that we had.
Does anyone other than me care that fewer, and I
understand, and I say to my good friend, and we are good
friends, that while I don't agree on this, neither do the
majority of the people in the U.S. Senate or in the House.
Because they can't get more than 35 votes, is all you can get
today, a bill to legislatively allow the EPA to regulate
greenhouse gases. We know this is true, we have been there
before. So now they are trying to do what they couldn't do with
legislation through regulation. And the cost of these is pretty
alarming.
Now, what is more concerning is that there is similar
behavior taking place across the government, including the Fish
and Wildlife Service, the bald eagle, the Golden Eagle
Protection Act passed in 1940, and it protects our national
bird from hunting, poaching and other activities that could
harm it. The Act states that without a permit, it is illegal to
take, possess or sell or purchase any bald eagle. Wind
turbines, with their massive blades, kill an estimated 1.4
million birds a year as the turbines spin through the air. Some
of these casualties have been protected birds like the bald
eagle.
Federal law stipulates that the illegal killing of bald
eagles be punished with fines and/or jail sentences. But this
won't be the case for the wind industry. On December 6th of
2013, the Administration said that it would begin granting
waivers to wind farm operators so that they would be able to
kill bald eagles for a period of 30 years without fear of any
retribution. That is pretty shocking.
While I am not particularly bothered by the fact that
permits are being offered, I am extremely concerned by the
systematic practices of this Administration to use its powers
to help its friends in renewable energy, while punishing its
enemies developing traditional fossil fuels. Other species
receive similar protections to the bald eagle under the
Endangered Species Act. One covered species is the American
burrowing beetle, many of which are located in eastern
Oklahoma. For the past 2 years, eastern Oklahoma has been
without a general conservation plan making it illegal to engage
in nearly all activities that could disturb the ABB.
Despite repeated attempts by my office, the State of
Oklahoma and dozens of private entities, we have not managed to
get anything out of the Service. This is a big deal, because
many companies are planning to build new neighborhoods, develop
new oil and gas wells and construct new pipelines, but because
of the GCP, its effect is not final, they can't do it. When
this is compared to the new permits the Service may offer the
wind industry, I can't think but that this is a startling
double standard.
Justice is supposed to be blind. Treatment of different
industries is supposed to be equal under the law, including the
energy industry. And while the President says that he has an
all of the above energy strategy, evidence shows whether the
EPA or the Fish and Wildlife Service, that its real strategy is
focused primarily on restricting traditional fossil fuels while
assisting the development of renewables.
This favoritism also extends to the way the government
thinks about the adaptability of our Nation to changing
circumstances. Renewable energy requires massive amounts of
land to make very small quantities of power. But the government
seems to ignore this fact. One recently constructed solar farm
takes up five square miles but only makes enough electricity to
power 140,000 homes. By contrast, a typical natural gas powered
plant may in total take up only half of a square mile, but can
generate enough power to support over a million homes.
So despite the true impacts of renewables on the
environment, the Administration continues to turn a blind eye
to them. It is my hope that during this hearing we will be able
to uncover some of the facts and provide a better framework for
comparing the relative benefits and costs of the different
forms of energy.
Again, I would just repeat what I said earlier, ever since
the Kyoto Treaty, I say to our Chairman, we have gone through
this thing. I can recall the first bill to be introduced was
not really a Democrat bill, it was the McCain-Lieberman bill.
It was soundly defeated, and this was 12 years ago. There have
been several others, one by a new member of this committee that
I am sure will be here, my very good friend from Massachusetts.
And they have not been able to get enough votes to even get a
third of the vote out of the Senate and less than a third in
the House.
So there is something wrong with the system, I say to my
chairman, that we are able to go ahead and do through
regulation what they have tried over and over again for 12
years to get through legislation unsuccessfully.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:]
Statement of Hon. James M. Inhofe, U.S. Senator
from the State of Oklahoma
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing today. It
is important for us to conduct oversight on all aspects of the
President's Climate Action Plan to uncover the impact it will
have on our Nation.
Last month, during a hearing on the Climate Action Plan, I
spent the bulk of my time raising concerns with the
Environmental Protection Agency's rollout of its greenhouse gas
regulations, which I found to be alarmingly hypocritical. On
the one hand, the Administration says these regulations are
urgently needed; on the other, the EPA intentionally delayed
the rule's publication to prevent it from being implemented
prior to the midterm elections this fall.
And does anyone other than me care that fewer than 35
percent of the members of either the House or the Senate would
even vote in favor of legislation granting EPA the authority to
regulate greenhouse gases? And yet we continue to spend
countless time debating the issue.
This is alarming, but what's more concerning is that I see
similar behavior taking place across the government, including
at the Fish and Wildlife Service.
The Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Protection Act, passed in
1940, protects our national bird from hunting, poaching, and
other activities that could harm it. The act states that
without a permit, it is illegal to ``take, possess, sell, [or]
purchase'' any bald eagle.
Wind turbines, with their massive blades, kill an estimated
1.4 million birds per year as their turbines spin through the
air. Some of these casualties have been protected birds like
the bald eagle.
Federal law stipulates that the illegal killing of bald
eagles be punished with fines and/or jail sentences, but this
won't be the case for the wind industry. On December 6, 2013,
the Administration said that it would begin granting waivers to
wind farm operators so that they would be able to kill bald
eagles for a period of 30 years without fear of any
retribution.
While I'm not particularly bothered by the fact that the
permits are being offered, I am extremely concerned by the
systematic practices of this Administration to use its powers
to help its friends in renewable energy while punishing its
enemies developing traditional fossil fuels.
Other species receive similar protections to the Bald Eagle
under the Endangered Species Act. One covered species is the
American Burying Beetle (ABB), many of which are located in
Eastern Oklahoma.
For the past 2 years, Eastern Oklahoma has been without a
General Conservation Plan, making it illegal to engage in
nearly all activities that could disturb the ABB.
Despite repeated attempts by my office, the State of
Oklahoma, and dozens of private entities, we have not managed
to get anything out of the Service. This is a big deal because
many companies are planning to build new neighborhoods, develop
new oil and gas wells, and construct new pipelines, but because
the GCP is not final, they cannot do it.
When this is compared to the new permits the Service may
offer wind industry, I can't help but think this is a startling
double standard.
Justice is supposed to be blind. Treatment of different
industries is supposed to be equal under the law, including the
energy industry. And while the President says that he has an
all-of-the-above energy strategy, evidence shows--whether at
EPA or the Fish and Wildlife Service--that his real strategy is
focused primarily on restricting traditional fossil fuels while
assisting the development of renewables.
This favoritism also extends to the way the government
thinks about the adaptability of our nation to changing
circumstances. Renewable energy requires massive amounts of
land to make very small quantities of power, but the government
seems to ignore this fact. One recently constructed solar farm
takes up 5 square miles but only makes enough electricity to
power 140,000 homes. By contrast, a typical natural gas power
plant may, in total, take up only a half square mile but can
generate enough power to support over one million homes.
Despite the true impacts of renewables on the environment,
the Administration continues to turn a blind eye to them. It's
my hope that during this hearing, we'll be able to uncover some
of these facts and provide a better framework for comparing the
relative benefits and costs of different forms of energy.
Senator Whitehouse. Always glad to hear from the ranking
member. Some would say that the problem is the problem with
Congress. That is one that elections will cure, with any luck.
Senator Inhofe. I do agree with that.
Senator Whitehouse. Now we have Dr. Holdren, who is the
Assistant to the President for Science and Technology and the
Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology
Policy. He is also the co-chair of the President's Council of
Advisors on Science and Technology.
He has served previously as a member of the President's
Council of Advisors on Science and Technology during the
Clinton administration and also chaired studies for President
Clinton on preventing theft of nuclear materials, disposition
of surplus weapon plutonium, the prospects of fusion energy,
U.S. energy R&D strategy and international cooperation on
energy technology innovation. He holds advanced degrees in
aerospace engineering and theoretical plasma physics--hurts my
head just to say that--from MIT and Stanford.
Dr. Holdren, welcome and thank you. Then we will turn to
Mr. Ashe.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN P. HOLDREN, PH.D., DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY POLICY, EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE
PRESIDENT
Mr. Holdren. Thank you, Chairman Whitehouse, Ranking Member
Inhofe. I am certainly pleased to be here today to discuss with
you the Federal Government's ongoing work to inform and support
climate change preparedness and resilience in communities
across America.
Few environmental factors affect our Nation's economy,
communities and ecosystems more than weather and climate.
Severe weather and climate change poses important risks to
human health, safety, livelihoods and property. In 2012 alone,
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National
Climate Data Center identified 11 weather-related events in the
United States that each resulted in losses exceeding a billion
dollars, totaling $110 billion in damages and 377 deaths across
the entire year.
And we are all acutely aware that the severe drought
currently afflicting California and other areas of the
southwest is having important impacts on agriculture, ranching,
water resource management and other critical sectors of the
region's economy.
Scientifically, one cannot say that any single episode of
extreme weather, no storm, no flood, no drought, was caused by
climate change. What scientists can say is that global climate
has been so extensively impacted by the human-caused buildup of
greenhouse gases that many such events are being influenced by
climate change. Any effective effort to boost climate
preparedness will require anticipating and planning for changes
in the frequency, intensity and locations of some kinds of
extreme weather and climate events as well as for other
changes, such as the continuing rise of sea level.
Strengthening America's climate resilience also requires a
full understanding of how climate change is affecting the
health of our environment and natural resources and what can be
done to plan and prepared for such changes. As you pointed out
in your opening statement, Senator Whitehouse, ecosystems
provide a range of important benefits to people, including
protection of coastal areas, clean drinking water and
opportunities for commerce, tourism and recreation.
Some of the Nation's ecosystems have been depleted or
degraded due to non-climatic factors, pollution, over-
harvesting, changes in land use, that have reduced the ability
of these systems to provide benefits to people. But these
benefits are further threatened by climate change, the impacts
of which include widespread changes in the Nation's habitats
and ecosystems. Certain commercial fish species are moving
northward along the east coast as waters warm. The timing of
some biological events, such as flowering and migration, is
shifting in regions across the Country. Decreases in rainfall
and snow pack in the west are reducing the health and
productivity of forests and agricultural systems alike.
The President's climate action plan, released last June,
provides a roadmap for Federal action to meet the pressing
challenges that come with climate change, including concrete
actions that can be taken to boost the resilience and
preparedness of American communities. These actions build on
work already completed or underway, including a number of
Federal interagency climate adaptation strategies related to
freshwater resources, fish, wildlife and plants and marine
resources.
The plan also recognizes the need to ensure that the best
science, research, data, tools and technologies are brought to
bear in implementing all climate preparedness and resilience
efforts. The White House Office of Science and Technology
Policy is working with partners within and outside government
to meet this challenge and to meet the growing demand among
decisionmakers on the ground for accessible and actionable
information to inform their efforts to plan and prepare for
climate change.
I thank the committee for its support and interest in this
issue, and I look forward to continuing to work with you. I
will be pleased to take any questions that you may have.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Holdren follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Dr. Holdren. And as is
custom in this committee, your longer statement that was
provided will be put into the record. We appreciate that you
were able to summarize in the appropriate amount of time.
Mr. Ashe, welcome. Actually, let me do my proper
introduction to you. Daniel Ashe was confirmed on June 30th,
2011 as the 16th Director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. Prior to his appointment, Mr. Ashe served as the Fish
and Wildlife Service Deputy Director for Policy, beginning in
2009.
Mr. Ashe is a career member of the Fish and Wildlife
Service, having served in a great variety of capacities, and
formerly was a professional staff member of the former House
Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries. He is also a
legacy, his father served in the Fish and Wildlife Service for
37 years. Mr. Ashe brings to us a B.S. in biological science
degree from Florida State University and a masters in marine
affairs from the University of Washington.
Please proceed, Mr. Ashe.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. DANIEL M. ASHE, DIRECTOR, UNITED STATES
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Mr. Ashe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Inhofe. It is a
pleasure to be here again.
If we think about this issue of adaptation and response to
climate change, I think what I would say is, climate change
affects every aspect of the enterprise of wildlife
conservation. But it is not just climate change, it is climate
change on top of and turbo-charging the cumulative effects of
other factors driving wildlife populations, things like habitat
loss and fragmentation, wildlife diseases like white nose
syndrome in bats and Kitrick fungus in amphibians, species
invasions, wildfire. So it is climate change on top of all of
these things. We see these effects, these cumulative,
accelerating effects, everywhere we look.
Chairman Whitehouse, in your region of the Country,
consider Atlantic salmon conservation. For nearly 40 years, the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has worked with many partners,
State, tribal, local, to try to achieve Atlantic salmon
conservation in the Connecticut River. We have put forth great
effort with great partnerships. But what we find is now with
the accelerating effects of climate change, driving warming of
the water and changing of the chemical and physical
characteristics of the Connecticut River, that that is acting
synergistically with other factors, like the presence of
predators that never existed in the Connecticut River, like
smallmouth bass and human-based pollution of the water, and
barriers to migration like dams and other barriers in the
Connecticut River and tributaries.
So climate change now acting cumulatively and
synergistically with those effects are telling us that we can't
achieve Atlantic salmon conservation in the Connecticut River.
So if we are going to achieve that, we need to look elsewhere
within the historic range of the species.
Mr. Inhofe, as you know, we are seeing the same things in
the range of the Lesser prairie chicken. Certainly habitat loss
and alteration changes are being accelerated and exacerbated by
changes in soil moisture and other things that seem to be
driving the Lesser prairie chicken toward potential extinction.
We have made great efforts working with the State to put in
place a range-wide plan, working on a candidate conservation
agreement to drive conservation, habitat conservation for this
species. But the one missing ingredient there is rain, and will
we get rain, and will the presence or absence of rain, is that
a phenomenon of weather, or is that a phenomenon of climate.
Does it really matter. What we need to do is, we need to better
understand what is driving the fate of these creatures that we
are responsible for.
And as I was thinking about this, I am going to borrow from
a book called The Legacy, by David Suzuki. He talks about the
human enterprise and he talks about the fact that we are not an
impressive species in size and speed and strength or sensory
alacrity. But the key to our success as a species is this two-
kilogram organ encased in our skull. The human brain has more
than compensated for our lack of physical or sensory abilities.
We observe, we learn, we remember. We recognize causal
relationships and we come up with innovative solutions to
problems.
So throughout history, drawing on our experience and
knowledge, we have dreamed of our place in the world and
imagined the future into being. By inventing a future, we could
look ahead, we could see where dangers and opportunities lay
and recognized that our actions would have consequence in that
future. Foresight gave us a leg up and brought us into a
position of dominance in the world. I think now we are at that
position of time where foresight is especially important. As we
look at all of these things that are influencing not only the
future of the wildlife that is the mission and responsibility
of my agency, but our life, it seems like it is an especially
important time for us to exercise that special human ingredient
and characteristic of foresight.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Ashe follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Director Ashe.
How would the capacity of our human brain exercise its God-
given quality of foresight be influenced in your world, in
protecting our natural resources, if we fail to acknowledge the
reality of climate change?
Mr. Ashe. It cannot be, if we do not acknowledge the
reality of climate change. I think in what we are doing in the
Fish and Wildlife Service, you acknowledged, one, the National
Fish, Wildlife and Plants Climate Change Adaptation Strategy.
We are working with our State partners, with our tribal
partners, with local partners to think about the future and to
plan for that. Some of the steps are simple, that we need to
learn more, we need to understand more about the effect of a
changing climate on populations. We need to be able to
anticipate more. We are developing a national and international
network of landscape conservation cooperatives, a partner-
driven, partner-managed scientific enterprise. We are working
to conserve and connect large landscapes, to build a
representative, resilient and redundant conservation network.
And we are doing that not just with environmental community
partners like the Nature Conservancy or Defenders of Wildlife,
we are doing that with energy industry partners. So simple
common sense steps to make a difference.
Senator Whitehouse. As was the case with Mr. Holdren,
Director Ashe, your full statement will be made a matter of
record here. You State in it, according to the U.S. Global
Change Research Program, significant changes in the U.S.
climate over the past 50 years have occurred, including
increases in average temperatures, shifts in rainfall and storm
patterns, increases in wildfires, more frequent water
shortages, rising sea levels, loss of arctic sea ice, ocean
acidification, changing precipitation patterns and coastal
flooding and erosion.
Is that a matter of theory or is that at this point a
matter of observation?
Mr. Ashe. Those are all matters of observation, sir.
Senator Whitehouse. Dr. Holdren, the President recently
announced plans for a billion dollar climate resilience fund
that is meant to help communities deal with harms from extreme
events due to climate change. Can you talk a little bit about
how these resilience measures, completed before or in the
recovery phase of a natural disaster, actually save money in
the future? We have lived through this question with Sandy in
New England and I would like to have your comment on that.
Mr. Holdren. First of all, we know of course that events
like Sandy are immensely expensive. We also know from both
experience and analysis that prevention of damage is almost
always considerably less expensive than rebuilding after the
damage or otherwise trying to repair it.
In the natural resource context that is the particular
focus of this hearing, we know that community resilience, the
resilience of human communities, depends in many respects on
ecosystem resilience. The declines in benefits provided by
ecosystems, including as a result of climate change, have
direct and indirect impacts on livelihoods and the economy of
communities. Loss of coral reefs due to bleaching and disease
means losses of revenue for the tourism industry as well as
declines in reef-dependent fish species that have commercial
value.
Again, almost invariably, when you count up the cost of
allowing this damage to continue unabated versus the cost of
intervening to reduce the damage or increase resilience to
protect against it, you find that these investments are a
bargain. That is why the President has proposed his billion
dollar climate resilience fund. It will be a bargain.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you very much.
I will yield back my time to our distinguished ranking
member.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Ashe, I said in my opening statement I have been
concerned that the Service has been giving preferential
treatment under the Endangered Species Act to renewable energy
producers when compared to those of traditional fuels. I know
we have talked about this before. But this is particularly
problematic in Oklahoma with the American burrowing beetle. You
and I both know that the oil and gas industry is the source of
most economic activity there. But because there isn't a general
conservation plan in place, most of this new activity has been
curtailed. It is my understanding that a new general
conservation plan is under development.
You are a good friend of Richard Hatcher in our State of
Oklahoma and you have visited extensively with each other. He
is our director of the Oklahoma Department of Wildlife
Conservation. And he asked if it would be possible to allow
modified conservation practices until a new GCP is completed,
which is expected to be later this year. What would be your
answer to that? Would that be possible?
Mr. Ashe. Thank you, Mr. Inhofe. Mr. Hatcher is a great
American and a great friend. I think we are working on an
interim plan for the American burrowing beetle. In fact, people
are meeting today, I am told, in Oklahoma with the State and
with representatives from the energy industry to try to find a
solution while we work on the larger general conservation plan.
So Senator, we are committed to trying to find a solution.
It is surprisingly vexing, I have to admit. But we are working
to try to find an interim solution, and conversations are
literally going on as we speak. I am hopeful that by the spring
we will have identified a solution.
Senator Inhofe. The question, though, that he asked was,
would it be possible to go ahead and address this thing,
possible to allow maybe a modified conservation practices until
the new plan is completed. I think as you just now said, it is
expected to be completed soon. It is very close right now. So
in the interim period, that is the concern he was asking about.
Mr. Ashe. I would have to talk to Richard specifically
about his ideas. I have not had a chance to do that.
Senator Inhofe. OK, that would be good. That is fair
enough, you would do that.
I think most of our conversation has been around the Lesser
prairie chicken. This is something that has been of great
concern in the State of Oklahoma and about a four-State area,
New Mexico, Kansas and Texas and Oklahoma. From what I
understand, we are in the very final stages of giving final
approval to the oil and gas CCAA and acres are being enrolled
in the State-based range-wide plan.
I recently wrote you a letter asking if you would allow
enrollment in the CCAAs beyond a listing decision. This is
important because we are about a month away from the deadline.
It often takes several weeks to complete the enrollment
process. Enrollment can't be done until the CCAA is finalized.
Would you allow a post-position enrollment?
Mr. Ashe. I cannot do that. Our expectation, Senator, is
that the Candidate Conservation agreement will be completed
this week, by Friday of this week. So we will have a completed
instrument and sign-ups can begin.
If we were to list the Lesser prairie chicken, then it
would no longer be a candidate. So it would not be appropriate
for people to sign----
Senator Inhofe. So you are saying you cannot do it, even if
you are willing to do that?
Mr. Ashe. We cannot do it.
Senator Inhofe. If we were to find that you can do it, then
would you reconsider that? Because we are right down now to the
deadline. The time is on us now.
By the way, I have to say this, for this committee, how
much I appreciate the fact that you in your confirmation made
an agreement to come out, talk to our people about the
cooperative plans that we have, the partnership plans that we
have in Oklahoma.
Mr. Ashe. Thank you, sir.
Senator Inhofe. You did it not only once, but twice. So I
thank you very much for that.
So far to my understanding, several hundred thousand acres
have been enrolled in the RWP, 4 million are in the queue. And
between 5 million and 6 six million acres will be enrolled in
the CCAA in the first week following its approval. Are you
encouraged by what you have seen, are seeing from the
conservation standpoint with the range-wide plan and the CCAAs?
Mr. Ashe. I am greatly encouraged, sir.
Senator Inhofe. Now, there isn' time, my time has expired,
but let me just take a little bit, because there is a new
critter coming I wasn't even familiar with, and that of course
is the northern long-eared bat. I figured beetles and Lesser
prairie chickens would be enough, and now we are concerned with
this. Apparently this affects some 39 States.
It has come to our attention that the Service issued
guidance requiring Section 7 conferencing reviews for the
projects proposed to take place in the species range which is,
as I said, affects now 39 States, is that right? About 39
States. This has occurred despite the fact that the species has
only been proposed as an endangered species. That determination
has not yet been made. It is also my understanding that these
Section 7 reviews are only allowed prior to a listing when a
project is going to jeopardize the existence of the species
across the entire range. Can you explain to me why the Service
is doing this, and isn't it getting ahead of itself? By the
way, of the 39 States, everyone at this table here is one of
the 39 States.
Mr. Ashe. Senator, I will have to get back to you on the
details related to the long-eared bat. I am not intimately
familiar. I would say we cannot, or we do not and cannot
require consultation prior to a listing. Consultation is a
formal, statutorily required commitment on the part of the
Federal agency once a species is listed.
We sometimes do what we call conferencing on a candidate
species, which is a voluntary process to provide advice and
guidance. With regard to the lesser prairie chicken, for
instance, we have done a conference with the Natural Resource
Conservation Service, which has allowed us to provide certainty
to landowners that sign up and implement best conservation
practices for lesser prairie chicken. We have done the same
thing for sage grouse. So sometimes we do conferencing
informally to encourage investment in conservation before a
species is listed, but we can't require consultation.
Senator Inhofe. Yes. I know my time is expired, but when
you talk about the burrowing beetle and the lesser prairie
chicken, it really is only in a smaller number of States. This
apparently affects a large number of States.
I also want to take advantage of the opportunity to welcome
my good friend Senator Markey from Massachusetts. He and I have
gone around and around in debates for the last 12 years. We
have always maintained a very good relationship and friendship.
I appreciate your adding your expertise to this committee,
Senator Markey.
Senator Whitehouse. And indeed, it is Senator Markey's
turn, so I recognize him for his first appearance in this
committee. We will miss Senator Baucus, but he has certainly
been replaced by a very prominent figure in the environmental
cause. I am delighted to have Ed Markey with us. The floor is
yours, Senator.
Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. I am
looking forward to learning a lot about these issues. I am
familiar with many of them, after 37 years on these committees.
Senator Inhofe and I, we started back in 1987 having these
conversations, when we joined the House of Representatives. So
we are 27 years now into our conversation.
Senator Inhofe. But neither one of us has moved yet.
Senator Markey. My father always said that when two people
agree upon absolutely everything, you don't need one of those
people. So we are both needed here. We are needed for this
conversation. We have to just continue to have it, and I thank
you, my friend, Jim Inhofe, for all these years.
Chairman Whitehouse, thank you for all your leadership on
the issues. I am looking forward to working with you and
Chairman Boxer and all the members of the committee to work on
these issues that are so central to the health of our economy
and the health of the citizens of our Nation, whether it is
rebuilding roads or reducing the impact of what comes out of
the tailpipes of the cars that drive on them, the work of this
committee is crucial to driving the United States economy.
Today's hearing is examining one of the major risks to
America's environmental and economic health climate change. It
is having tangible impacts in Massachusetts right now. My State
loses land to rising sea levels every year. Our iconic cod have
been moving north as ocean temperatures warm and are
contributing to the extreme economic challenges facing
Massachusetts fishermen and the coastal communities that depend
upon them.
Thankfully we already have many of the tools needed to
prepare for the impact of climate change and reduce the risk in
the future. Building upon natural coastal defenses will not
only help protect infrastructure on land but also provide
benefits for the fishing and tourism industries. Increasing the
efficiency of our energy and water use can help respond to
climate change and lower utility bills for our homeowners at
the same time. Addressing climate change means capitalizing on
the trillion dollar clean energy opportunity that exists.
Cleaning up and fortifying our aging, polluting energy
infrastructure could be the job creation engine of our time.
Eighty thousand Americans are already employed in the wind
sector in our Country. That is about the same number of people
that mine coal in our Country today.
Solar is one of the fastest-growing sectors of our economy,
142,000 Americans are employee in solar, 24,000 new solar jobs
added to our economy last year. These are high-wage jobs, $23
an hour on average. These are International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers jobs, these are roofer jobs, these are jobs
that our soldiers are learning how to do when they return home.
It has been clear for years that we need to invest in America's
resilience to climate change and our clean energy economy.
Building climate-smart infrastructure and more wind and solar
capacity will create jobs that are good for saving creation at
the same time.
Now, Dr. Holdren, let's start with a basic analogy. If the
current State of scientific understanding of human beings'
influence on climate change is like a jigsaw puzzle, are most
of the pieces still in the box or have scientists put enough
together to establish what the picture is?
Mr. Holdren. I would say that most of the major pieces are
in place. We have an increasingly clear picture of how human
activities are influencing the global climate. That picture has
been reflected in not only the reports every several years of
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, contributed to
by hundreds of climate scientists from around the world, but
regular reports by our National Academies of Science, the
academies of science of every other major country that has an
academy of science. And the basic picture is that we know
without question that the climate of the earth is changing in
ways that stand out sharply against the backdrop of natural
variations that have operated over millennia. We know with very
high confidence that the principal driver of these recent
changes has been human activities, above all, the emission of
heat-trapping substances, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous
oxide, black soot and others.
And we know with high confidence that those changes in
climate are already causing harm to human well-being in many
forms and many places. A number of them have been referred to
already. There are uncertainties surrounding the quantitative
details in many cases. Climate scientists are well aware of the
importance of measuring and quantifying uncertainty and working
to reduce it over time. But the uncertainties and the details
that are not yet well understood do not obscure, do not
implicate those fundamental understandings which I just
summarized.
Of course, we also work hard to try to create where we are
headed as well as where we have been. And that is harder. As
often has been said, predictions are difficult, particularly
about the future.
Senator Markey. Yogi Berra.
Mr. Holdren. Yogi Berra. The uncertainties are greater
looking forward than in trying to match our understanding with
what has happened in the past. But we can have high confidence
that as long as the buildup of greenhouses gases continues that
the kinds of disruption of global climate that we have seen
already will only grow. And the dimensions of the damage to
human well-being associated with that will grow apace.
Senator Markey. And I agree with you, the impacts are going
go become more severe, the solutions are going to be more
costly. We have to basically accept the fact that the pieces of
the puzzle are in place.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Whitehouse. Senator Vitter.
Senator Vitter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would just ask
unanimous consent that my opening statement be in the record.
Senator Whitehouse. Without objection.
Senator Vitter. Thank you. And thank you, gentlemen, for
being here, and for your work.
Director Ashe, I wanted to ask you, is your agency
currently engaged in consultation related to the EPA's proposed
New Source Performance Standards for power plants?
Mr. Ashe. We are engaged in consultation with EPA over
their proposed rules under Section 316(b), the Clean Water Act,
yes.
Senator Vitter. And how would you describe that level of
consultation? Is it the formal consultation process?
Mr. Ashe. It is a formal consultation process, yes, sir.
Senator Vitter. And how extensive has that been
specifically with regard to New Source Performance Standards
for power plants?
Mr. Ashe. I am not certain how to answer your question. I
am not sure what you are looking for. We have been engaged in
conversation with EPA.
Senator Vitter. Let me back up, because I think we are
talking about two different things. I am talking about New
Source Performance Standards for power plants, which is
separate from 316(b). So with regard to endangered species, are
you engaged in consultation with EPA on New Source Performance
Standards?
Mr. Ashe. I do not believe that we are, sir. I will have to
check and make sure of that, but I do not believe that we are.
Senator Vitter. If you can check and submit that follow--up
for the record. Assuming you are correct, and you are not, why
aren't you? You don't think this has any potential impact on
endangered species?
Mr. Ashe. The obligation for consultation, Senator, is on
the action agency. So EPA would determine whether a
consultation was necessary and they would provide us with a
biological assessment, which then would be the basis for a
biological opinion. So your question is appropriately directed
to the action agency.
Senator Vitter. OK, I will direct it to them. But I would
point out that, for instance, in contrast to that, you are
definitely involved in Section 7 consultation, for instance, in
the cooling water intake rule of EPA.
Mr. Ashe. Correct, 316(b).
Senator Vitter. Was that initiated by EPA?
Mr. Ashe. It was.
Senator Vitter. OK. Now, I would also point out, in that
scenario, they are considering alternatives, all of which, both
of which, I think there are two big alternatives, have a
beneficial impact on endangered species. The discussion is more
or less how big the beneficial impact is, is that correct?
Mr. Ashe. No, sir, the discussion is that permit framework
under Section 316(b) would authorize the use of cooling waters,
which will have a significant effect on threatened and
endangered species. So the discussion is about minimizing and
avoiding those potential impacts and reasonable and prudent
measures that the EPA and State-delegated programs could take.
Senator Vitter. The point is, all the alternatives being
considered are benefits compared to the status quo on
endangered species.
Mr. Ashe. That is the purpose of a consultation, is to
determine and to determine what measures can be taken by EPA
within its Clean Water Act authorities to avoid and minimize
the take of endangered species. Probably, sir, since the 1970's
and the passage of the great environmental laws in the 1970's,
everything the government does makes life better under the
Clean Water Act, under the National Forest Management Act,
under the Clean Air Act. The question is not whether it is one
increment better. The question is, can EPA within its
discretion undertake reasonable and prudent measures to improve
the likelihood that species will be recovered.
Senator Vitter. Let's go back to that standard with New
Source Performance Standards. Because New Source Performance
Standards fundamentally are going to shift power supply sources
for energy. And to the extent it shifts it, for instance, to
wind, it takes up a whole lot more land footprint than existing
sources. Is that not likely to have a major potential impact on
endangered species?
Mr. Ashe. Again, sir, it is not for me to determine. It is
for the action agency to determine in looking at their action.
You are asking me a completely hypothetical question.
Senator Vitter. It is not hypothetical. It is going on, and
you are the top lead actor in the Federal Government who is
supposed to be concerned about endangered species essentially,
correct?
Mr. Ashe. I am concerned about them.
Senator Vitter. OK. So it is not hypothetical. The question
is, if we are shifting power supply to things that take up a
whole lot more land, could that have an impact on endangered
species?
Mr. Ashe. It could, theoretically, have an impact on
endangered species. It could.
Senator Vitter. Therefore, would it be appropriate in your
opinion, I understand you don't initiate this legally, but
therefore, as the person who is charged with thinking about
endangered species in the Federal Government, would it be
appropriate to think about that through a formal consultation
process?
Mr. Ashe. It is appropriate any time an action agency is
taking an action for them to consider the effect of their
action on endangered species. In fact, they have an obligation
to do so under the Endangered Species Act. But it is their
call.
Senator Vitter. It is the legal responsibility, it is their
call. I am asking the question, are they making the right call
by not initiating any consultation process with you on the
matter?
Mr. Ashe. That is not for me to say, sir.
Senator Vitter. OK. If I could just wrap up, I think it is
collectively for us to say, and I think clearly, clearly this
major rulemaking has a broad potential impact on endangered
species. I think clearly the lack of any consultation is
completely inappropriate.
Senator Whitehouse. Senator Sessions.
Senator Sessions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity to be with the subcommittee.
Thank you both for being here today. Dr. Holdren, you are
the Director of the Office fo Science and Technology Policy,
called the President's top science advisor, commonly, and it is
an important office for sure. I would say you feel a
responsibility to accurately tell the American people the
challenges and facts dealing with science and technology in
America.
Mr. Holdren. That is one of my responsibilities. But my
first responsibility is giving the President accurate
information about science and technology, bearing on his
decisions.
Senator Sessions. I understand that. On February 14th,
during a press conference at the White House, about the
President's trip to California, where he was promoting or
talking about a new $1 billion drought climate change fund, you
stated, a, weather practically everywhere is being caused by
climate change.
Mr. Holdren. That is not quite what I said, sir, but we
will come back to that.
Senator Sessions. You said more than that. Then you said
``We really understand a number of reasons that global climate
change is increasing the intensity and frequency and life of
drought and drought-prone regions.'` Then you talked about
``the connection between the increasing frequency and intensity
of droughts and climate change.'` You also asserted that severe
droughts are ``getting more frequent, they are getting longer,
they are getting drier,'` and that ``we have seen droughts and
drought-prone regions becoming more frequent and more severe
and longer.'`
Will you stand by that?
Mr. Holdren. The one part I don't stand by is the initial
quotation, because I said weather practically everywhere is
being influenced by climate change, not caused by climate
change. And I explained that as well in my opening statement
here. What we have done, we have warmed the surface of the
earth, we have warmed the surface of the oceans. That is
influence climate and is influencing weather everywhere.
Senator Sessions. The weather changes, we all know that, it
has since time immemorial. But do you stand by your statements
that droughts are getting more frequent, and getting longer and
they are getting drier and the other comments I made? And if
so, cite for us a scientific report or data that supports that.
Mr. Holdren. I would be happy to do that. My statement was
that droughts are getting more severe in some regions. That is
supported by the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change 2013. Its science basis supported by the
National Climate Assessment----
Senator Sessions. No, no, no. What you said, sir, you said,
and I am quoting here, the first quote I mentioned did mention
drought-prone regions. But you talked about the connection
between increasing ``frequency and intensity of drought and
climate change'` and you asserted that severe droughts are
``getting more frequent, they are getting longer and they are
getting drier.'`
Mr. Holdren. In some regions, and I would be happy to
provide you the scientific references. There is a long list of
them.
Senator Sessions. Well, what about the United States of
America?
Mr. Holdren. In the United States of America, droughts are
getting more severe in the American west and in the Colorado
River basin. We are experiencing in the Colorado River basin
what looks like probably the most severe drought in a thousand
years. California is heading for what looks like one of the
most severe drought in 500 years. And the data show that we are
experiencing in the western United States, we are experiencing
one of the most----
Senator Sessions. Well, let me tell you what Dr. Pilkey
said, who sat in that chair you are sitting in today just a few
months ago, he is a climate impact expert, and he agrees that
warming is partly caused by human emissions. But he testified
``It is misleading and just plain incorrect to claim that
disasters associated with hurricanes, tornadoes, floods or
droughts have increased on climate change time scales either in
the United States or globally.'` Dr. Roy Spencer at the
University of Alabama testified ``There is little or no
observational evidence that severe weather of any type has
worsened over the last 30, 50 or 100 years.'` The American
Enterprise Institute evaluated the data and the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Palmer Drought Severity
Index, are you familiar with that?
Mr. Holdren. I am.
Senator Sessions. And they concluded ``The Palmer Drought
Severity Index shows no trend over the record period beginning
in 1895 in terms of drought. More areas in the United States
have experienced an increase in soil moisture than a decline.'`
And the IPCC of April of last year admitted their previous
reports had been in error, stating ``Based on updated studies,
conclusions regarding global increasing trends in drought since
the 1970's were probably overstated.'` And the congressional
Research Service, our own group here, likewise finds that
droughts haven't been increasing.
Mr. Holdren. On your last point about global drought, of
course we know that in a warming world with evaporation
increasing, precipitation also increases. More places are
getting wetter than are getting drier.
Senator Sessions. Oh, so we don't have any drought?
Mr. Holdren. So when you say global drought, if I may
finish, when you say global drought, you are averaging out the
places that are getting drier and the places that are getting
wetter. What I am talking about is what has been happening in
drought-prone regions. The first few people you quoted are not
representative of the mainstream scientific opinion on this
point. And again, I will be happy to submit for the record
recent articles from Nature, Nature GeoScience, Nature Climate
Change, Science and others showing that in drought-prone
regions droughts are becoming more intense.
Senator Whitehouse. The record will remain open for 2 weeks
after this hearing.
Senator Sessions. Mr. Chairman, I thank you and I thank the
witness. We expect that a taxpayer paid government official
should be very accurate and not advance a political agenda but
tell us the absolute facts.
Mr. Holdren. That is what I have been doing.
Senator Sessions. I look forward to getting that additional
information.
Mr. Holdren. Happy to provide it.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you very much, Dr. Holdren. Thank
you very much, Director Ashe.
We are pressed for time, because we have a vote at 3:30, so
let's see how quickly we can get the next panel on, and I will
urge them to be particularly diligent about confining their
remarks to the allotted period of time, and we will see if we
can get some questions in.
Let's swing right into action. I think you all heard the
concerns that I have about our timeframe. We have been squeezed
up against a vote that has been scheduled for 3:30. So we are
going to have to try to fit in what we can.
Let me start with Mr. Matson, who is the Vice President for
Climate Adaptation, at Defenders of Wildlife. He directs
Defenders' efforts to create and implement policies and
strategies to safeguard wildlife and habitat from the effects
of climate change. He has a BS in biology and geology from the
University of Rochester, masters in environmental management
from the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, and
his masters research focused on biodiversity and management of
the National Elk Refuge in Wyoming. Mr. Matson, please proceed.
Your full statement will be made a matter of record.
STATEMENT OF NOAH MATSON, VICE PRESIDENT FOR CLIMATE
ADAPTATION, DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE
Mr. Matson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Inhofe.
Again, my name is Noah Matson. I am the Vice President for
Climate Change Adaptation for Defenders of Wildlife, a national
non-profit conservation organization. Thank you for the
opportunity to provide input into this important hearing.
Asking your indulgement for a moment, imagine a country
where a single storm could kill almost 2,000 citizens and level
over $100 billion worth of damage. Imagine a country where the
majority of its fruits and vegetables and crops are threatened
because of a prolonged drought. Imagine a country where whole
villages have to be relocated and escape an eroding coast.
I am not talking about the Philippines, Namibia or the
Maldives. All these things have happened or are happening right
here in America, where Hurricane Katrina pummeled the Gulf
Coast, California's 3-year long drought is shriveling crops and
the Alaskan Native village of Newtok is making plans to move as
its coast washes away.
We are woefully unprepared for ``natural disasters.'` Even
less prepared as these and other disasters are magnified by a
changing climate. Preparing for responding and adapting to the
impacts of climate change is a moral and economic issue. Taking
reasonable steps now to prepare for the future will save lives,
save jobs, save money, save our communities and the nature that
supports us.
In preparing for the future we need to look to nature to
provide many of the protective services we all need. We can
reduce the risk of flooding by restoring flood plains that
naturally absorb and slow flood waters. We can reduce the risk
of water shortages and water quality degradation by maintaining
and restoring watersheds. We can reduce the risk of wildlife by
restoring forests near residential areas to more fire-adaptive
ecosystems.
Although nature can provide all these benefits to help
protect our communities, wildlife and ecosystems are also being
negatively impacted by climate change. Dr. Holdren and Dr. Ashe
listed many of these impacts, so I won't repeat them. However,
I personally have seen the impacts on habitat first-hand in a
number of national wildlife refuges, including Prime Hook
National Wildlife Refuge in Delaware. In 2009, a storm punched
and breached the coastal dunes at the refuge, spraying
saltwater into the refuge's freshwater marshes, critical
migratory stopover for tens of thousands of ducks, gees and
other migratory birds. The saltwater killed the marsh, 4,000
acres in the span of a couple of years, as freshwater marsh
grasses were converted to open water, limiting the ability of
the refuge to provide for the migratory birds that depends on
that habitat.
The good news is the Federal Government, many State and
local communities are beginning to plan for the future, a
future unlike the past. The Obama administration is taking this
issue seriously. Not only is the Administration tackling the
causes of climate change head-on, limiting greenhouse gas
emissions, the President has also issued an executive order on
preparing for climate change.
As described by Director Ashe, the Administration also
released the National Fish, Wildlife and Plants Climate
Adaptation Strategy. Since wildlife don't know when they have
crossed jurisdictional boundaries, the intergovernmental
approach is critical if we are going to have any chance of
helping species respond to climate change, especially as they
attempt to shift their ranges across the landscape.
Despite these important advances, more needs to be done.
Specifically, I urge the Congress to enact the Secure America's
Future Environment Act. Mr. Chairman, your SAFE Act would
protect American communities, wildlife and natural habitat from
the increasingly destructive effects of climate change.
Two, providing funding. Congress should provide adequate
funding to maintain and expand key Federal programs supporting
adaptation efforts and natural resources conservation. Three,
we need to prepare better for disasters. Protecting and
restoring natural systems is often the least expensive method
of buffering communities against disasters, and therefore must
be considered in disaster preparation and recovery. Finally, I
urge you to protect large connected landscapes to facilitate
species movements.
On behalf of Defenders of Wildlife, I thank you for the
opportunity to provide this input and I would be happy to take
any questions. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Matson follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you very much, Mr. Matson.
Our next witness is David Houghton. He is the President of
the National Wildlife Refuge Association. The National Wildlife
Refuge Association works with the National Wildlife Refuge
System in engaging other conservation non-profits, private
landowners, and refuge friends groups in safeguarding wildlife.
Mr. Houghton has worked for and in partnership with the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service for more than 25 years, including a
stint at the Rhode Island Refuge Complex years ago, where he
served as deputy refuge manager.
We are delighted to have him here, and please, Mr.
Houghton, proceed with your testimony.
STATEMENT OF DAVID HOUGHTON, PRESIDENT, NATIONAL WILDLIFE
REFUGE ASSOCIATION
Mr. Houghton. Senator Whitehouse, thank you very much. It
is an honor and a pleasure to be here today to talk about these
important issues.
Again, I am David Houghton. I am President of the National
Wildlife Refuge Association. The Association has worked since
1975 to champion the integrity and the stature of the 150-
million acre national wildlife refuge system. Many do not know
that the refuge system is almost twice as large as the national
park system. It annually receives 46.5 million visitors and has
an economic output of $2.4 billion into the American economy.
There is a national wildlife refuge in every State and
territory of this great Country.
A growing body of evidence has linked climate change and
effects on wildlife populations. Migration timing, age,
structure, as well as condition with wildlife has been
affected. This has also been affecting the National Wildlife
Refuge System around the Country.
I would like to talk about some of these effects and then I
would like to talk about what the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service is doing and how this has positive effects on
the economy.
During Hurricane Sandy, which hit in October 2012, 35
national wildlife refuges were affected at a cost of $64
million. That is equivalent to 15 percent of the annual
appropriation to national wildlife refuges. In Rhode Island, at
Trustom Pond and John Chafee National Wildlife Refuges, the
barrier beaches were eroded and the coastal marshes were
impacted.
What was clear about Hurricane Sandy, though, was that the
natural systems on these refuges did far better than the
manmade systems. But our managers at Trustom Pond National
Wildlife Refuge, who have been managing threatened and
endangered species of piping plovers and least terns, had never
seen a storm with this kind of impact. This storm also affected
the New Jersey coast, leaving a 22 mile trail of debris over
fragile marshes and woodlands at Edwin B. Forsythe National
Wildlife Refuge.
We also see the storm effects outside of the northeast. For
example, Button Island National Wildlife Refuge in Louisiana,
which was one of the first established national wildlife
refuges in 1904 by Teddy Roosevelt was initially 18,000 acres
in total. Now, after hurricane after hurricane, it is only
2,000 acres. Passage Key in Tampa was a refuge that was
established by Teddy Roosevelt. Because of hurricanes, et
cetera, it is no longer. It is no longer on the face of the
earth. So these storm events have had great impacts to the
national wildlife refuge system.
I would also like to talk about wildfires. We have seen
increasingly large catastrophic wildfires in the western United
States. This means that more resources are devoted toward
fighting these catastrophic fires as well as the interface
between forest and our urban areas. This has had an effect on
national wildlife refuges because prescribed burn is a very
important wildlife tool. And the dollars are not there to be
able to conduct these fires any more.
So I would also like to talk about refuges as an economic
powerhouse. A report that the Fish and Wildlife Service put out
called Banking on Nature said that for every dollar that
Congress invests into the National Wildlife Refuge system,
$4.87 are returned to the American economy. That means that
$2.4 billion came into the economy from refuges. So not only
does climate change have an effect on wildlife but also on the
refuges ability to provide to the American economy.
So what is the Fish and Wildlife Service doing about it? In
Rhode Island, we are restoring over 300 acres of marsh, we are
rebuilding a road into Sachuest National Wildlife Refuge. In
the Everglades, in the State of Florida, we are working on a
new type of refuge. This is a large, landscaped refuge that is
able to connect various different endangered species to one
another. And in the Pacific, we are working on a refuge,
Palmyra Atoll National Wildlife Refuge, which is a unique reef
system. We are working very hard to make sure that the reef
remains.
Thank you very much, sir.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Houghton follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you very much.
Our next witness, I have a point of personal privilege in
recognizing. He is Christopher Brown, the president of the
Rhode Island Commercial Fishermen's Association. The Rhode
Island Commercial Fishermen's Association was founded in 2000
to protect Rhode Island's first industry from becoming extinct,
by maintaining the commercial fishery in the State of Rhode
Island as a way of life for present and future generations.
Mr. Brown is the captain of the fishing vessel Proud Mary
out of Point Judith, Rhode Island. He built his first boat in
1978 at the age of 20. And he sailed that vessel, the
Grandville Davis, for 31 years. He owns Brown Family Seafood,
and we are delighted to have him here. Mr. Brown?
STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER BROWN, PRESIDENT, RHODE ISLAND
COMMERCIAL FISHERMEN'S ASSOCIATION
Mr. Brown. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished
members of the committee.
Let me begin by thanking you all for letting me share some
of the perspectives that I have garnered in over 35 years as a
fisherman and 25 years in service to the resource and my
industry.
I fish on a much different ocean today than when I first
started fishing with my grandfather as a boy in the mid-1960's.
When I started out fishing, catching haddock in the waters
around Point Judith was commonplace and they were a daily
component of our catch. Last year, in 200 days of fishing, I
caught only two. They are considered fully rebuilt and are now
managed jointly with Canada by virtue of the climate that they
have chosen to live in.
In the fall of 2013, in Block Island Sound, I caught 1,800
pounds of spot in a single set of my net. These are fish that
are indigenous to the Carolinas, not southern New England. I
had never seen a single one until the late 1990's. Although not
greatly abundant, regularly caught now in Rhode Island are the
species of croaker, grouper, cobia, drum and tarpon. My
grandfather never saw a single one of these in his entire life
as a fisherman.
Dogfish were determined to have been over-fished roughly 15
to 20 years ago and were assigned to a rebuilding plan. The
plan was driven by incorrect biological assumptions of their
reproductive capability and initial abundance. They have now
overpopulated the waters of the Atlantic from Hatteras to Nova
Scotia to the extent that there is no longer an effective
migration. In their current unexploited condition, they stand
to significantly hamper the recovery of species that either
compete with or serve as a food source. These are the findings
of Dr. James Sulowsky, Ph.D., professor at the Unviersity of
New England, the foremost authority on dogfish in the United
States.
I hope that I have adequately portrayed an ocean that is in
flux. In New England, we currently are an industry that is in
search of a science-based, regulatory co-existence with the
laws that govern our fishery. We are a cold water region that
has suffered greatly at the hands of a warming regime. Our
inability to successfully rebuild several key stocks is well
documented. We have evoked the ire of Magnusson repeatedly, and
been put to the lash at the hands of an Act that up until now,
reasons that ideology serves as a fair substitute for sound and
relevant science.
The Magnusson Act was assembled at a time when the science
surrounding our fisheries was in its infancy. As we should
anticipate, the scientific perspective of the management of our
oceans should evolve. The Act has not. To date, we have failed
to articulate those discoveries into actionable policy within
our fisheries. Any national policy that remains predicated upon
outdated scientific perspectives will do unnecessary economic
harm to those whom it serves. It will limit the productivity of
what I believe to be our national strategic protein reserves
and will to some extent damage our national food security.
Our failure to tease out an edified response to these
problems from the larger national debate surrounding climate
shift strands the enormous sum that we have invested in science
and leaves my region without an effective solution to an
ongoing and complex environmental problem. Our fields will lay
fallow until we dare fashion a different response.
The framers of Magnusson were wise in their decision to
construct a document that was largely conceptual by nature.
Given that it is thematic and overarching it is therefore
lacking in the granular specificity that is needed to deal with
environmental problems that are beyond the realm of what was
once known. Magnusson Stevens is a profoundly valuable document
that should remain our North Star of fisheries management
policy. But in New England, in the face of wholesale systemic
change, as a standalone document, it has failed to produce the
biological or economic results that have been promised and
delivered elsewhere. It is in need of a reasonable complement.
I believe that the SAFE Act is that complement. It is one which
does not attempt to separate the fish from the surrounding sea.
I believe it is worthy of your approval.
The wild-caught fisheries of the Northeast may ultimately
prove to be the coal miner's canary for the Nation as we
grapple with the issue of climate change. A reconsideration of
our strategy is called for, given the enormous chasm between
what we have endured and what we have gained in New England. I
view the SAFE Act as a sound, reasonable, and measured
complement to Magnusson. It represents a new set of eyes on the
problem and another tool in the tool box. It respects both
sides of the larger debate and a chance to evaluate the
potential for new strategies in healing our Nation's most
iconic fishery.
I urge you to pass this Bill along for further
consideration and discussion. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Brown follows:]
Statement of Christopher Brown, President, Rhode Island
Commercial Fishermen's Association
Let me begin by thanking you all for letting me share some
of the perspectives that I have garnered in over 35 years as a
fisherman and 25 in service to the resource and my industry.
I fish on a much different ocean today than when I first
stared fishing with my grandfather as a boy in the mid-1960's.
When I started out, catching haddock in the waters around Pt
Judith was commonplace and a daily component of our catch.
Last year I caught only two. They are considered fully
rebuilt and are now managed jointly with Canada by virtue of
the climate that they have chosen to live in.
In the fall of 2013 I caught 1800 pounds of spot in a
single set off my net. These are a fish that are indigenous to
the Carolinas. Not Southern New England. I had never seen a
single one until the late 90's. Although not greatly abundant,
regularly caught now in Rhode Island are the species of
Croaker, Grouper, Cobia, Drum and Tarpon. My grandfather never
saw a single one of these in his entire life as a fisherman.
Dogfish were determined to have been over fished roughly 15
years ago and were assigned to a rebuilding plan. The plan was
driven by incorrect biological assumptions of their
reproductive capability and initial abundance. They have now
overpopulated the waters of the Atlantic, from Hatteras to Nova
Scotia to an extent that there is no longer an effective
migration. In their current unexploited condition, they stand
to significantly hamper the recovery of a species that either
compete with or serve as a food source. These, the findings of
Dr. James Sulowsky PHD, Professor at The University of New
England, the foremost authority on dogfish in the U.S.
I hope that I have adequately portrayed an ocean that is in
flux. In New England, we currently are an industry that is in
search of a science based, regulatory co-existence with the
laws that govern our fishery. We are a cold water region that
has suffered greatly at the hands of a warming regime. Our
inability to successfully rebuild several key stocks is well
documented. We have evoked the ire of Magnusson, and been put
to the lash at the hands of an act that reasons repeatedly that
ideology serves as a fair substitute for sound relevant
science.
The Magnusson act was assembled at a time when the science
surrounding our fisheries was in its infancy. As we should
anticipate, the scientific perspective of the management of our
oceans should evolve. The act has not. To date, we have failed
to articulate those discoveries into actionable policy within
our fisheries. Any national policy that remains predicated on
outdated scientific perspectives will do unnecessary economic
harm to those it serves; it will limit the productivity of what
I believe, are our national protein reserves and compromise to
some extent our national food security. Our failure to tease
out an edified response to these problems from the larger
national debate surrounding climate shift, strands the enormous
sum that we have invested in science and leaves my region
without an effective solution to an ongoing and complex
environmental problem. Our fields will lay fallow till we dare
fashion a different response.
The framers of Magnusson were wise in their decision to
construct a document that is largely conceptual by nature.
Given that it is thematic and overarching it is there for
lacking in the granular specificity that is needed to deal with
environmental problems that are beyond the rehelm of what was
once known. Magnusson Stevens is a profoundly valuable document
that should remain our North Star of fisheries management
policy, but In New England, in the face of wholesale systemic
change, as a stand-alone, document, it has failed to produce
the biological or economic results that have been promised and
delivered elsewhere. It is in need of a reasonable compliment,
one which is free to consider environmental conditions as a
necessary component of its decisionmaking process. One which
does not attempt to separate the fish from the surrounding sea.
I believe that the ``Safe Act'' could serve our national
transition to ecosystem based management, as is called for in
Magnusson's vision of our fishery.
The wild caught fisheries of the Northeast may ultimately
prove to be the ``coal miner's canary'' for this Nation as we
grapple with the issue of climate change. A reconsideration of
strategy is called for given the enormous chasm between what we
have endured and what we have gained.
I view the Safe Act as a sound, reasonable, and measured
compliment to Magnusson. It represents a new set of eyes on the
problem and another tool in the tool box. It respects both
sides of the larger debate and a chance to evaluate the
potential for new strategies in healing our Nation's most
iconic fishery. I urge you to pass this Bill along for further
consideration and discussion.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Captain Brown. I appreciate
it.
Our next witness is Dr. Patrick Moore, the Chair and Chief
Scientist of Ecosense Environmental in Vancouver, Canada. Dr.
Moore is a co-founder and former chair of Greenspirit
Strategies, an environmental consulting and communications firm
in Vancouver, Canada. He received a bachelor of science in
forest biology and a Ph.D. in ecology from the University of
British Columbia in Canada. Welcome, and please proceed with
your statement.
STATEMENT OF PATRICK MOORE, PH.D., CHAIR AND CHIEF SCIENTIST,
ECOSENSE ENVIRONMENTAL
Mr. Moore. Thank you, Chairman Whitehouse, Ranking Member
Inhofe.
In 1971, as a Ph.D. student in ecology, I joined an
activist group in a church basement in Vancouver Canada and
sailed on a small boat across the Pacific to protest U.S.
hydrogen bomb testing in Alaska. We became Greenpeace.
After 15 years in the top committee I had to leave, as
Greenpeace began to adopt policies that I could not accept from
my scientific perspective. Climate change wasn't really an
issue when I abandoned Greenpeace, but it certainly is today.
There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon
dioxide are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the
earth's atmosphere over the past 100 years. If there were such
a proof it would be written down for all to see. No actual
proof, as it is understood in science, exists. Please see
Exhibit 1.
The IPCC states, ``It is extremely likely that human
influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming
since the mid-20th century.'` ``Extremely likely'` is not a
scientific term but rather a judgment, as in a court of law.
The IPCC defines extremely likely as a 95 to 100 percent
probability. Those numbers are not the result of any
mathematical calculation or statistical analysis. They have
been invented to express the ``expert judgment'` as determined
by the IPCC.
As noted by many observers, including Dr. Freeman Dyson of
the Princeton Institute for Advanced Studies, a computer model
is not a crystal ball. We may think it sophisticated, but we
cannot predict the future with a computer model any more than
we can make predictions with crystal balls, throwing bones, or
by appealing to the gods. When modern life evolved over 500
million years ago, please see the second exhibit,
CO2 was more than 10 times higher than today, yet
life flourished at that time. Then an ice age occurred 450
million years ago when CO2 was still 10 times higher
than today. The fact that there were both higher temperatures
and an ice age at a time when CO2 was 10 times
higher than they are today fundamentally contradicts the
certainty that CO2 emissions are the main cause of
global warming.
Today we remain locked in what is still the Pleistocene Ice
Age, with an average global temperature of 14.5 degrees
Celsius. This compares with a low of about 12 degrees Celsius
during the periods of maximum glaciation in this ice age to an
average of 22 degrees Celsius during the Greenhouse Ages, which
occurred over longer time periods prior to the most recent ice
age. During the Greenhouse Ages, there was no ice on either
pole and all the land was tropical and sub-tropical. As
recently as 3 million years ago the Canadian Arctic islands
were forested. Today, we live in an unusually cold period in
the history of life, note on the graph here 14.5 degrees, an
unusually low period in carbon dioxide in the history of life,
400 ppm.
There is ample reason to believe that a sharp cooling of
the climate would bring disastrous results for human
civilization, where there is no reason to believe that a warmer
climate would be anything but beneficial for humans and the
majority of other species. Please see Exhibit 3.
The IPCC states that humans are the dominant cause of
warming since the mid-20th century, which was 1950. From 1910
to 1940, there was an increase in global average temperature of
half a degree Celsius over that 30-year period. Then there was
a 30-year pause until 1970. This was followed by an increase of
.57 degrees Celsius during the 30-year period from 1970 to
2000. Since then there has been no increase. This in itself
tends to negate the validity of the computer models, as
CO2 emissions have continued to accelerate during
this time.
The increase in temperature between 1910 and 1940 was
virtually identical to the increase between 1970 to 2000. Yet
the IPCC does not attribute the increase from 1910 to 1940 to
human influence. They are clear in their belief that human
emissions impact only increased the temperature since the mid-
20th century. Why does the IPCC believe that a virtually
identical increase in temperature after 1950 is caused mainly
by human influence, when it has no explanation for the nearly
identical increase from 1910 to 1940?
It is important to recognize that humans are a tropical
species. We evolved at the equator in a climate where freezing
temperature did not exist. The only reasons we can survive
these cold climates are fire, clothing, and housing. It could
be said that frost and ice are the enemies of life, except for
those relatively few species that have evolved to adapt to
freezing temperatures during the ice age. It is extremely
likely that a warmer temperature than today's would be far
better than a cooler one.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Moore follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you very much, Dr. Moore. We now
turn to our final witness, Mr. Robert Bryce. He has served as a
senior fellow at the Center for Energy Policy and the
Environment at the Manhattan Institute since April 2010. He is
a journalist and author based in Austin, Texas. From 2006 to
2010 he worked as a managing editor of the online publication
Energy Tribune. Mr. Bryce received his BFA from the University
of Texas at Austin in 1986.
Mr. Bryce, please proceed.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT BRYCE, SENIOR FELLOW, MANHATTAN INSTITUTE
FOR POLICY RESEARCH
Mr. Bryce. Thank you, and good afternoon.
Over the past decade or so, the U.S. Government has enacted
policies to encourage the use of renewable energy in general
and wind energy in particular. These policies are, in theory,
designed to address the issue of climate change.
But the facts show three certain things. First, the wind
energy sector has been getting billions of dollars in Federal
subsidies, even though it is killing significant numbers of
some of America's most iconic wildlife. Second, Federal
authorities have largely turned a blind eye to the wind
industry's slaughter of our wildlife. And finally and most
importantly, this slaughter is being done in the name of
climate change, but whatever reductions in carbon dioxide
emissions that may be occurring due to the deployment of wind
turbines are so small as to be insignificant.
I began writing about the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the
Eagle Protection Act in the late 1980's. At that time the Fish
and Wildlife Service estimated that roughly 600,000 birds per
year were being killed after coming in contact with illegal oil
pits in the oil fields of Texas, New Mexico and Oklahoma. In
response, the Fish and Wildlife Service rightly began a multi-
State, multi-jurisdictional crackdown on these illegal
operations. They brought more than 200 cases against the oil
and gas industry at that time for violations of the Migratory
Bird Treaty Act and Eagle Protection Act.
Today, biologists are estimating that U.S. wind turbines
are killing about 900,000 bats and 600,000 birds per year. The
Fish and Wildlife Service's own biologists have documented
dozens of cases of eagle kills by wind turbines, including at
least six bald eagles. They have documented now eagle kills in
14 States. Between 2007 and 2011, they found a twelvefold
increase in the annual rate of eagles being killed by wind
turbines. And yet to date, the Fish and Wildlife Service and
the Department of Justice have brought exactly one, I repeat,
one, prosecution against the wind industry for clear and
continuing violations of some of America's oldest wildlife
laws.
Furthermore, and most astoundingly, the Interior Department
is now considering permits that would allow the wind industry
to kill eagles and other migratory birds for up to 30 years.
Now, let me discuss the more important issue here of
CO2 emissions, and let me be blunt. The birds and
bats that are being killed by America's wind turbines are
effectively being killed for no reason. Widespread deployment
of wind turbines is not an effective climate change strategy.
In fact, wind turbines are nothing more than climate change
scarecrows. This is not an opinion, this is basic math.
The American Wind Energy Association estimates that in
2012, 60,000 megawatts of wind turbine capacity in the United
States resulted in a reduction in CO2 emissions of
roughly 80 million tons. This amounts to two-tenths of 1
percent of global carbon dioxide emissions. Climate change
activists repeatedly tell us to do the math. OK, let's do the
math. Since 1982, global carbon dioxide emissions have been
rising by an average of 500 million tons per year. Therefore,
if we wanted to use wind energy merely to stabilize carbon
dioxide emissions globally, and remember, this will not cut
existing demand for coal, oil or natural gas, it would require
the installation of roughly 375,000 megawatts of new wind
energy capacity every year.
The power density of wind energy is 1 watt per square
meter. Therefore, the math is simple. It would require, to
stabilize CO2 emissions growth, it would require
covering a land area of roughly 375,000 square kilometers, an
area the size of Germany, and we would have to do so every
year. If we reduce that to a daily basis, ladies and gentlemen,
it would require us to cover roughly 1,000 square kilometers, a
land area the size of 17 Manhattan islands, with wind turbines,
and we would have to do so every year. And because of the noise
those wind turbines make, no people could live on that vast
area of land. And further, and most obviously, the more wind
turbines we erect, the more birds and bats we will kill.
About 5 years ago I testified in this same Senate office
building about our energy policy here in the United States. If
we are going to agree that CO2 emissions are a
problem, and we want to do something about it without
destroying our economy, we must embrace the technologies that
are affordable, scalable and are lower carbon than oil and
coal. That means end to end, natural gas to nuclear.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bryce follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you very much, Mr. Bryce.
We have a few minutes, so I will try to be very brief. Let
me first thank Christopher Brown for being here. Mr. Brown, you
said in your testimony that there was room for improvement in
the relationship between your fishing community and the
scientific community and improved data collection. Could you
just briefly elaborate on that?
Mr. Brown. Yes. The Magnusson Act has almost a reckless
pursuit of its desires. What we are attempting to achieve with
it is just not possible. Dr. Sulowsky, as I stated, has done
extensive stable isotope analyses and determined that it will
be impossible to recover a number of stocks without first
removing the ones that compete with them.
The Magnusson Act is a wonderful document, but it is in
need of supplement. It is in need of consideration of things
that were beyond its possibility to understand and define when
it was established.
Senator Whitehouse. And do you approve of initiatives like
Captain Rule's effort with the Virginia Institute of Marine
Science scientists to bring fishermen and scientists together
in data collection and the experiment, I guess you would call
it, the initiative that is underway with Dr. Parker in the
University of Rhode Island joining with the Rhode Island
Lobstermen's Association?
Mr. Brown. Yes, I approve of those actions wholeheartedly.
Magnusson calls for a co-managed fishery. Co-management finds
its roots in the co-authoring of science. Until we are co-
authors of science, this industry is co-manager of nothing.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you very much. We very often talk
about the Department of Fish and Wildlife, Division of Fish and
Wildlife, but we end up usually talking more about the wildlife
than the fish. So I am delighted that you are here.
David, can you say a brief word about the public-private
nature of the partnerships that the National Wildlife Refuge
Association supports?
Mr. Houghton. Yes, absolutely. A great example would be
Everglades National Wildlife Refuge and Conservation Area. This
was established last year and it is a partnership with
ranchers. In fact, there are about a million acres of ranchers
who would like to participate in the National Wildlife Refuge.
So an area that is large and connected will allow
endangered species like Florida black bear or Florida panther
to move throughout the landscape as that landscape changes with
changing climate. But those are not the only critters that
benefit. Ranchers that have been there for 500 years will have
an upside. There is a military base in the middle of this. So
our men and women of the military will be able to train as they
see in combat, which has a big benefit to them.
Last, the Everglades supplies the water supply for 6.5
million people. So we can bring climate change adaptation, and
we can also help a 500 year old tradition of ranching, the
military and water for 6.5 million people, all with
conservation action of the Everglades headwaters.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you very much.
Before I turn to our ranking member to close out the
hearing, I would like to submit for the record reports from the
U.S. Global Climate Change Research Program, the National
Climate Assessment, the National Academies and the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which all agree that
human activities have altered the world's climate. There is in
fact clear scientific consensus among the scientific community
that human-induced climate change is a reality.
I would also like to submit a 2010 report entitled A Human
Health Perspective on Climate Change for the record. These same
reports note the negative effects of climate change on human
health and the economy through rising sea levels, coastal
flooding, increased frequency of drought and negative health
effects.
I would also like to submit for the record a National
Wildlife Federation study that details the detrimental effects
of carbon pollution on our wildlife, like mercury emissions
from electric power plants, which affect wildlife and fish. I
would also like to submit a Fish and Wildlife Service fact
sheet on migratory bird mortality and a Sibley Guides article
which states that as many as 976 million bird deaths a year are
attributable to collisions with windows, 72 million bird deaths
are estimated as a result from pesticides, and at least 39
million bird deaths are from domestic feral cats, 15 million
birds a year are killed in North American in the carefully
managed annual waterfowl hunt, and the greatest threat to all
birds continues to be loss or degradation of habitat due to
human development and disturbance.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Whitehouse. So with that, I turn to my
distinguished ranking member.
Senator Inhofe. I would like to ask the question, then, how
many of those birds you referred to are bald eagles.
Mr. Bryce, I really enjoyed your testimony. In my opening
statement I said some of the things that you had repeated, or I
think we got that from you, concerning the extensive land that
is used by renewable fuels as opposed to the traditional fuels.
Is there anything you would like to say, how can we justify all
the land that is used for renewables as opposed to traditional
forms? And I refer to oil and gas.
Mr. Bryce. Thank you, Senator.
My short response, sir, is density is green. Regardless of
your stance on environmental issues, left, right, center, we
can all agree that small footprints are ideal. And that is
where I part with the traditional left and the green left when
it comes to the issue of energy production. I have a new book
coming out in May in which I break this down. The power density
of energy is 1 watt per square meter. To replace coal-fired
power plants in the United States, then, if we wanted to
replace them all with wind energy, it would require setting
aside a land area the size of Italy.
With regard to renewable fuels and biofuels, I have been a
long-time of the corn ethanol scam. Why? Because the power
density is simply too low. Further, from a moral standpoint, I
reject the idea of burning food to make fuel.
But the problem, sir, is fundamentally, again, basic
physics and basic math. We don't have enough land, because the
power density is so low, to make significant quantities of
energy based on renewable energy in general, but particularly
wind energy and biofuels.
Senator Inhofe. And I appreciate that very much. I would
like to, let me just go ahead and, Dr. Moore, when you talked
about the various ages that we went through, I often use the
one very close to what you said, I would say in 1895, we went
into a period of time that was a cold period, and from about
1918 to 1945 a warmer period, from 1945 to in the 1970's, a
cooler period. The interesting thing about that is, the
greatest surge in emissions of CO2 happened right at
the end of, during and at the end of World War II, which
precipitated, not a warm period but a cooler period, is that
correct?
Dr. Moore. There certainly was a pause at that time. It
went up and down. But CO2 emissions have
continuously increased since they began in earnest after the
Second World War. I think the pause that is occurring now is
actually more fundamental in terms of, why isn't the
temperature continuing to increase like it did between 1970 and
2000? It has basically just leveled off flat, even though
CO2 emissions continue to increase, not just
continue to accumulate, but continue to increase.
Senator Inhofe. The same thing that has been going on since
the turn of the century, 2000, for the last 10, 12 years.
Mr. Moore. Correct. Actually, if you look at the last 17
years, from 1996, it is flat. So this is the thing that
everybody is struggling to explain, and people who still firmly
believe that humans are the main cause are coming up with,
there are 14 explanations now that have been put forward, some
of which actually contradict each other.
So it is a bit of an act of desperation, because one of the
real problems was when the IPCC was first set up, it only
included the World Meteorological Organization, which is
meteorologists who are always concerned with very short time
spans of what is going to happen in the next 5 days, and the
United Nations Environment Program, which is environmentalists.
So weathermen and environmentalists got control of the whole
climate change agenda.
At the same time, their mandate was only to look at human
effects on climate change, rather than the vast number of
natural effects that have been affecting climate change since
the beginning of the earth.
Senator Inhofe. And reference has been made to IPCC several
times during the course of this hearing. I suggest to you, and
I would ask you if you agree, when you talk about IPCC, you are
talking about United Nations, that is where this thing started.
And I would suggest to my chairman, as long as we are putting
things into the record, unless there is some reason that it
can't be done, I would like to have the last chapter of my book
called The Greatest Hoax, it is on the history of the IPCC and
the United Nations entered into the record also.
Senator Whitehouse. I can't see any reason why it shouldn't
be, and assuming there is none, it will be, without objection.
Senator Inhofe. Very good.
[The referenced information was not recieved at time of
print.]
Senator Inhofe. I think it is really important to look at
this and realize, the IPCC, whatever happened to Climate Gate?
The media just drops this thing, and yet that was totally
discredited during that period of time. We had a witness here
that had a background with MIT. One of the lead scientists with
MIT is one that totally contradicted, Richard Lindsay, that is
right.
So anyway, I just hope that we can look at this
realistically, and when you stop and realize no one is taking
an issue with this, that since we started talking about the
legislation that would do what the President is trying to do
right now through regulation, since he couldn't get it through,
one of the reasons was that the science is not settled. And the
second reason is that people agree, they understand that the
cost of this, if they would implement the cap and trade as
proposed in legislation, the cost would be somewhere between
$300 billion and $400 billion a year. And as our own
administrator of the EPA said, the first one appointed by
President Obama, it really wouldn't make any difference what we
do here in the United States, because this isn't where the
problem is. That isn't a question, other than think about it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you very much. Thank you very
much, Ranking Member Inhofe. As any witness in this proceeding
and frankly, any previous witness of prior proceedings in this
committee will know, there are widely divergent views of the
world reflected here. You see it in its full flourish today as
well.
So I will bring this hearing to conclusion. The record will
remain open for an additional 2 weeks. I will also add a
statement for the record of the U.S. Geological Survey,
Department of the Interior, and there is also a collection of
data regarding the funding sources of the Manhattan Institute
for Policy Research.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Inhofe. I would like to add, I would like to sit
around and visit and thank all the witnesses for coming, but we
are 8 minutes into a vote right now.
Senator Whitehouse. And we are going to make a quick
escape.
I thank very much the witnesses for appearing. We
appreciate your time this afternoon.
[Whereupon, at 3:41 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]