U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

88–902 PDF 2015

S. HRG. 110–1257 

AN UPDATE ON THE SCIENCE OF GLOBAL 

WARMING AND ITS IMPLICATIONS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND 

PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JULY 22, 2008 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress.senate 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 

BETTINA POIRIER, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

ANDREW WHEELER, Minority Staff Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

TUESDAY JULY 22, 2008 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California ........................ 1 

Bond, Hon. Christopher S., U.S. Senator from the State of Missouri ................. 3 

Lautenburg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey .......... 5 

Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland ................ 7 

Klobuchar, Hon. Amy, U.S. Senator from the State of Minnesota ...................... 9 

Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma .................... 85 

WITNESSES 

Burnett, Jason, Private Citizen, Former Associate Deputy Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency ........................................................................... 10 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 13 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Cardin ............................... 27 

Trenberth, Kevin E., Head, Climate Analysis Section, National Center For 

Atmospheric Research, Climate And Global Dynamics Division ..................... 30 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 32 

Response to an additional question from Senator Boxer .............................. 45 

Response to additional questions from Senator Cardin ................................ 45 

Spencer, Roy W., Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, 

University of Alabama, Huntsville ..................................................................... 50 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 52 

Response to additional questions from Senator Cardin ................................ 59 

(1) 

AN UPDATE ON THE SCIENCE OF GLOBAL 

WARMING AND ITS IMPLICATIONS 

TUESDAY JULY 22, 2008 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, Washington, DC. 

U.S. Senate Tuesday, July 22, 2008 Committee on Environment 

and Public Works, Washington, DC. 

The full committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in room 

406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Barbara Boxer (chairman of the full committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Boxer, Craig, Lautenberg, Cardin, Sanders, 

Klobuchar, Whitehouse, Bond. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator BOXER. Good morning. Today’s hearing will focus on 

global warming science and its implications. We are going to be 

backed up against an early vote around 11:15, 11:30, so we are 

going to move quickly. And I am going to limit the opening statements to whoever shows up before our witnesses start, then those 

who don’t can put it in the record. 

Today’s hearing, again, is focusing on global warming science, its 

implications. The evidence has been overwhelming that global 

warming poses a serous threat to the American people, and that we 

must act now to prevent devastating consequences. In dozens of 

hearings and briefings in this Committee and this room, we have 

heard presentations from Nobel prize-winning scientists of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC, we heard 

repeatedly that global warming endangers public health and welfare. We heard that from the Bush administration’s own CDC. 

The IPCC found that global warming is unequivocal, and that 

most of the recent warming is due to human activity. In North 

America, the IPCC warned of risks to public health, including increased frequency and duration of heat waves and heat-related illness and death; increased water-borne disease from degraded water 

quality; and increased respiratory disease, including asthma and 

other lung diseases from increased smog. Children and the elderly 

will be especially vulnerable to these impacts. 

It is interesting, the recent document we received from the EPA 

basically said all that, right out there, and showed the enormous 

impact global warming will have all across our Country. In the 

U.S., there will be reduced snow pack in the western mountains, 

critically reducing access to water. There will be prolonged 

2 

droughts and insect invasions that will kill crops and damage forests, leaving them more susceptible to fire. I want to say to my colleagues, we are having a taste in California of fires that are caused 

by what they call dry lightning. At one point we had more than a 

thousand fires burning. 

Coastal communities and habitats will be battered by intensified 

storms. Leading scientists every week sound the warning. Let’s 

look at a few headlines over the last several weeks: ‘‘Warming West 

is Ground Zero for Wildfires;’’ ‘‘Wetlands Could Unleash Carbon 

Bombs;’’ ‘‘Climate Change May Muddy Better-than-Bottled New 

York Tap Water;’’ ‘‘Global Warming Depletes Great Lakes Even 

More.’’ 

We are fortunate to be joined today by an IPCC scientist who 

will share some of the latest information with us on the dangers 

posed by global warming. I would also like to place in the record 

a statement from Dr. Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC, whom I 

have met with and who graciously briefed colleagues on both sides 

of the aisle months ago. 

[The referenced information was not received at time of print.] 

Senator BOXER. Despite the scientific consensus, despite the danger, the Bush administration has failed to take any meaningful action. In fact, rather than addressing the problem, recent investigations by the press and congressional committees have documented 

an effort by the White House and the Office of the VP to cover up 

the threat posed by global warming. We know they have censored 

documents including CDC testimony, they have muzzled scientists. 

They have ignored unanimous recommendations from agency experts to act. 

The Bush administration’s actions threaten the health and welfare of the American people, but it is true that their lack of action 

benefits a narrow group of special interests. Nevertheless, we have 

the tools to begin to act now. The Supreme Court Massachusetts 

v. EPA, decided last April, made absolutely clear that our Clean 

Air Act applies to global warming emissions. Unfortunately, the 

Bush administration has defied the Supreme Court’s ruling and 

has pushed off action. In our hearing today, we will hear more 

about how that happened. 

Not only has the Bush administration itself failed to act, but 

they are blocking the actions of States like California, and as many 

as 19 other States that are waiting to follow suit. To me, it is one 

thing to say, I am in charge and we are not doing one thing about 

global warming, despite the laws, despite everything else. It is another thing to stop the States who want to play a role in solving 

this problem. 

So I am committed to continuing to press for action at the earliest opportunity. We won’t let up in this Committee. We cannot afford to. We have the opportunity to solve the problem, it lies in the 

Clean Air Act, it lies in legislation we should be able to agree to 

across parties. We are going to solve the problem, it is a question 

of when, and it is going to be soon. I look forward to hearing from 

the witnesses today. 

With that, I will call on Senator Bond. 

3 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI 

Senator BOND. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Thank you 

for holding this hearing today on regulating carbon dioxide. 

I am sure we will be treated to many breathless statements, 

questions and answers about who said what and when regarding 

EPA’s plans to regulate carbon dioxide. But while that is going on, 

I hope those who may be listening and those who are here will remember these remarks about what really is going on here. You 

might have thought that I would launch into a statement of condemnation about the naked political goals of this hearing. That certainly is the case. 

But something even more important is at stake with this issue. 

It threatens every family, every worker, every farmer, and every 

driver in this Nation. Each of these groups are already suffering. 

Families are struggling with record high gas prices. This summer 

will bring high power bills to pay for air conditioning. We are hearing that families will pay high heating bills this winter. Workers 

are suffering as their good-paying manufacturing jobs are going 

overseas to countries with cheaper energy. Huge segments of the 

American economy are shutting down and going abroad. Fertilizers, plastics and chemical operations are all fleeing America’s 

high prices for places like Asia and the Middle East. 

I might add that they are going to countries with weaker environmental laws and will pollute more and certainly not control for 

carbon dioxide or energy efficiency. And I would share the goal 

with the Chair that we are going to reduce carbon. We are going 

to promote energy efficiency. We have a wide range of actions that 

we may take to get things done in a responsible manner. 

But what is the real threat to the people of America? That threat 

is even higher energy prices and more lost jobs. On top of record 

gas prices, even higher prices for gas, on top of higher power bills, 

even higher prices for power, on top of lost manufacturing jobs, 

even more jobs lost. 

Just last month, advocates attempted to push through Congress 

a plan to oppose a $6.7 trillion, that is trillion with a T, $6.7 trillion in high energy costs. Those energy costs resulting from a price 

on carbon would be passed on to American families and workers. 

Additionally, a carbon cap bill would increase gas prices by $1.40 

per gallon. That would be on top of our record high prices. 

My constituents are already fed up with $4.00 gasoline. There is 

no way I can convince them to pay $5.50 or more a gallon for gasoline. There is no way that they should. Some have said it just went 

up too quickly. Well, I disagree: it just went up too high. 

But that would be the unavoidable result of impossible carbon reduction targets set to levels and on time lines that technology cannot meet. Without provisions to control costs as well as carbon, the 

American people will face sky-high energy costs and lost jobs. 

Now we have the advocates back. They could not impose their 

plans through the Senate floor. Today we will examine why they 

could not impose their plans through Federal regulation. The tools 

may be different, existing legislation instead of new legislation; 

command and control regulation instead of cap and trade. But no 

4 

doubt, the results would be the same, pain and suffering for the 

American people already suffering the pain of high energy prices. 

And for those under new Clean Air Act carbon regulations, it 

would be a complete disaster. The Clean Air Act was never intended to regulate carbon dioxide. Congressman John Dingle wrote 

the Clean Air Act. He said he never intended it to cover carbon dioxide. It was a law rightfully intended to reduce pollution from 

major sources such as power plants, refineries and chemical plants. 

And I was a co-sponsor of the Bond-Byrd Acid Trading Compromise 

that helped pass the Clean Air Act. 

But now, this law is being applied to suck in tens of thousands 

of small businesses, farms, commercial buildings, hospitals and 

schools. They would be forced to spend tens of thousands of dollars 

each to submit cumbersome and complicated air permits to the 

States and EPA, and that regulatory nightmare would be accompanied by a litigation nightmare as dozens of questions and legal 

issues will be litigated in the courts. 

Now, that may be the agenda of some, but it is not my agenda. 

It is not the agenda of the people of Missouri. I am very glad that 

the Administrator had the good, adult judgment and the courage 

to stop, take a breath and ask what in the world we are getting 

ourselves into. We saw the Senate wanted no part of what we 

would get into; I am confident the American people feel the same. 

Senator BOXER. This hearing is about not refighting the Global 

Warming Bill, the Boxer-Lieberman-Warner, but since you brought 

it up, I want to make a point. You misspoke on it, I am sure you 

believe what you said. But the fact is, the vast majority of the 

funds coming in, which would come from the cap and trade system, 

goes directly to consumers to make sure that they are helped during the energy transition. Then once we get the alternatives, which 

a lot of other funds are used for, to develop those alternatives, 

prices will actually go down and others. 

So there is a large chunk of that $6 trillion that goes to researching alternative energies and encouraging those. A lot of funds go 

to the States for that. And then the last traunch of big dollars goes 

to deficit reduction. My friend may have noticed that we have a 

real deficit problem. 

So that is what our bill did. We 54 Senators expressed themselves, 48 on the floor of the Senate, 6 with letters to us saying 

they were for moving this bill forward. Today we are looking at the 

science. 

The other point I want to make about gas prices is, I so agree 

with my friend on this. That is why our leader is bringing to the 

floor and anti-speculation bill. Because experts have told us that 

some people think that as high as 45 percent of the price for a barrel of oil has to do with people speculating in the futures market. 

I really look forward to taking that bill up. If our friends want to 

offer an amendment on drilling in moratoria of pristine coastal 

areas, we have a solution to that. We say to the oil companies, you 

have 68 million acres, use it or lose it. You have another 28 million 

acres available in the Alaska naval reserve, go for it. We believe 

we need a policy that is not driven by the oil companies but is driven by what is right. 

5 

And my friend says that Mr. Johnson has the courage, had the 

courage to say let’s take a deep breath, he has been taking a deep 

breath for many years now on global warming. We are the last person at the party to understand this as an issue, whether you look 

at our allies around the world or you look at our States that are 

doing so much already. 

Senator BOND. Madam Chair, may I respond? 

Senator BOXER. Yes, you may. 

Senator BOND. I thank the Chair. I am sorry I am not going to 

be able to continue this discussion. I would note that under the 

Warner-Lieberman bill, $6.7 trillion would be taken away from 

workers in America, only $900 million would come back in tax relief. 

I would point out that speculation driving up the price is not just 

speculators on Wall Street. I saw last week that CalPERS, the 

California Public Employees Retirement System, had invested billions of dollars in the high future cost of energy. The reason they 

bet on energy going up, as long as we keep all of the land that potentially has oil and gas out of production and 97 percent of offshore, 94 percent of Federal lands are out of production, then that 

gas price will go up. So we will look forward to discussing this further. 

Senator BOXER. Yes, and I totally, let the record show, those 

numbers make no sense at all to me. So we will get in the record 

our response to Senator Bond, and again, his misstatement of taking money away from America’s workers. That is really extraordinary. 

So we are going to go forward now and we are going to turn to 

Senator Lautenberg. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you, Madam Chairman, for the 

leadership on so many issues that we face here and your unwillingness to let casual dismissal of reality take place. I compliment you 

for that. 

When we look at the world out in front of us, I have to tell you 

that while high prices for gas and the resultant services, heat and 

light, is drowning our society, to use the expression, the fact is that 

ahead of that concern is whether or not our children are able to 

grow up healthfully. That to me is the principal mission that we 

have here. Yes, we have to keep it in some kind of financial order, 

absolutely. And my heart breaks for those who are dependent on 

gasoline for commuting or for getting kids to school and mom to the 

doctors and so forth. It is awful, and we ought to take care of that. 

Energy has to be more available from renewable sources. 

But if the first thing we start with is costs that are developed 

with a skew to them, that we become dissuaded from doing the 

best we can for the health of our families, then we are on terribly 

different wavelengths here. Floods have turned some of Iowa’s 

fields and roads into rivers. Fire has turned California’s mountains 

to black ash. And heat waves have killed tens of thousands of people in Europe. These disasters will only become more common as 

we feel the effects of global warming. 

6 

And as a result of global warming, drastic changes in our climate 

and the dramatic events that they cause are on the rise. Several 

weeks ago, EPA scientists mapped out the consequences of the 

threat posed by global warming. I point to it, it is a fairly concise, 

I think very dramatic presentation of what the effects are of global 

warming, distributed regionally. I note with interest that even a 

place like Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, will have degraded air quality, urban heat islands, wildfires, and it goes on. 

Heat waves, drought, tropical storms, extra rainfall with flooding, 

and wherever they have water boundaries, sea levels rising. 

The chart spells out very clearly the increased risk to each region 

of our Country as a result of global warming. This is done by scientists at EPA. We are not talking about minor shifts in the weather. We are talking about heat waves. We are talking about drought, 

fire and flooding. Major threats to our Country and our world. 

Even with more storms and the possibility of more destruction, 

some of our colleagues are still arguing that global warming is a 

farce. And even among those who agree that global warming is a 

fact, some argue, we have heard it, that taking action is too expensive. These arguments are not acceptable in my family, and as a 

consequence, it is not acceptable in any family. 

When we have bad air days, whatever the cause may be, my 

grandson is watched so carefully by my daughter. He is 14 years 

old. When he starts to wheeze, her knees start to shake. It happens 

more frequently all the time. And I want everybody’s children to 

be free of that kind of threat. 

These arguments are not acceptable. Fighting global warming is 

not a choice, it is a necessity. It is the single greatest environmental threat to our planet. And our children cannot afford a failure for us to act promptly, boldly and decisively. Yet the Bush administration has had 8 years to show the kind of leadership that 

takes that kind of action. And for 8 years, they have sat on their 

hands. The Administration denied 15 States, including my State of 

New Jersey, the right to cut greenhouse gases, wanted to preempt 

our rules and regulation, the right to cut greenhouse gas emissions 

from cars, trucks and buses. 

Last year, the Supreme Court ruled that EPA must consider regulating greenhouse gas emissions to fight global warming. EPA 

was moving in the right direction to start the process of regulating 

these gases. But ExxonMobil and other big oil companies pushed 

back, and instead of siding with our children, the Bush administration chose to side with big oil, decided not to fight global warming. 

Madam Chairman, I appreciate the fact that I have run over. It 

seems to be—OK. Wrapping up, I commend you for your leadership 

on this issue, so critical when we have a White House that undermines our efforts at every turn. 

Senator BOXER. I usually am much more generous, but we do 

have a vote in there. So, Senator Craig, if everyone could stick to 

the 5-minutes, preferably 4 minutes and 30 seconds. Go ahead. 

Senator CRAIG. Frank has used my five, I will yield, thank you. 

Senator BOXER. All right. Senator Cardin. 

7 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND 

Senator CARDIN. Madam Chair, first let me comment very briefly 

on the exchange between you and Senator Bond. There is a lot of 

frustration, not only among the members of the U.S. Senate, but 

among the people of this Country. 

And it is because of the failure of our Country to have an energy 

policy. We haven’t had an energy policy. We have seen during this 

term of Congress the consequences. We saw that in the fact that 

we are not secure, we need to commit our military internationally 

because of the need for imported oil. We have seen that in regard 

to the large increase in the cost of energy, not only with the use 

of our automobiles and gasoline, but utility bills in our homes have 

caused extreme hardship due to the large increase in cost. 

And we see it in our environment. And I thank you for having 

this hearing. I think we have a common answer to all three of the 

problems, and that is legislation that will get us off of oil and develop alternative fuels that are going to be friendly toward our environment and dealing with conservation in a way that we use energy more efficiently. All that will help us solve all three of the consequences of our current failure to have an energy policy. 

So I thank you for holding this hearing so we can take a look 

at the continued evidence of the impact of global climate change. 

To me, it has been clear that it has affected not just our environment, and Madam Chair, you know of my interest in the ecosystems, like the Chesapeake Bay and the impact that global climate change is having on that national resource. On our human 

welfare, we see that with the rising sea level and the effect it is 

having on those near our waters, but also the impact of extreme 

weather, the impact on agriculture. And I could go on and on and 

on. 

That is why I particularly appreciate this hearing, because we 

will be getting an update on the good scientific information which 

I think we need to base our decisions, on good science, on what will 

make sense. And yes, the Lieberman-Warner bill, which I am a 

proud co-sponsor of and believe it is an extremely important bill to 

get done, will allow us to take the necessary steps to deal with the 

consequences of global climate change and be an international leader. But we want to make sure we have good science information, 

good technical information. 

One of the things that I would urge, Madam Chair, that as we 

go through this process, let’s make sure we have a robust provision 

that will allow us to continue to get the best scientific information 

to be able to monitor our actions to make sure that we not only 

pass the best legislation on the science available, but that we have 

also the collection of information continuing to make sure we make 

the necessary adjustments, that we achieve the objectives we set 

out to do. 

We all know about corn ethanol and the consequences of that decision, it was not exactly as we intended when we first went forward with that proposal. So I hope as part of the hearing process 

that we are going forward with that we will incorporate in legislation that we ultimately pass the type of support for the people that 

are witnesses today to be able to make available not only to us but 

8 

to the American people the information necessary to make sure we 

achieve the objectives that will be good not only for our environment but good for our economy and good for our national security. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Cardin follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, U.S. SENATOR

FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND

Madame Chairman, thank you. 

Over the last year we have heard testimony from a number of individuals on the 

State of the global climate system, the projections on how the climate system is 

changing, and the likely impacts these changes will have on health and human welfare, agriculture, transportation systems, and important ecosystems like the Chesapeake Bay. Much of the testimony has been informed by the latest, peer-reviewed 

science and represents a consensus of the scientific community on the nature of the 

climate system’s warming, the causes for that warming, and the degree to which 

this warming will continue. 

We know that a significant contribution to climate change comes from our burning 

carbon-based fuels. We also know that climate change is not only manifest as an 

increase in the globally averaged temperature, but that climate change will likely 

be manifest by increasing variability in weather and will be experienced as non-uniform changes around the globe. Some areas will warm more rapidly than others, 

some will be wetter, others considerably drier. The projected increase in the risk of 

significant rains over a short period of time means that flooding risks will also increase. In Baltimore, the EPA projects that a three degree Fahrenheit overall air 

temperature increase in air temperature could increase the heat-related death toll 

by 50 percent from 85 to 130 people annually. 

Climate change will likely have an impact on our Nation’s treasure, the Chesapeake Bay. Possible impacts for the Chesapeake include increased sea-levels, lower 

dissolved oxygen levels, more precipitation, and changes in various species’ abundance and migration patterns. Many species will deal with the interaction of several 

climate change effects, which could impact their ability to survive in the Bay region. 

It is not only wildlife that are threatened by climate change—the EPA has found 

that increasing greenhouse gas concentrations poses a threat to human health due 

to a number of factors including more deaths attributed to heat and the increase 

in vector-borne diseases. 

The research upon which these findings are based is rooted in an extensive, careful analysis of past and present observations of the atmosphere and ocean coupled 

with advanced numerical predictive models. As we will see today, there are some 

uncertainties in climate projections, however scientists are continually decreasing 

these uncertainties as more observational data is analyzed and the numerical models the scientists use are improved. What is important, is that we recognize the 

magnitude of these uncertainties and determine whether these uncertainties are relevant to our understanding of climate change impacts. Enhanced monitoring and 

analysis of climate data will help with this effort. 

Unfortunately, over the last several years, there has been a degradation of our 

Nation’s climate monitoring capabilities. 

There have been funding cuts in NASA’s and NOAA’s capabilities to monitor the 

Earth’s climate system—particularly satellite platforms. Our historical record of climate data at fixed locations is gradually being eroded as budget constraints force 

the re-sighting or elimination of observational platforms. 

A suite of observations ranging from surface-based measurements to satellites are 

required to assess the State of Earth’s climate systems so that we cannot only reduce uncertainties in our climate projections, but also enhance our abilities to better 

to understand what will be necessary to mitigate and adapt to changing conditions. 

These observations are not only vital to our understanding of climatic changes 

decades out, but are also important for much shorter-term needs including daily 

weather prediction and the associated issuance of timely warnings to protect lives 

and property. As I noted earlier, climate scientists project that climate changes will 

be potentially associated with increasing variability in weather, including perhaps 

more high-impact weather events like stronger hurricanes and heat waves. An enhanced global environmental monitoring system is essential for us to provide the information necessary for emergency managers and longer-term decisionmakers to 

deal with the impacts of these phenomena. 

For these reasons, last month I filed an amendment to S. 3036 that used the proceeds of auctioned allowances to fund climate science monitoring, research, and opVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:17 Feb 24, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\88902.TXT VERN
9 

erations. The amendment provided funds to upgrade and maintain an effective observing system to monitor the State of the global climate including the atmosphere 

and oceans. Additionally, funding was made available to ensure that the data provided from these observations is put to greatest use in operational weather and climate prediction. 

I look forward to hearing from all of today’s witnesses and learning more about 

the latest climate science research results and what these results suggest about the 

actions our government should be taking to confront this important issue. 

Thank you to Madame Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much, Madam Chair, for 

holding this important hearing, and to our witnesses for being 

here. 

I started my day yesterday with a 14-year old girl from Minneapolis named Liza who rode her bike 1,500 miles across the 

Country with a group of petitions signed by 1,200 kids from across 

the Country asking for more research and technology and encouragement of fuel-efficient vehicles, specifically electric and hybrid 

cars. She came up with this idea in April, got a bike, she got her 

family to follow behind her in a car, and she did this all by herself. 

It made me think once again how about a lot of times the kids are 

leading the way on this and trying to push some of the people here 

in Washington to get something done. 

I can tell you that in our State of Minnesota we believe in 

science. I have often told my fellow Committee members here that 

we brought the world everything from the pacemaker to the postit note. We are the home of the Mayo Clinic. That is why, Dr. 

Trenberth, I am specifically interested in some of your testimony 

about the science, about the heavy rainfalls and what some of the 

warming, the increased levels of warm, moist air coming out of the 

Gulf of Mexico are doing to the environment. 

I have been surprised, not at just kids on bicycles, but at the 

number of adults that have brought up the issue of climate change 

to me after we had the flooding in southern Minnesota and in Iowa, 

we have had an increase in tornadoes. Again, they know that it 

may not just be due to climate change, or it may not be because 

of climate change. But they want to know the facts. And it is starting to get into their heads that this may have something to do with 

what is going on, storms that maybe were once every 500 years 

suddenly seem that they are happening 2 years in a row. 

The second reason I am so interested in this is just as a former 

prosecutor, I have always believed in evidence. And it appears that 

the Administration, Mr. Burnett, has been living in an evidencefree zone. I have just been interested in following the stories about 

your e-mails and how they have been somehow contained, about 

the lengths that have been taken by the Administration to squash 

any kind of an endangerment finding. 

It seems to me that what keeps happening is that when they 

don’t like the answer, they try to squash the science. We had this 

happen when the head of the Centers for Disease Control testified, 

and her testimony seemed rather limited and stilted. Then it 

turned out a whistleblower came out and gave us the right testiVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:17 Feb 24, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\88902.TXT VERN
10 

mony, and here it had been redacted. One of the most interesting 

facts and one of the things redacted was that climate change, while 

it wouldn’t cause wildfires, could lead to increased and more vociferous wildfires on the Pacific Coast. And the same week it was redacted was when the wildfires were raging in California a year ago, 

and of course, we have had that happen again. 

But it just seems like time and time again, in closing, what we 

have heard of what happened with you, Mr. Burnett, they don’t 

like the answer, so they squash the science. They don’t like the answer about the wildfires, they squash the testimony. They don’t 

like the answer about what is in your e-mails, they squash the emails. I think the American people and that little 14-year old girl 

are really owed an answer here, and that is what I hope we will 

hear from this hearing. 

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator Klobuchar. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Well, I can’t top Liza, and I would like to 

get to the witnesses, so I will withhold any opening statement. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Madam Chairman, I want the record to reflect that the time that I took, 55 seconds, it was nice of Larry to 

sacrifice all of his time. 

Senator CRAIG. Thank you, Frank. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. Let me say this. Because this is an oversight investigation, where we will be doing fact-finding, we will be swearing in all of our witnesses today. Therefore, please stand, raise 

your right hand and take the following oath. 

Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give 

will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so 

help you, God? 

[Witnesses respond in the affirmative.] 

Senator BOXER. Let the record reflect that everyone said, I do. 

We will begin with Mr. Burnett. We are going to try to hold you 

to 5 minutes, because I know there are many, many questions. Let 

me introduce to everybody who we have here. 

Jason Burnett, private citizen, former Associate Deputy Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. We have then Dr. 

Kevin E. Trenberth, head of the Climate Analysis Section, National 

Center for Atmospheric Research, Climate and Global Dynamics 

Division; and Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist, Earth 

Systems Science Center, University of Alabama in Huntsville. 

We will begin with you, Mr. Burnett. 

STATEMENT OF JASON BURNETT, PRIVATE CITIZEN, FORMER 

ASSOCIATE DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, ENVIRONMENTAL 

PROTECTION AGENCY 

Mr. BURNETT. Madam Chairman, Senator Craig, members of the 

Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on the science 

of climate change and its implications. My name is Jason Burnett, 

I recently resigned my position as Associate Deputy Administrator 

of the Environmental Protection Agency, where I helped lead the 

11 

effort to respond to the Massachusetts v. EPA Supreme Court decision and to help design the resulting greenhouse gas regulations. 

I am appearing before this Committee as a private citizen and 

my opinions for how the Country should respond to climate change 

are mine alone. The scientific information I present, however, is 

not my opinion. It is the conclusion of peer-reviewed reports produced or endorsed by the U.S. Government. As the saying goes, you 

are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. 

A central point I would like to make this morning: we can and 

must do a better job of differentiating between the facts of a problem and the opinions about how to address the problem. 

The first question in the climate debate is primarily in the realm 

of science: what is the nature and extent of the problem. The U.S. 

Government relies on a wealth of information produced by thousands of scientists resulting in reports by dozens of Government 

authors and reviewers. The second question is primarily one of policy judgment: what should be done to address the problem, given 

the scientific assessment. Ultimately, this is the charge of our 

elected officials and the people they appoint to administer our laws. 

Both the process of scientific inquiry and the policy process have 

uncertainties and legitimate differences of opinion. But we should 

not allow the desire for a particular policy outcome to cloud our assessment or presentation of the problem at hand. In this regard, 

I feel I made a key contribution in the climate change debate in 

helping the Government draw a clear line between science and policy. As recent news reports have suggested, this assignment was 

not always easy in this Administration. 

What we should expect from our Government is a fair and honest 

presentation of the facts, and then have a public debate about what 

solutions to offer, given those facts. Allow me to set the stage. The 

April 2d, 2007 Massachusetts v. EPA Supreme Court decision fundamentally, profoundly and permanently changed the regulatory 

landscape by finding that greenhouse gases are air pollutants within the Clean Air Act. Under that decision, EPA must determine if 

greenhouse gases endanger the public. And if so, EPA must regulate emissions from cars and trucks if those emissions contribute 

to the problem. The law is straightforward. If the public is endangered, the Government must act. 

In June 2007, EPA Administrator Steve Johnson asked if I would 

return to the agency to help him lead the effort to respond to the 

Supreme Court decision and develop the first Federal greenhouse 

gas regulations. Having left EPA less than a year before caused me 

to be cautious and view with skepticism any suggestion that the 

Administration had decided to take regulatory action. However, it 

was a unique opportunity to help with a profound policy challenge. 

I accepted the invitation. 

The initial matter before EPA was how to make an 

endangerment finding. Working with other expert agencies across 

the Government, EPA produced a science assessment to inform 

that finding. These are among the key conclusions of that assessment. Climate warming may increase the possibility of large, abrupt and unwelcome regional or global climactic events such as the 

disintegration of the Greenland ice sheet or collapse of the west 

Antarctic ice sheet. Severe heat waves are projected to intensify in 

12 

magnitude and duration over portions of the U.S. where these 

events already occur, with likely increases in mortality and morbidity, especially among the elderly, the young and the frail. 

To be balanced, I will add that climate change is also projected 

to bring some benefits, such as fewer deaths from cold exposure. To 

my knowledge, EPA successfully defended any efforts to delete sections of this assessment, which was made public as a sixth order 

draft earlier this month. 

The science is clear on this point. The U.S. will experience serious human health and Environmental consequences from climate 

change. The science assessment provided the support for answering 

the Supreme Court and making it an endangerment finding. Given 

the profound consequences of such a finding, we worked to ensure 

that we had agreement across the Federal Government. 

Senator BOXER. I will give you, and each of you, two more minutes. 

Go ahead. 

Mr. BURNETT. Thank you, Senator. 

Policy process culminated in a Cabinet level meeting in November 2007, where agreement was reached that greenhouse gases did 

endanger the public and therefore, require regulation. The Administration also accepted that a finding of endangerment would have 

deep consequences and the initial decisions for how to apply the 

Clean Air Act would set the stage for years to come. 

Lacking a desire to implement the existing law, the Administration left the important decisions about how best to move forward 

to the next Administration and the next Congress. In the end, the 

only way to avoid making a positive endangerment finding was to 

avoid making any finding at all. That is what this Administration 

has decided to do. Intent on not using the Clean Air Act, the White 

House could only find a way to delay its use. 

That should signal everyone that it is simply a matter of time 

before a positive endangerment finding is made, and regulation 

under the Clean Air Act is triggered. That is, unless Congress 

passes a new, better law. 

In closing, I think that we are at the end of the debate about 

whether greenhouse gases endanger the public. They clearly do so. 

I look forward to the next phase of the debate about how we should 

respond. There are no easy answers, and a serious response will require hard work, compromise and sacrifice. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I ask that my written testimony be submitted for the record. I will be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Burnett follows:] 

13 


88902.001
14 


88902.002
15 


88902.003
16 


88902.004
17 


88902.005
18 


88902.006
19 


88902.007
20 


88902.008
21 


88902.009
22 


88902.010
23 


88902.011
24 


88902.012
25 


88902.013
26 


88902.014
27 


88902.035
28 


88902.036
29 


88902.037
30 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much, Mr. Burnett. 

Dr. Trenberth, you will be given 7 minutes. Go ahead. 

STATEMENT OF KEVIN E. TRENBERTH, HEAD, CLIMATE ANALYSIS SECTION, NATIONAL CENTER FOR ATMOSPHERIC RESEARCH, CLIMATE AND GLOBAL DYNAMICS DIVISION 

Dr. TRENBERTH. Good morning, Madam Chair, distinguished 

members of the Committee. 

I am pleased to appear before you today to provide an update on 

climate change. My name is Kevin Trenberth. I was the coordinating lead author of Chapter 3 of the Fourth Assessment Report 

of the IPCC, the same body that received the Nobel Peace Prize in 

2007 with Al Gore. 

I am happy to answer any questions you have about the IPCC, 

but I will simply note that it is a very open and thorough process, 

and it is inherently conservative in its findings because of the nature of the process. My main message today is that climate change 

from human influences is a real problem today. And it could have 

major consequences beyond those already seen. In fact, rather than 

slowing down, the problem is accelerating. 

Carbon dioxide emissions are increasing and raise the specter of 

future climate changes that could be much larger and come much 

sooner than the IPCC suggests. The problem is that carbon dioxide 

has a long lifetime in the atmosphere, so it builds up, and it presently is 36 percent above pre-industrial levels. Half of that increase 

has occurred since 1970. 

The climate system, especially the oceans and the land ice, the 

major glaciers, has a lot of inertia. It responds slowly. So with what 

we have already done to now, we are guaranteed to have at least 

another degree Fahrenheit warming in the global mean temperatures. Also, there is inertia in the infrastructure, so that even if we 

take actions now, we will have more warming in the pipeline. This 

means that long lead times are essential for actions to address climate change, something which is not widely appreciated by the 

general public. 

In my written testimony, I outlined the evidence for global warming with several updates on post-IPCC developments, and I would 

like to run through some of those right now. To paraphrase the 

IPCC report, warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and it 

is very likely due to human activities. This word unequivocal was 

passed by all of the governments that were present, including the 

U.S., in the Paris meeting. 

Also, the observed changes in recent decades are reproduced in 

climate models and are projected to increase in the future with 

substantial impacts. Nature continues to provide evidence that it 

is under duress, and the impacts are affecting people and animals. 

My interpretation of the recent events is in the context of the 

IPCC findings. It includes first, six out of the ten warmest years 

in the contiguous United States have occurred since 1998. Globally, 

the past 7 years are among the eight warmest on record. Second, 

the most dramatic climate event recently has been the huge loss 

of Arctic sea ice in 2007. This affects permafrost and surrounding 

areas as well as polar bears and other native species. 

31 

Sea level rise I think is the best single indicator of a warming 

planet. It continues at the rate of a foot a century. Changes in 

ocean acidity accompany the buildup in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, with consequences for sea creatures and bleaching of 

corals occurs in association with the warming. 

In the first 6 months of 2008, record heavy rains and flooding in 

Iowa, Ohio and Missouri led to over-topped levees that have occurred along the Cedar River in Iowa and in the Mississippi. They 

point to the increases in intensity of rains that has been observed 

around the world, and especially across the United States, in association with more water vapor in the atmosphere that is a direct 

consequence of warming. 

The record-breaking numbers of tornadoes and deaths in the 

United States in 2008 probably also has a global warming component from the warm, moist air coming in out of the Gulf of Mexico 

into the Midwest. 

Longer dry spells also accompany warming, as the extra heat 

that is available goes into evaporating moisture, drying and wilting 

vegetation. The risk of wildfire increases enormously. Wildfires in 

California earlier this year and again this summer are examples of 

the impacts. 

In 2007, for the first time, two Category Five hurricanes made 

landfall in the Americas. They both were in Central America they 

didn’t get much attention in the U.S. as a result. Recent devastation in Typhoon Nargis in Myanmar, Burma and also the Typhoon 

Fengshen in the Philippines are signs of lack of adequate preparation for the consequences that are already going on of global warming. 

In the Atlantic in 2008, in July, Hurricane Bertha has broken 

several records on how early and how far east it formed, and it is 

the longest lasting July hurricane on record. We should not be misled by short-term natural climate variations, such as the La Nina, 

the cold sea temperatures that developed in the tropical Pacific, 

that has dominated patterns over this past year. 

Global warming is not just a threat for the future, it is already 

happening, and at rates faster than the IPCC projects. It is affecting people and ecosystems and public health. Our predictions at 

NCAR, my institution, and in the IPCC, are for substantial climate 

changes into the future, to the point where the Earth could become 

a different planet by 2100. 

I believe there is a crisis of inaction in addressing and preparing 

for climate change. Global warming is happening, as I often say in 

my talks, coming, ready or not. 

I appreciate the opportunity to address the Committee concerning the science of global climate change, and I look forward to 

answering any questions you may have today or in the future. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Trenberth follows:] 

32 


88902.015
33 


88902.016
34 


88902.017
35 


88902.018
36 


88902.019
37 


88902.020
38 


88902.021
39 


88902.022
40 


88902.023
41 


88902.024
42 


88902.025
43 


88902.026
44 


88902.027
45 


88902.038
46 


88902.039
47 


88902.040
48 


88902.041
49 


88902.042
50 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Doctor. 

And now, Dr. Roy Spencer. 

STATEMENT OF ROY W. SPENCER, PRINCIPAL RESEARCH SCIENTIST, EARTH SYSTEM SCIENCE CENTER, UNIVERSITY OF 

ALABAMA, HUNTSVILLE 

Mr. SPENCER. I would like to thank you, Madam Chair, for the 

opportunity to address the Committee. 

There are two issues I want to talk about. First, I would like to 

address the role of the White House in policy-relevant research performed by Government employees, which this Committee is obviously concerned with today. As a NASA employee performing climate change research during the Clinton-Gore Administration, I 

was told what I could and could not say during congressional testimony. Since it was well-known that I was skeptical of the view 

that mankind’s greenhouse gas emissions are mostly responsible 

for global warming, I just assumed that this advice was to help 

protect Vice President Gore’s political agenda on the subject. 

But this did not particularly bother me, since I knew that as an 

employee of an executive branch agency, NASA, my boss ultimately 

resided in the White House. To the extent that my work had policy 

relevance, it seemed entirely appropriate to me that the privilege 

of working for NASA included a responsibility to abide by direction 

from my superiors. But when I finally did tire of the limits on my 

interactions with Congress and the press, I resigned from NASA in 

2001 and assumed my present position as a University employee, 

where I have more freedom to speak on climate issues. 

Now, second today and more importantly, I would like to present 

some of the latest scientific research regarding the relative roles of 

mankind and nature in climate change. As you might know, there 

remains considerable uncertainty over just how sensitive the climate system is to our greenhouse gas emissions. But now we have 

peer reviewed and published evidence, both theoretical and observational, that climate sensitivity estimates previously diagnosed 

from satellite data have been too high. The two papers describing 

that work are referenced in my written testimony. 

Furthermore, in recent weeks, I believe we have attained what 

has been called the holy grail of climate Research, which is a true 

measurement of climate sensitivity. We have discovered why previous sensitivity estimates have been so high and so uncertain. 

They have been contaminated by natural cloud variability. And we 

have even developed two methods of removing that contamination. 

An analysis of 6 years of our latest and most accurate NASA satellite data reveals evidence of very low climate sensitivity. When 

translated into an estimate of future global warming, it would be 

less than 1 degree Celsius by 2100, well below the range of the 

IPCC’s estimates of future warming. 

If this new evidence of low climate sensitivity is indeed true, it 

also means, and this is very important, if we have low climate sensitivity, that also means that the radiative forcing being caused by 

the CO2 we put into the atmosphere is not nearly enough to explain the warming we have seen in the last 100 years. There must 

be also some sort of natural warming mechanism involved. 

51 

And this is where the IPCC process has failed us. The IPCC has 

been almost totally silent on potential natural explanations for 

global warming. They mention a couple of external influences, such 

as volcanic eruptions and small fluctuations in solar output as possible minor players. But they have totally ignored the 800 pound 

gorilla in the room: natural internal chaotic fluctuations in the climate system. 

In my written testimony, I show with a simple climate model a 

simple example of how small cloud variations associated with two 

known modes of natural climate variability, the El Nino/La Nina 

phenomenon, and the Pacific decadal oscillation, might explain 70 

percent of the global average warming in the last 100 years, as 

well as its basic character, the warming that was experienced until 

1940, slight cooling or constant temperatures until about the 

1970’s, and then resumed warming up until recently, since the satellite data shows that warming stopped about 7 years ago. But as 

Dr. Trenberth mentioned, short-term results are no indication of 

future potential. 

While these new results that I am talking about are not yet published, I did present them in a seminar to about 40 climate researchers at the University of Colorado last week, and I received 

no serious objections to my analysis. It seems that the IPCC leadership has a history of ignoring natural climate variability. I often 

wonder, what evidence for natural sources of warming might have 

been found if the same amount of money and manpower was put 

to the task as the IPCC has used over the years. After all, remember, the IPCC is tasked with dealing with the human influence on 

climate. So they don’t have a whole lot of motivation for finding 

possible natural explanations. 

There is a story I would like to relate to you, and I have never 

told it before. In the early days of the IPCC, I was visiting the head 

of the White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy, the 

Director, Dr. Robert Watson, who later became the first chairman 

of the IPCC. He informed me and a work associate with me, that 

since we now had started to regulate ozone-depleting substances 

under the 1987 Montreal Protocol, the next goal, in his mind, was 

to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuel burning. This 

was nearly 20 years ago. There was no mention of the scientific 

basis for that goal. 

So as you can see, from the beginning of the IPCC process, it has 

been guided by desired policy outcomes, not science. I believe that 

most of the scientists involved in the IPCC are indeed reputable 

and honest. But they have been used by politicians, bureaucrats 

and a handful of sympathetic and outspoken scientists. 

In conclusion, I am predicting today that the theory that mankind is mostly responsible for global warming will slowly fade away 

in the coming years, as will the warming itself. I trust you would 

agree, Madam Chair, that such a result deserves to be greeted with 

relief. 

That concludes my testimony and I would be willing to answer 

any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Spencer follows:] 

52 


88902.028
53 


88902.029
54 


88902.030
55 


88902.031
56 


88902.032
57 


88902.033
58 


88902.034
59 


88902.043
60 

Senator BOXER. OK, we are going to, before you start my time, 

this is the list of how I am going to call on people. After I finish 

my questions, Senator Craig, then unless there is an objection, 

Senators Lautenberg, Cardin, Klobuchar, Whitehouse and Sanders. 

Is that acceptable to everybody? OK. And we are going to give each 

of us 6 minutes. 

Mr. Spencer, did you quit NASA when Bill Clinton was President 

or George Bush was President? 

Mr. SPENCER. I believe when George Bush was President. 

Senator BOXER. I also want to point out that on your own blog, 

you said you never were told you couldn’t speak about your scientific views. And I think that is really key. Because what we have 

happening now is the scientific views are being censored. Last, I 

guess there is a certain congratulations, Rush Limbaugh referred 

to you as the official climatologist of the Rush Limbaugh excellence 

in broadcasting network. 

Mr. SPENCER. Yes, that is a tongue-in-cheek reference. 

Senator BOXER. Right. But I just wanted to point that out for 

people to understand, we know that Mr. Burnett has been forthcoming about his problems and where he stands. I just want to 

make sure everybody knows what is really happening. 

Mr. Burnett, one of the things I said in my opening is that we 

need to get started on this. And I said that since the President has 

decided not to, and obviously you confirmed that, saying they are 

just kicking this to the next Administration, one way we could get 

started is if they signed the waiver. That is why that waiver decision was so crucial. They are doing nothing. The States, almost 19 

of them, want to act. 

So I am going to ask you a few questions, mostly yes or noes, but 

I want to get the record clear. Because I am having trouble getting 

everything that was promised to me by Mr. Johnson. He promised 

e-mails, we are getting nothing. And we are going to talk about 

that, colleagues, on Thursday. We may have to subpoena these documents. 

But let me ask you, did Administrator Johnson discuss with you 

his plan in December 2007 to inform the White House that he 

wanted to move forward with at least a partial waiver for California? 

Mr. BURNETT. Yes. We had a two-part plan, if the Clean Air Act 

remained as is, specifically the relevant section of the Clean Air 

Act was not amended by Congress, the plan was to move forward 

with a partial grant of the waiver. However, if Congress chose to 

amend the Clean Air Act, then of course we would have to evaluate 

the new law. 

Senator BOXER. OK. In order to support the plan to grant the 

partial waiver, did Administrator Johnson indicate that the compelling and extraordinary conditions needed to meet the test to 

grant California the waiver, and the other States, that test had 

been met? 

Mr. BURNETT. As part of the plan to grant a partial waiver, certainly it was the case that all three criteria in the Clean Air Act 

would be met, including the criteria that California has compelling 

and extraordinary circumstances. 

61 

Senator BOXER. Did you prepare Administrator Johnson for a 

meeting at the White House on the California waiver, and did he 

communicate to you that he understood there was no reasonable 

defense of a denial of the California waiver, and that a denial was 

likely to lose in the courts? 

Mr. BURNETT. First, on the issue of the legal vulnerability, I 

think that materials from our Office of General Counsel have stated that it is highly likely a denial will lose in court. That was certainly communicated in multiple form to Administrator Johnson. 

Senator BOXER. OK. After returning from the White House, did 

Administrator Johnson inform you or were you aware for any other 

reason that the President of the United States had asserted the 

policy position that there should be only one emission standard applicable to vehicles, despite the requirements of the Clean Air Act? 

Mr. BURNETT. Yes. President Bush had made it clear through a 

variety of mechanisms of his policy preference for a single standard 

and an approach that would not be consistent with Administrator 

Johnson granting the waiver. That was made clear in a variety of 

conversations and also was reiterated in the statement of Administration policy as part of the debate on the Energy Bill. 

Senator BOXER. And just for the record, the Clean Air Act has 

always, well, since I think it is the 1970’s said that this waiver 

process should be able to move forward, and that there wouldn’t be 

a patchwork but there would be one Federal standard. And if California decided to move in a tougher direction, that would open the 

door for other States to follow. Is that correct? 

Mr. BURNETT. Yes. The basic structure of the Clean Air Act is 

that California alone can design a different system from the Federal system, and then other States have a choice of either following 

California or continuing to use the Federal system. 

Senator BOXER. OK. Did Administrator Johnson make it clear to 

you that the Energy Bill and its outcome were a consideration in 

his decision on the waiver? 

Mr. BURNETT. The Energy Bill certainly was a consideration. It 

was provided as the policy context, if you will, for the denial of the 

waiver. That policy context was articulated in a letter from Administrator Johnson to Governor Schwarzenegger on December 19th, 

2007. 

Senator BOXER. And it was interesting to me because the Supreme Court clearly said, any action by DOT has nothing to do 

with the obligations of the EPA. So when he came before us and 

talked about that, we were very shocked. 

Did the Administrator commission an analysis comparing the 

Energy Bill to the California waiver? 

Mr. BURNETT. Yes. As the Energy Bill was moving its way 

through both Houses of Congress, there was a comparison done at 

Administrator Johnson’s request of the fuel economy requirements 

of the Energy Bill compared with the effective fuel economy requirements of the California program. 

Now, that comparison was difficult to make. And there are a 

number of complications in that comparison. The vehicle fleet is 

different in California. The years of the program are different. The 

California program phases in more quickly than the Federal program. 

62 

So we attempted to perform a comparison, but that comparison 

really ultimately was an apples to oranges comparison. 

Senator BOXER. OK, my last question, and I am sorry, colleagues, 

for going a little over time here, did you recommend that the California waiver be granted, and did you as the chief climate advisor 

to the Administrator inform him that the waiver was supported by 

the law and the facts? 

Mr. BURNETT. Yes. California had made, in my mind, a convincing case that it met all three criteria as required by the Clean 

Air Act. My advice, my recommendation, as well as the advice and 

recommendation of all other advisors within EPA that I am aware 

of was for Administrator Johnson to grant the waiver or at least 

grant the first few years of the wavier. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much. 

Senator CRAIG. Senator CRAIG. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

Gentlemen, thank you for being with us today. 

Dr. Spencer, let me only make comment and then ask you a brief 

question. Being politically incorrect in today’s climate change debate is not necessarily popular. It isn’t popular before this Committee sometimes, it isn’t popular in the world of public opinion. So 

as an outsider, if you will, but a scientist, on climate change, what 

does the scientific community around climate change think of your 

findings and your expressions? 

Mr. SPENCER. I receive really no negative direct input from the 

scientists that are qualified to cast judgment on my published Research. It is usually met with silence, which in the past I have 

found usually means that you are making good points that people 

don’t want to address, since everybody is just silent on the evidence 

you have put forward. 

Senator CRAIG. I thank you for that. I have been a fairly regular 

attendee of the climate change conferences around the world. I recognize that it is a thriving cottage industry at times. Thank you 

for your observation, and please, continue your work. There deserves to be reasonable counterpoint to this debate. 

Mr. SPENCER. There are more like me out there, Senator. 

Senator CRAIG. Thank you. 

Dr. Trenberth, you gave passing comment as it relates to forest 

fires and climate change. I am frustrated, because I see that as an 

ingredient of tremendous importance in our Country. The skies of 

my State, Idaho, were filled with smoke this weekend, but the 

smoke wasn’t from Idaho. It was from California. And we have 

seen the tremendous episode California has already had this year. 

In 1991, a group of scientists met, they just happened to meet 

in Idaho, but they were forestry scientists, both forest managers 

and forest scientists. At that time, in 1991, they determined that 

there were millions of acres of forests in the Great Basin West and 

in the Sierras that were dead and dying. As a result, if there was 

less than any activity in managing these forests, they would result 

in massive wildfires over the decades to come. 

Now, of course, because of the tremendous population and fuel 

buildup in our forests, and a slight change in temperature, we are 

seeing the consequences of that. Last year’s forest fires produced 

about an equivalent of carbon into the atmosphere upwards of 12 

63 

million automobiles operating annually. Yet very little is said by 

scientists today as to natural emissions of carbon into the atmosphere. And this Congress denies the Forest Service an active management role in our forests to change the dynamics of forests, even 

if you accept warming as I do, and the consequence of that in the 

lower elevations in the Great Basin West and in the Sierras. 

Why aren’t scientists dealing more with the consequences, the 

vegetative consequences? And why aren’t they advocating active 

management to reduce fuel loads and therefore reduce carbon? 

Dr. TRENBERTH. Senator, in my own testimony, I actually comment on one way of dealing with the increased risk of wildfires is 

indeed to cut down on litter and to try to reduce the risk of wildfire. It is something that you do have control over. 

There are of course a lot of natural variations. The things that 

have come into play in recent years in the West especially is the 

major drought in 2002 which weakened many of the trees, especially the lodgepole pine that has subsequently become infested 

with the bark beetle. And the bark beetle itself is affected by, can 

be affected by climate and can get killed off if there is a cold spell 

when the pupae goes into the tree in the beginning of the fall or 

when it comes out in the spring, if the temperatures are below 

about 10 degrees Fahrenheit. In the middle of winter, it can also 

be killed off with a very cold spell of about minus 30 degrees Fahrenheit. In recent times, we have not had those. So there is a warming component to the infestation that has occurred much more recently throughout the West and has increased the risk of wildfire 

over many other regions as well. 

Senator CRAIG. I appreciate that comment. Lodgepole pine are of 

course a climatic species, and we understand their ebb and flow. 

It is interesting today the fires in California were not necessarily 

in the lodgepole areas. They serve obviously as ladders, sometimes, 

for fire. You are right about bug kill, and you are right about the 

bug itself. It is also possible to deter that if you interject the 

human into the process when you recognize it is happening, by taking out those bug kill areas so that they don’t spread. We are being 

denied that. I guess that is my point, active management can help 

us. 

Madam Chair, my time is up or nearly up. I thank you, Jason, 

thank you for being with us. I would ask unanimous consent that 

I enter into the record some additional information in relation to 

Jason Burnett. 

Senator BOXER. Without objection. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

JASON K. BURNETT AND THE PACKARD FOUNDATION

Son of Nancy Burnett (officer on the board of trustees for the David and Lucille 

Packard foundation) and grandson of David and Lucille Packard 

The David and Lucille Packard Foundation is the one of the wealthiest in the 

world. 

2007 ANNUAL REPORT FOR THE DAVID AND LUCILLE PACKARD FOUNDATION

Total Awards amount for 2007—$273,927,605 

Environmental Defense—$1,219,500 

Natural Resources Defense Council—$446,572 

World Wildlife Fund—$3,555,250 

Sierra Club Foundation—$300,000 

64 

Union of Concerned Scientists—$125,000 

JASON K. BURNETT CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS

Barack Obama—$5900 

Al Gore—$1000 

EMILY’s List—$15000 

Democrat Senatorial Committee—$52,500 

Joseph Lieberman—$2000 

Claire McCaskill—$2100 

Jim Webb—$2100 

Diane Feinstein—$500 

Hilda Solis—$500 

Debbie Stabenow—$1000 

Sheldon Whitehouse—$2100 

Robert Menendez—$2100 

Jon Tester—$2100 

Senator CRAIG. Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Senator Lautenberg. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Mr. Spencer, since you ascribe the problems with changing climate to natural causes, is it then suggested that we just kind of 

throw up our hands and wait and let nature take its course and 

put our children in the position of the canaries in the coal mine 

and see if they drop and then decide that the weather has really—— 

Mr. SPENCER. First of all, I am of the strong professional opinion 

that most of the warming is due to nature, rather than mankind. 

I don’t see how mankind can’t have some influence. After all, the 

presence of trees on the planet changes the planet compared to if 

the trees were not there. It would probably be hard for the climate 

and the earth to not know that 6 billion people live here. 

But to the extent that we do influence climate, then of course, 

you are into a policy issue. And you have to look at how difficult 

it would be to change what we are doing, business as usual. And 

as I have written before numerous places on this subject, the way 

out of this problem, to the extent there is a problem with carbon 

dioxide emissions, is through technology. It is going to take new 

technology that we don’t currently have, and you cannot legislative 

new technology into existence. It is created by wealthy societies, 

wealthy countries, countries that have free market economies, that 

have the excess wealth to devote to those new technologies. 

That is where I think the answer would be, to the extent that 

carbon dioxide is a problem. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. So a poor country like ours would have to 

wait for those wealthy ones to get there? 

Mr. SPENCER. Well, we already spend billions of dollars, Senator, 

on new alternative energy Research. I don’t know why that is never 

mentioned. Maybe we could spend more, I don’t know. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Burnett, you said in an interview with the House Select 

Committee on Global Warming that some oil companies, including 

ExxonMobil, told the Administration that moving forward with 

greenhouse gas emission regulations would ‘‘taint President Bush’s 

legacy by having on his legacy an increase of regulations.’’ Have 

you heard that? 

Mr. BURNETT. The basic policy debate within the Administration 

was whether the Administration should move forward with the reVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:17 Feb 24, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\88902.TXT VERN
65 

sponse to a Supreme Court and most within the Administration believed that they would be able to better set the course for the inevitable regulation by moving forward. 

However, the counter-argument was a concern that moving forward would lead to an increase in regulation. We are of course, 

talking about regulation of greenhouse gases. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Right. 

Mr. BURNETT. And that is not something that this President 

wanted to have associated with him. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Right. The oil company’s assertion that 

any regulation was unacceptable, even if it was necessary to protect the public’s health, is that a proper view of what was taking 

place? 

Mr. BURNETT. Well, the question was whether we would go public with a finding that there was endangerment to human health 

or welfare. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Keep it secret as an alternative. 

Mr. BURNETT. Whether or not to go public, yes. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. What is the position of career scientists at 

EPA? What is the position of the career scientists there? 

Mr. BURNETT. Well, in fact it was the position of the Administration that the public is endangered by greenhouse gases. We had an 

extensive policy process within the Environmental Protection Agency and across the Federal Government that culminated in a Cabinet level meeting where there was agreement that the public was 

in danger. The question now is simply when that finding will be 

made public. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Dr. Trenberth, the EPA and other scientific agencies put out a report last week showing real impacts to 

the United States from global warming. We have this chart on display here, which I am sure you have seen. And if not, we will get 

you a copy, I promise. 

Are the findings of this report consistent with the recent findings 

of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change such that there 

shouldn’t be any dispute over the reality of global warming and its 

effects? 

Dr. TRENBERTH. I haven’t read that report in detail. As far as I 

can judge, it was very heavily based upon the IPCC report. As a 

result, it is probably a couple of years out of date. So it is quite 

conservative in that regard. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you. Are we approaching a point of 

no return where it will be too late to fully protect our people from 

the impacts of global warming? 

Dr. TRENBERTH. Global warming consequences are already with 

us. They are certainly going to continue to happen in the future. 

We need to recognize that and therefore plan accordingly. I don’t 

think we are doing that, and you can see the evidence of that from 

the devastation that occurred along the Mississippi with the floods 

that overtopped levees through, what scientists have recognized for 

at least 10–15 years, the much heavier rains. So what used to be 

a 500 year flood is now a 30-year flood. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you very much. 

Senator BOXER. Senator Lautenberg, thank you so much for that. 

66 

Senator CARDIN. I am going to run out for 1 minute, be right 

back. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Mr. Burnett, let me followup on this, if I might. Because I am 

reading from your testimony and from your statements here today 

in which you underscore, given the profound consequences of making an endangerment finding, we worked to ensure that we had 

agreement across the Federal Government. Your written statement 

then goes through some of the potential alternatives to making an 

endangerment, some theories that could be used, including actions 

already taken. And you come to the conclusion that despite these 

various theories, the Administration recognized that the only supportable answer to the Supreme Court was to find that greenhouse 

gases endanger the public. 

Then as you pointed out in response to Senator Lautenberg’s 

question, the policy process culminated in fa Cabinet level meeting 

in November 2007, where agreement was reached that greenhouse 

gases endanger the public, and therefore, that regulation was required, from your statement. 

Were you present at that Cabinet level meeting? 

Mr. BURNETT. I was not present at the Cabinet level meeting. I 

was part of the senior team that coordinated the interagency process that began in the summer of 2007 and ran through in preparation for the Cabinet level meeting. Administrator Johnson represented, as the Cabinet level official of the EPA, represented the 

agency at that meeting. 

Senator CARDIN. How were you apprised of the finding at the 

Cabinet level meeting? How did you find out about that? 

Mr. BURNETT. I had helped prepare the briefing papers for members of the Cabinet in preparation for that meeting. And Administrator Johnson and Deputy Administrator Marcus Peacock returned from that meeting and asked for us to draft a regulatory 

finding that reflected the decisions reached in that meeting. 

Now, to be extra cautions and certain that in fact the finding 

that we developed reflected those decisions, I took the extra steps 

of reading portions of that finding to the Office of Management and 

Budget before it was formally submitted. And then I checked with 

the head of the regulatory office of OMB to make sure that OMB 

was ready to receive that findings for formal review. Upon reaching 

agreement that it was ready for review, I sent it to OMB. So we 

took a number of steps to ensure that it was not simply EPA, but 

the entire Federal Government that was in agreement with moving 

forward with a finding that the public was endangered. 

Senator CARDIN. Do you know who was at the Cabinet meeting? 

Mr. BURNETT. I have an understanding from the report back 

from the meeting who was in attendance. And I certainly know the 

agencies and departments and offices of the White House that were 

centrally involved in the policy process throughout most of last 

year. We had meetings three times a week, generally at the Old 

Executive Office Building, hosted by OMB and attended by many 

individuals across the Federal Government. 

Senator CARDIN. So you were confident that the Cabinet level 

meeting in November was an agreement that greenhouse gases enVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:17 Feb 24, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\88902.TXT VERN
67 

danger the public and therefore regulation was required was 

reached at that Cabinet level meeting? 

Mr. BURNETT. Yes. In fact, Administrator Johnson has said he 

took the extra step of checking with the President’s chief of staff 

office and the Deputy Chief of Staff, Joel Kaplan, to make sure that 

in fact that Cabinet level meeting was sufficient for Administrator 

Johnson to announce to staff at EPA that a decision had been 

made and to proceed with work in drafting the formal document 

that found that the public was endangered. 

Senator CARDIN. And then what happened after that? Why were 

no regulations issued? Why didn’t it go forward? 

Mr. BURNETT. Well, the series of events over the course of December 5th were strange indeed. That morning, I had made sure 

that OMB was ready to receive the finding formally, for formal review. I had checked with my colleagues at EPA to make sure that 

there was agreement within EPA that it was ready to be sent over. 

I sent the document over, and we then received a phone call requesting that we not send the document. We informed the individual that the document had been sent, and we were asked to recall the document. 

Senator CARDIN. Asked by whom? 

Mr. BURNETT. By Deputy Chief of Staff Joel Kaplan, to recall the 

document or send a followup note stating that the document had 

been sent in error. I couldn’t do that. 

Senator CARDIN. So you were preparing the necessary paperwork 

to make the declaration, you were then asked to recall that document? 

Mr. BURNETT. Yes, sir. 

Senator CARDIN. Then what happened next? Did you recall it? 

Mr. BURNETT. No, sir. It represented the culmination of our policy process, the response to the Supreme Court and our required 

action under the Clean Air Act. There was then a period of waiting 

while the Energy Bill moved through Congress and continued debate through early this year about whether this Administration 

wanted to answer the Supreme Court and release the finding, or 

whether it wanted to allow the next Administration to take that action. 

Senator CARDIN. So the next thing you know, it was basically 

punted to the next Administration by not making a finding? 

Mr. BURNETT. Ultimately, what the Administration has decided 

to do is issue an advance notice of proposed rulemaking, which is 

not a regulatory action. It is designed in part to solicit public input 

and in part to make sure that it is the next Administration, not 

this Administration, that makes the important decisions about how 

to move forward with the Clean Air Act. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much, Senator. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

I apologize for mispronouncing your name, Mr. Burnett. My 

daughter just returned from French camp, and will only speak to 

me in French. So it was in my head. 

68 

The issue that Senator Cardin was raising with you about you 

sending over this e-mail, it was an e-mail, is that correct, to the 

OMB? 

Mr. BURNETT. Yes, Senator. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. And then this Deputy Chief of Staff, Joel 

Kaplan, called you and said, take it back or send a note that we 

didn’t send it, is that right? 

Mr. BURNETT. To clarify, he called the Administrator and the Administrator asked whether I would be able to send a follow-up note. 

Upon explaining that it had not been sent in error, there is agreement at EPA that it wouldn’t be appropriate for me to send such 

a note. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. And do you know if someone from the 

White House or if someone told him to not open this? Was there 

someone outside of OMB? Do you know who that person is? 

Mr. BURNETT. It is my understanding from conversations with 

individuals at OMB that they were directed not to open the e-mail, 

so that the e-mail would not be in receipt, so that OMB could say 

that they had not received a finding of public endangerment, and 

therefore, the public transparency provisions of the Clean Air Act 

and the Executive Order 12866 would not be triggered. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. And do you know who ordered them to not 

open it? 

Mr. BURNETT. I do not know, since I was not part of that conversation. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. OK. Mr. Burnett, press accounts say that 

the White House instructed the EPA to change their calculations 

regarding the cost of greenhouse gas emissions to our society. Why 

do you think they wanted to minimize the net benefit to society of 

controlling carbon emissions? 

Mr. BURNETT. Well, let me first say that the regulation that we 

were working to develop would have resulted in an increase in fuel 

economy of the Nation’s cars and trucks. And that would have resulted in a number of benefits besides reducing greenhouse gases. 

Perhaps most importantly for the current debate about energy 

prices, it would have reduced the pain at the pump by reducing the 

quantity of gas that Americans need to put in their tanks. 

There was a desire for a less aggressive regulation to be put forward by the Department of Transportation, rather than a more aggressive regulation that EPA thought, that EPA analysis would 

have been in the benefit of the American people. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. The New York Times has written that you 

went back and forth in memos to OMB over the definition of carbon 

dioxide molecules. Could you tell me about that debate? 

Mr. BURNETT. As I stated previously, there was a robust interagency process. I was at almost all of those meetings hosted by 

OMB. A number of questions were raised during that process, 

given the profound ramifications of making an endangerment finding, including the definition of various terms within the Clean Air 

Act, such as air pollutant or air pollution or what exactly is meant 

by the cause and contribute test of the Clean Air Act. 

All of these terms are important terms, and we wanted to make 

sure that we got it right, not only for the immediate regulations for 

cars and trucks, but also because we believed that it would lead to 

69 

regulations and set the precedent for how regulations were developed for a variety of stationary sources. 

Over the course of that discussion, there was quite a bit of effort 

and interest to see whether the Supreme Court case itself and regulation of CO2 and other greenhouse gases form automobiles could 

be restricted to just regulation of automobiles. How the Clean Air 

Act works is that after a pollutant is a regulated pollutant, controls 

are required on a variety of sources. So there is an interest to determine whether we could define CO2 from automobiles as somehow different than CO2 from power plants, for example. Clearly 

that—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Do you think that is possible? 

Mr. BURNETT. Clearly it wasn’t supportable. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. And who was trying to argue for that? 

Mr. BURNETT. Well, several individuals were trying to make that 

general case. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. People within OMB? 

Mr. BURNETT. Jeff Rosen, as part of the General Counsel’s Office 

at OMB, had raised that question multiple times. And I must say 

that it was sometimes somewhat embarrassing for me to return to 

EPA and ask for my colleagues to explain yet again that CO2 is 

a molecule and there is no scientific way of differentiating between 

CO2 from a car or a power plant. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you. That is what I was talking 

about earlier about believing in science. I appreciate what you have 

done to stand up for science. Hopefully in the end we will get this 

done based on science. 

Dr. Trenberth, just a quick question to followup. Of course I am 

very interested in the flooding issue and these enormous rainfalls 

that we have had suddenly in the Midwest. We had them last year, 

we had eight people die in Southern Minnesota, and now we have 

another one where I stood in front of a huge stretch of road, yards 

and yards long that had just collapsed, and a man died trying to 

get a sump pump, the road collapsed out from under him because 

of the water. You talked about the fact that 500 year floods are not 

30 to 50 year floods. Could you just expand on that for 1 minute 

about what we can expect in the future and why this is happening? 

Dr. TRENBERTH. Over the past century, rains in the U.S. are up 

about 7 percent. But it is not really a linear trend. There was a 

jump around the 1970’s, and the rainfall has been running on average that much higher. It is mainly east of the Rockies. 

At the same time, the heavy rains, the top 5 percent are up 14 

percent. And the very heavy rains, the top 1 percent are up 20 percent. The main reason is well understood, and it is because there 

is about 4 percent more water vapor in the atmosphere. That is a 

number which comes directly from about 1 degree Fahrenheit 

warming over the planet. So the air can hold more water at a rate 

of about 4 percent for every 1 degree Fahrenheit higher air temperature. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. So the warming causes more water in the 

atmosphere? 

Dr. TRENBERTH. The weather systems reach out, grab that water 

vapor, concentrate it, dump it down and so the natural consequence 

is heavier rains. 

70 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Very good for 1 minute. Thank you very 

much. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator Klobuchar. 

Before I call on Senator Whitehouse, I just was told that the 

Metropolitan Washington area is under a severe weather alert, 40 

mile per hour winds, lightning and heavy downpours, just coincidentally. This has nothing to do with anything, but I thought I 

would throw that out. 

Senator SANDERS. Barbara, you arrange these props extraordinarily well. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, sir. 

Go ahead, Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Chairman Boxer. 

Mr. Burnett, were you at the EPA long enough or in a position 

adequate to get a sense of what the routine meetings and conversations were between the Administrator and the White House? 

Mr. BURNETT. My focus was on climate and energy policy. I think 

that I am generally aware of the conversations and the policy process related to those issues. I can’t say that I am personally and 

substantially familiar with other conversations regarding other 

issues before the agency. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Were there routine meetings between the 

Administrator and the White House on the California waiver Clean 

Air Act issue? 

Mr. BURNETT. There were a number of meetings that the Administrator had, a number of meetings that I and others had. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Would you characterize them as routine? 

Mr. BURNETT. I don’t think that there was, well, this was the 

first vehicle waiver that I was substantially involved with. And so 

I want to be cautious about not suggesting that I had experience 

with other waivers. 

But I was familiar with the general policy process for regulations. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Were the meetings that we are talking 

about related to the California waiver, the Clean Air Act waiver, 

specific to that? Or were they part of a routine schedule that the 

Administrator had, going to the White House on a regular basis 

and this would be on the agenda, this particular time? Or were 

these meetings that were scheduled specifically to address this and 

not part of a routine, ongoing scheduled meeting process? 

Mr. BURNETT. Both. There were some meetings that were specifically scheduled to talk about the California waiver, and other meetings to talk about a range of issues relating particularly to climate 

policy, including the response to the Supreme Court and the California waiver. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And were there meetings specific to the 

California waiver that you would not characterize as routine, that 

were specifically scheduled for that purpose? 

Mr. BURNETT. Well, there were meetings specifically scheduled 

for that purpose, as I said. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Not just dropped in as an agenda point on 

a regularly scheduled meeting? 

71 

Mr. BURNETT. Yes, meetings that were specific to talk about the 

California waiver. But I am not sure if that means that they were 

routine or not. It certainly was the case that this issue of the California waiver received a great deal of attention from a number of 

people throughout the Administration. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Would it be accurate to say that in those 

meetings Administrator Johnson’s contribution was limited to an 

update on the status of the waiver action? 

Mr. BURNETT. I—there was an effort that we were engaged in 

and that I was engaged in to make the case that it would be appropriate to issue at least a partial grant of the waiver. Ultimately, 

we were not successful in making that case, and ultimately the Administrator decided to deny the waiver. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. From your perspective, did the White 

House understand that the responsibility for addressing and making a decision on the waiver rests with the Administrator? 

Mr. BURNETT. That is an interesting question that has been 

brought to light in a recent ozone decision, where the President 

reached a different conclusion than the Administrator. And the 

President’s policy was ultimately followed. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. In the Clean Air Act waiver, after the 

White House was notified of the proposed decision that you put together, did the White House respond to that notice that you intended to partially grant the waiver? 

Mr. BURNETT. The response was clearly articulating that the 

President had a policy preference for a single standard that would 

be inconsistent with granting the waiver. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. That was the response from the White 

House? 

Mr. BURNETT. Yes. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And it was a response to the Administrator? 

Mr. BURNETT. That is my understanding of the conversations 

that the Administrator had, and that certainly is the, the statements that I received directly from individuals in the White House. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Would they have made sense if the Administrator weren’t aware of them? ?I mean, it was clearly implicit 

that this had been communicated to the Administrator, correct? 

Mr. BURNETT. It was—— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. If not directly, directly through staff? 

Mr. BURNETT. It was well known and the Administrator certainly 

knew the President’s policy preference for a single standard. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Which had been communicated to him 

after he had heard the proposal to grant the partial waiver? 

Mr. BURNETT. We had been working on a variety of options ranging from a grant to a denial. I thought that the option that had 

the most prospect of moving forward in this Administration was a 

partial grant of the waiver. We tried to argue that could be done 

in a way that was both legal, legally supportable and consistent 

with the general policy direction that we were receiving. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. But just in terms of the timing, that the 

White House response to that followed, that notification to the 

White House that was your intention? In terms of the order. 

72 

Mr. BURNETT. Well, there were multiple meetings. So I want to 

simply be cautious about the exact sequence, because there was 

back and forth. But we went forward with our plan, told the White 

House about our plan to have a partial grant of the waiver, and 

in response, we were reminded of the President’s policy preference. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Got you. 

Madam Chair, will we have a second round? I have two more 

questions I would like to ask. And I would like to allow Senator 

Sanders to proceed with his. OK, thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Senator Sanders. 

Senator SANDERS. Thank you, Senator. And thank you, Senator 

Boxer, for holding this hearing, and I want to thank the panelists 

for being here. 

Senator BOXER. [Remarks off microphone.] 

Senator SANDERS. We have a vote, we have to be out of here in 

about 10 minutes. 

Senator BOXER. [Remarks off microphone.] 

Senator SANDERS. I want to thank the panelists. I am not going 

to ask Mr. Burnett any questions, because I think he has received 

enough questions. What he is doing today is important, because it 

only confirms, I think, what many of us have known for years, is 

that with the Bush-Cheney Administration, we have an administration that will go down in history as having the worst record that 

I can think of any administration in the history of our Country. 

But they have been especially bad and outrageous in environmental matters. And they stand uniquely alone. If you even compare the Bush administration to his father, who was a moderate 

on these issues, the decisions and actions of this Administration 

will cause incalculable harm for the future. It is going to take us 

many, many years, if ever, to recover and reverse what they have 

done. 

What I want to do is ask Dr. Trenberth a question. If we do not 

reverse global warming and if the planet continues to warm up, 

and if we see more drought, if we see more flooding, if we see the 

loss of agrigable land, if we see mass migrations because people are 

unable to farm or grow the food that they need, if we see the result, more and more illnesses develop, what happens? Talk a little 

bit about the impact of human health and global warming. 

Dr. TRENBERTH. Of course, what happens is that this doesn’t 

happen everywhere all at once. Usually it happens episodically. So 

we see examples like what happened with Katrina in our Country, 

indicating that indeed a western country leading the world, the 

United States, was not up to and didn’t have the infrastructure to 

deal with that kind of a disaster. 

So this year there have been major disasters in Myanmar 

(Burma) and the Philippines as a result also of hurricanes. So 

these things happen from time to time and they affect different 

areas. And you read about them in the news. But they don’t affect 

everywhere all at once. The same thing tends to happen with 

droughts. The droughts move around from 1 year to the next. It is 

easy to say, well, maybe this is natural variability, and natural 

variability is playing a role. The thing is that we have, in fact, 

73 

nowadays, global warming and natural variability going hand in 

hand. 

Another really good example was what happened in Europe in 

2003. The magnitude of the heat waves that occurred at that time 

was unprecedented there is no way that this, and in Europe they 

have records for centuries. 

Senator SANDERS. How many people died? My recollection is that 

thousands of people died. 

Dr. TRENBERTH. Yes, over 30,000 people. The IPCC suggests up 

to about 35,000 people died in that particular heat wave. And you 

cannot account for it by natural variability, you cannot account for 

it by global warming. It is a combination of both. So it was an extreme natural event on top of global warming that led to that particular event. 

Senator SANDERS. But go beyond just the severe weather disturbances, whether it is a prolonged heat wave or whatever. If you see 

increased drought, people are not going to be able to grow food, and 

they are going to have to migrate and so forth. 

Dr. TRENBERTH. Right. 

Senator SANDERS. There are going to be more and more diseases 

developing for a variety of reasons. Can you say a few words on 

that? 

Dr. TRENBERTH. Yes, that is correct. There are various kinds of 

diseases and pests, like wheat rust and cotton rust that tend to 

flourish in warmer and wetter conditions. Ironically, we often have 

droughts and floods at the same time but in different places. Then 

they move around from 1 year to the next. Where they occur gets 

determined by things like the El Nino phenomenon or the La Nina 

that we have had over the past year. 

So these things gradually occur in different places. Everyone will 

be affected one way or the other, sooner or later and in different 

ways. The thing that has happened in the last 30 years in particular is that it has gotten a lot warmer in general in Europe and 

Asia. In the U.S., the main thing that has happened is that it has 

gotten wetter. There is a figure in my testimony which shows that. 

That has ameliorated the drought that we otherwise would have 

had. There has been some work done to illustrate that. Also, it has 

not become as hot as it otherwise would have been. 

But we are extremely vulnerable to both of those things occurring much more in the future if the atmospheric circulation tends 

to revert to the conditions that occurred before about 1970. And we 

saw an example of that last year, for instance, in the Southeast 

with the drought, and the consequences of that and the arguments 

over water between States and so on. So you will see more examples of that kind of thing. I personally think that the biggest pressure point on society will actually be through water and water resources. That is especially true in other places around the world. 

Senator SANDERS. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much. 

Here is what we are going to do. We are going to continue this 

hearing, because I have to followup on some things that were said. 

The information we have received so far raises serious concerns in 

my mind regarding the account of events that has been provided 

to this Committee, including statements by Administrator Johnson. 

74 

So when I come back, I want to further ask you, and I think it is 

so important, Mr. Burnett, the President himself, what I understand, you don’t have to answer now, because I want you to think 

about it, the President himself wanted a single standard for automobiles. What I want you to think about is, that flies in the face 

of the law and the Supreme Court. So I want you to just think 

about that, because it is very, very important. 

When Senator Whitehouse comes back, Bettina, if you could tell 

him to sit right here, reopen the hearing and I will be right back. 

We stand in recess just for about five or 10 minutes. 

[Recess.] 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. 

[Presiding] The hearing will come to order. 

First of all, let me just express for the record my appreciation to 

Chairman Boxer for allowing me the time to vote and return. I 

would like to continue the line of questioning that I had for a moment. 

Mr. Burnett, you indicated in your earlier testimony that President made his policy preference for a single standard clear in a variety of conversations and a statement of Administration policy. 

Could you describe what more you know about those conversations 

and that statement? Is the statement a matter of public record? Is 

that an administrative document? 

Mr. BURNETT. Yes, I believe it is. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. An OMB circular of some kind, something 

like that? 

Mr. BURNETT. Yes. Statement of Administration policy generally, 

well, in that case were developed as the Energy Bill, the Energy 

Independence and Security Act of 2007 was moving through Congress. And that final document made it clear that there was a desire for, frankly, for clarity as to EPA’s role and that was seen as 

an effort to push for a legislative fix, if you will, to the Clean Air 

Act, something that would legislative deny the California waiver. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Was the statement of Administration policy developed in the context of the Energy Bill, though? 

Mr. BURNETT. Yes. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. OK. With respect to the Cabinet meeting, 

is there any way that one could describe that Cabinet meeting as 

routine from the perspective of the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency? 

Mr. BURNETT. For major policy decisions that EPA makes, we 

often would have what we call a principals meeting, which is the 

principal decisionmaker and the Cabinet level officials would get 

together and would look at the decision before the Administrator, 

and that occurred in this case. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. So it wasn’t a full-blown Cabinet meeting, 

it was a Cabinet level meeting? 

Mr. BURNETT. That is right. Cabinet level officials, the Administrator representing EPA. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And you assisted the Administrator in 

preparing for that and you assisted him creating the agenda for it 

and so forth? 

75 

Mr. BURNETT. I both assisted the Administrator in preparing for 

it and I assisted OMB in preparing the briefing documents that 

went out to the other agencies and departments. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Are you aware of any other such Cabinet 

level meetings on other issues that took place during your time at 

EPA? 

Mr. BURNETT. Yes. There were at least three Cabinet level meetings related to the response to the Supreme Court. We had a meeting, the Administration had a meeting to make the policy decisions 

about the fuel economy standards and the greenhouse gas standards for cars and trucks, a meeting for the greenhouse gas standards for gasoline and other fuel for the transportation sector, and 

a Cabinet level meeting for the issue of public endangerment. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Do you know who attended the meeting on 

the California waiver, the Cabinet level meeting? 

Mr. BURNETT. I am sorry, I don’t think I said that there was a 

Cabinet level meeting, at least that I am aware of, on the California waiver. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. It was on the endangerment recommendation? 

Mr. BURNETT. Yes. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. OK. And do you know who attended that? 

Mr. BURNETT. I know generally who attended, and certainly 

some of the individuals, as well as the offices, agencies and departments involved. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. It was the Administrator and Deputy Administrator Peacock on behalf of the EPA? 

Mr. BURNETT. Yes, and Roger Martella, the General Counsel also 

attended that meeting for EPA. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Without going into individual names, what 

other Cabinet agencies were represented, do you know? 

Mr. BURNETT. I believe that CEQ, Counsel on Environmental 

Quality, the Office of Management and Budget, I believe the CEA, 

I believe that the Office of the Science Advisor, the Office of the 

Vice President, the Chief of Staff’s Office to the President, I believe 

the Department of Transportation, Department of Energy, Department of Agriculture and that is neither necessarily a comprehensive list nor—I may be incorrect about certain offices. But those 

were the offices that were generally involved in the policy process, 

and I believe that all of those offices were at the Cabinet level 

meeting in November 2007. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Department of Energy? Department of 

Transportation? 

Mr. BURNETT. Yes. Yes. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. OK. And you indicated that the result 

coming out of that Cabinet level meeting was that you should prepare to go ahead with a finding that the public was in fact endangered? 

Mr. BURNETT. Yes. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Do you have any information that could 

help explain how that determination could have gotten out of that 

group with the Chief of Staff to the President, the Office of the Vice 

President and OMB all represented when they seem to be the entiVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:17 Feb 24, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\88902.TXT VERN
76 

ties opposed to at least the ramifications of that conclusion, if not 

that conclusion itself? 

Mr. BURNETT. Things changed between November 2007 and December 2007. The primary thing that changed is that the Energy 

Bill was moving its way through Congress and the prospects for 

that bill being signed into law were looking better in early December than in November. And ultimately, one of the key reasons that 

the Administration was interested in moving forward with a response to the Supreme Court was to help accomplish the President’s objective of reducing gas consumption by 20 percent over 10 

years, the so-called 20 in 10 plan. 

After it looked like the President could achieve that policy objective without responding to the Supreme Court, then effectively a 

lot of the support for responding to Massachusetts v. EPA evaporated. EPA still argued that it was in the best interests of the 

Country to move forward with a response, because in fact the 

science had not changed and the law had not changed. And the 

public was still endangered. Therefore, we were required to move 

forward sooner or later. The decision was simply to delay that response until the next Administration. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And going back to the waiver determination, as I recall the timing, that was, the Administrator’s decision, 

without any of the required background or support, was announced 

in a sort of explanation to follow the same day, if I am not mistaken, that the Energy Bill was signed into law, if I have my timing right. 

Mr. BURNETT. Yes, you are correct. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. How did that timing happen to occur, to 

your knowledge? 

Mr. BURNETT. On Monday December 17th, the Administrator 

came into my office and told me of his intent to deny the California 

waiver. I immediately asked him whether we didn’t want to continue looking at the option of a partial grant, because even though 

the Energy Bill did look good, well, at that point it was clear that 

it was going to be passed and signed into law, the Energy Bill was 

not going to change the three criteria of the Clean Air Act, the 

three legal criteria that we had to evaluate. Therefore, certainly 

the best legal option was to grant or partially grant the waiver. 

However, the Administrator made clear that he had made up his 

mind, and we went to work drafting a letter to Governor 

Schwarzenegger. That letter was in the works over the course of 

Monday and Tuesday, the 17th and 18th. President Bush signed 

into law the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 on the 

morning of December 19th. It was made known to us by I think 

at least two separate news organizations, that they had information that the Administrator was planning on denying the waiver 

and that they were going to run a story the next morning. 

So the decision was made to release the letter to the Governor, 

announcing the denial of the California waiver, at least a day or 

two earlier than we had anticipated. The plan, frankly, was to release that letter either later in that week, so as to not, to not be 

in the same at least day news cycle of the President’s signing of 

the Energy Bill. But given the information that the news organizations had, the decision was made to release that finding, I am 

77 

sorry, to release the letter to the Governor late in the day Wednesday December 19th. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Going backward, there was the release on 

December 19th, the Administrator told you what his decision was 

on December 17th. When had, if you recall the date, when had you 

notified or when had the Department or Environmental Protection 

Agency notified the White House of its recommendation to grant a 

partial waiver? Do you remember what date that was? 

Mr. BURNETT. I believe that we continued throughout the early 

December to explain the case for a partial grant. I believe that it 

was early December when the Administrator made his plan known. 

Of course, that plan ultimately was not followed. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And in between that, the White House response came back that the President desired there to be the single 

standard? 

Mr. BURNETT. Yes. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. OK. Dr. Trenberth, I am a little bit at a 

disadvantage, because both you and Dr. Spencer are scientists and 

I am not. But I noticed you reacting from time to time to Dr. Spencer’s testimony. I was wondering if there was anything that you 

would care to say regarding his testimony that would help a nonscientist understand or assess it properly and give it its appropriate context in the global warming/climate change discussion. 

Dr. TRENBERTH. Thank you for the opportunity to respond. 

First, the IPCC has extensively studied natural variability, and 

tried to assess what the natural variability would be without any 

what we call external influences on the climate. So that includes 

the sun and things like volcanoes, which are natural sources of 

variations. And we do that through paleoclimate and we do that 

through models. And in fact, it is an important part of the validation of climate models that they should be able to replicate the 

record in the past and the natural variability in the past. 

The second point I would make is that natural variability also 

has a cause. It may be the redistribution of heat within the ocean, 

but it is not magic, it doesn’t come out of nowhere. We have the 

ability nowadays to track that. For instance, we can track what is 

happening on the sun, and we know that the sun is not responsible 

for the changes that have occurred. We also know that it is not 

clouds. 

Einstein said that we should make things as simple as possible, 

but not simpler. I think Roy’s model is in the latter category. His 

simple model is simply fatally flawed, in my view. There are two 

figures in his written testimony, Figure 3A and 3B, and just very 

briefly, the radiation that is contrived there is about a factor of ten 

too large, the ocean mix layer that he uses is about a factor of ten 

too large. And he starts the model off with an artificial starting 

point. 

So unlike the IPCC models that have been scrutinized by hundreds of scientists and many papers have been written about them, 

analyzing them and diagnosing what they are doing, Roy’s model 

has no standing whatsoever. So I don’t think I would go along with 

the statements that he has made. 

At the same time, clouds are an issue. We need to do clouds better. But my group has also been intensively studying the so-called 

78 

sensitivity of the climate system, which is how much the climate 

system would change in response to a doubling of carbon dioxide. 

We use the annual cycle. And what we find is that the climate 

models that are somewhat more sensitive are the ones that replicate the changes from summer to winter better than the other 

models. So we come to quite the other conclusion. That is work 

under development. 

So I don’t think you should accept Roy’s written testimony as 

gospel at this point. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Let me ask a final question, if I may, 

Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. Please. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Now I am really going to hazard myself by 

y going into potentially scientific areas as again a non-scientist. 

But it strikes me that a lot of things in nature and in science can 

be described by the famous bell curve, and indeed, that scientific 

data, if you were to plot it on an x and y axis in which the one 

axis was the severity of the threat and the other axis was the 

numerosity or consensus of the opinion, you would end up plotting 

a curve in which some people at the one low end of the curve 

though that this was really, really dangerous, far more than perhaps the IPCC as a consensus judgment might admit. And there 

are other people at the other end of the bell curve saying that it 

is actually very low risk, but at both ends it is a relatively small 

number, and the consensus is sort of right down the middle of 

where the IPCC conclusions lie. 

Do you believe that is, as far as you know, do you believe that 

is an accurate way to look at or try to understand the varying scientific opinion and its relative weight on this question? 

Dr. TRENBERTH. Well, there are certainly some scientists who 

take much more extreme views than I do as to how seriously the 

planet is in peril. And there are some who are—and the IPCC includes scientists from all parts of the political spectrum, I might 

say—and it includes many skeptics who are involved in the IPCC 

process. 

What I have found, though, and I have given about 40 public lectures over the last couple of years, in dealing with people, and 

some of these are very technical people, like 700 engineers, IEEE 

engineers, is that they really appreciate the information on which 

the IPCC is based. Once they become adequately informed, they become convinced indeed that there is a real problem here. It is the 

ones that in general are not well-informed about the basic information, and the complexity of the climate system doesn’t make that 

an easy process, those are the ones who are more inclined to be 

skeptical. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Here is my concern. It is sort of a political 

and practical concern, to a degree. I see this as being an environment in which we are hearing a great deal from people who are 

like the IPCC and like yourself, sort of right down the middle, right 

at the high point of the bell curve with respect to the concerns 

about the severity of what we have to look forward to from climate 

change. 

Then we hear from people like Dr. Spencer, who have a different 

view, that it is going to be much more moderate and not going to 

79 

be really a problem and only 1 degree increase by 2100 and so 

forth. And in Washington, which is a city built around compromise, 

there may be a tendency to sort of hedge between those two views. 

I think that will build in a bias toward inaction that would be very 

dangerous if we didn’t reflect that for every Dr. Spencer, there is 

somebody on the other side of the bell curve whose views are far 

more profoundly concerned about the threat of climate change than 

those of the IPCC and those of yourself. 

Again, I am asking for your comment. Is that a fair way to look 

at the lay of the land on this? 

Dr. TRENBERTH. In that regard, the IPCC is a very open process. 

Anyone can be involved. It is the consensus view as to what is happening. There are a few people, and Roy is among them, who dissent from that view. But as Senator Klobuchar was saying, there 

are a lot of facts and hard evidence and good information that can 

be brought to bear on this problem. When you do that, some of the 

things that Roy has been saying can be simply disproved. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. My time has more than expired. I am 

very, very grateful to the Chair for her patience and courtesy. I 

yield. 

Senator Boxer. 

[presiding]. It is so important. I hope, Senator, if you could possibly stay, because I think we need to talk after this is over. 

When I left, Mr. Burnett, I said that I was going to ask you, and 

I want to say this, I want to sort of tell a story. If there is anything 

in that story that I am saying wrong, I want you to correct me, 

please. And this is the story. 

The story is that under the Clean Air Act, and it is in this book, 

under a section called Waiver, it says ‘‘The Administrator shall, 

after notice and opportunity, waive application of this section to 

any State which has adopted standards for the control of emissions 

from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines,’’ and it goes 

on and on, that if those standards are at least as protective of the 

public health, and there are only two reasons given, essentially, for 

denying such a waiver. The first is the determination of the State 

is arbitrary and capricious, and the second, B, is, I guess there is 

three. Such State does not need such State standard to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions, or such State standards and 

accompanying enforcement procedures are not consistent with Section 7521 of this title. 

So this is the Clean Air Act. And here is my story. California and 

about 19 other States evidenced interest in going along with this, 

asked for such a waiver, because they are concerned about global 

warming, because they want to get started doing more than the 

Federal Government, just get going to cut down on global warming 

emissions. And that after many meetings, Mr. Burnett, and make 

sure that I am right when I say this, many meetings of the scientists at the EPA, of the people like yourself, and even meetings, 

as I understand it, with others, Cabinet people and others, and correct me if I am wrong on that, EPA decided that it would make 

sense to grant a partial waiver to the State and the partial has to 

do with the number of years, as I understand it, that it would be 

in effect. So far, is that a correct recitation? 

Mr. BURNETT. I want to be careful about—— 

80 

Senator BOXER. Go ahead. 

Mr. BURNETT [continuing].—the word decided. Because it is my 

understanding under the law that ultimately the Administrator 

doesn’t make a decision until he puts pen to paper. But it is true 

that we had a plan, and the Administrator had a plan to grant—— 

Senator BOXER. Well, let me put it this way. The EPA decided 

to recommend to the Administration a partial waiver. Is that a better way to say it? They decided to recommend this partial waiver? 

Mr. BURNETT. The Administrator had a plan to partially grant 

the waiver, provided that the Clean Air Act was not enacted by 

Congress. 

Senator BOXER. He planned to do it, and he was just going to let 

the Administration know about it, is that correct? 

Mr. BURNETT. Yes, he—— 

Senator BOXER. About his decision? Or his plan? 

Mr. BURNETT. Yes, that is right. He—— 

Senator BOXER. So I won’t use the word decision. This is why I 

am trying to tell the story in exactly the right way. He had a plan 

to sign a partial waiver. And he went over to the White House to 

inform them of this decision, of this plan, of this plan, that you 

were intimately involved in getting him prepared for this meeting, 

and he went over there and this is what I am trying to get now. 

When he came back, he let people like yourself know, I assume 

there were others, that the President, the President wanted a single standard for, is it for fuel economy or for controlling greenhouse 

gas emissions from cars? How would I say it best? 

Mr. BURNETT. The President had a policy preference for a single 

standard for automobiles. 

Senator BOXER. OK, a single standard. And so my question to 

you is, is it your understanding that the President understood this 

law? Did he make reference to it? Did he say, despite the law or 

anything like that, despite the law or notwithstanding the law? 

Mr. BURNETT. I cannot personally speak about conversations at 

that level. 

Senator BOXER. OK. 

Mr. BURNETT. What I do know is that I was involved as part of 

the process, explaining to a number of officials at the White House 

the three criteria under the Clean Air Act. 

Senator BOXER. Right, that I read. So to the best of your understanding, Mr. Johnson understood clearly the Clean Air Act, when 

he went over to the White House? 

Mr. BURNETT. This issue is one of the most important issues that 

was facing EPA. It received very high level attention, many meetings with the Administrator and many meetings with senior officials at the White House, yes. Everyone—— 

Senator BOXER. OK, let me put it this way. Is there any information that you have when Mr. Johnson reported back to you about 

the President didn’t want to follow this plan, was there any doubt 

in your mind that the President didn’t understand the law? I mean, 

just forget conversations. Was it pretty clear that the President 

and his folks had understood what the law required and they chose 

the single standard? 

Mr. BURNETT. We did our best to ensure that all policy officials 

involved in this decision were apprised and informed of the law and 

81 

EPA’s assessment that all three criteria were, that the, clearly, the 

most supportable case under the law is that all three criteria had 

been met. 

Senator BOXER. OK. So to finish my story, this issue had gotten 

a tremendous amount, had generated a tremendous amount of interest. It was certainly very important in this Committee, we were 

talking about it a lot with Mr. Johnson. And that if I were to say 

to my constituents that the professionals in the EPA and even Mr. 

Johnson himself had a plan to grant a partial waiver, they presented that plan and despite what the law requires, the President 

chose to ignore that plan and said he didn’t want to grant the 

waiver. Is that a layman’s way of putting it? 

Mr. BURNETT. Again, I want to be very careful about the words 

that I use. 

Senator BOXER. Well, these are my words, not yours. These are 

my words. If I were to say to my constituents, from what I have 

gathered, very clearly, because I don’t have the documents I want. 

That is another problem. We can’t get the documents we want on 

this. We have asked for e-mails, we have asked for—so you are the 

only thing we have standing up for what happened. 

So let me say again, if I were to say to my constituents that Mr. 

Johnson and his key team and the professionals at EPA felt California had made their case and furthermore, if there was a lawsuit, 

the probability was that they would prevail, and yet and still, 

knowing all this, and despite the fact that there is a Clean Air Act 

which lays out the case, the President chose not to grant the waiver? That is my words. If I were saying that to my constituents, how 

would you correct me? 

Mr. BURNETT. The policy preference of the President led to the 

denial of California’s waiver request, because granting the waiver 

or a partial grant of the waiver would have led to two standards, 

not one, as the President desired. 

Senator BOXER. Right. And isn’t it true that in the Clean Air Act, 

it is very clear that there have been 50 waivers granted already. 

California has never been denied, the other States have never been 

denied. This wasn’t anything new. This was the first outright denial, is that correct? 

Mr. BURNETT. That is correct. It is the most clear reading of the 

law that California should have and should still receive its waiver 

request, despite the policy preferences of the President. 

Senator BOXER. OK. I want to submit to the record, and I think 

Senator Whitehouse would be very interested in this, first of all, 

the opinion of the Court which clearly says, the fact that DOT, that 

is the Department of Transportation’s mandate to promote energy 

efficiency by setting mileage standards may overlap with EPA’s Environmental responsibilities, in no way licenses EPA to shirk its 

duty to protect the public health and welfare. 

I am not asking Mr. Burnett or anybody else anything. I am saying here, as a United States Senator who is sworn to uphold the 

laws, I just want to say to my colleague, the Supreme Court said, 

no matter what standard is set by DOT, EPA must not shirk its 

responsibilities to the public health and welfare. Despite this, and 

despite everything that the good professionals and scientists have 

done, this President, I believe, made a decision that flies in the face 

82 

of the Supreme Court case. So I believe it is clearly unlawful. 

Clearly unlawful. And I think the importance of having Mr. Burnett here is to get the behind the scenes before this bad decision 

was made by this President, this what I call unlawful decision was 

made by this President. That is my opinion, that he was strongly 

advised not to do it. 

And the reason I am so grateful to you, Mr. Burnett, is I can’t 

tell you how hard it has been for us to connect the dots. We gathered certain things happened, because we got Mr. Johnson’s calendar, and we saw the day he went over to the White House. We 

tried to piece it together, it looked to us like the EPA had told him 

to go forward, we had some information on that, but it wasn’t complete. You are helping us connect the dots. I know it is very difficult for you. And I know you are cautious in every word you say 

and you should be and you have been. And the record will certainly 

show that. 

What you have helped us to do is to fill out the picture. I just 

have—— 

Mr. BURNETT. Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. Yes. 

Mr. BURNETT. If I may, I have left the agency in early June, and 

plan on continuing to work on the same issues. I think that there 

is a profound challenge for the next Administration in two regards 

that flow from decisions this Administration has made. First, I 

think it is clear that either the courts or the next Administration 

will grant California the waiver. However, this temporary denial of 

the waiver creates complications, both for California, the other 

States that have chosen to follow California’s lead, and ironically 

for the very industry that is directly affected, the automobile industry. Because the denial will eliminate the phase-in period of the 

program and overall, will make a program harder to meet, not easier to meet. So it is really a disservice not only to the environment 

but actually to the industry. 

And the challenge will be for the next Administration to try to 

sort out how to deal with the ramifications of the denial and move 

forward with a grant in a way that works as best as possible for 

all parties involved. 

The other challenge, of course, is a response to the Supreme 

Court. This Administration has simply decided to delay that response. But it is going to be a complicated, difficult task to use the 

Clean Air Act. But that is what the law requires. And it is my personal judgment that we are best served starting now to begin developing a path forward so that we can best use the Clean Air Act 

and avoid the parade of horribles that other people have suggested 

will come from the Clean Air Act. Responsible use of the law can 

be done to channel regulation in a way to avoid that scenario. 

Senator BOXER. Well, thank you so much for getting us back to 

why we are here. We want to be able to move forward. And as we 

all know, every day we waste is a day that we can’t make up for, 

because that carbon stays out there. So let me just, since you 

brought up the endangerment finding, essentially, I want to close 

on this and then read a statement. I will ask you a question, then 

I will turn to—we have time—turn to Senator Whitehouse. 

83 

Now, one of the things, as you know, everybody, we are going to 

have a meeting here on Thursday where we are attempting to get 

the e-mail that contained the endangerment finding, and you were 

involved in preparing that e-mail, is that correct? 

Mr. BURNETT. Yes, that is correct, I was involved both in preparing the endangerment finding itself and I was the individual 

who sent the e-mail for formal OMB review. 

Senator BOXER. Right. It is my understanding that if that e-mail 

had been opened by the Office of Management and Budget over 

there at the White House, it would have triggered an obligation to 

reveal its contents to the public. Is that your understanding? 

Mr. BURNETT. It is my understanding under the Clean Air Act, 

I believe it is Section 307(d) and the Executive Order 12866, which 

was a President Clinton Executive Order, but has been reaffirmed 

by this President, that there are public transparency provisions 

that require drafts of regulations submitted for review to OMB to 

be made public, so that the public can understand any differences 

between the draft submitted for review and the final regulation released. 

It is my understanding that by submitting this finding for formal 

review that would have triggered the public transparency provisions of both the law and the Executive Order, and that the e-mail 

and the contents of the e-mail, the finding of public endangerment, 

would be made public upon the Administrator’s signature of a document for the Federal Register notice. 

Senator BOXER. Well, me speaking here, the fact is, all along we 

have seen a pattern and a practice of this Administration to cover 

up any finding that deals with the impacts of unchecked global 

warming on our people. We saw it with the CDC testimony and I 

wanted to thank you for letting the public know about that. You 

were asked personally to redact that CDC testimony, you said, in 

the press you wouldn’t do it. And it wound up that it was done— 

where was it done, in the OMB? We are not exactly sure who redacted it. Do you know who redacted those six pages of Dr. 

Gerberding’s testimony? 

Mr. BURNETT. I do not. I can only speak for my actions. 

Senator BOXER. It was not the EPA. So what happened, and that 

is the one where Dana Perrino said it was, what was his name? 

Dr. Marburger, and Dr. Marburger said he didn’t do it. So it is just 

like, did the butler do it? We don’t know. 

But the bottom line is—yes, in the parlor with the candlestick— 

what we need is a candle to light to put a little light on the subject. 

We can’t find out this information. So your e-mail that you sent 

was never opened, this is me speaking, I believe in part to keep 

what you found from the public. I know you have said you don’t 

have a copy of it. So Thursday, we are going to meet here and we 

are going to try and subpoena that endangerment finding, that document. 

Now, we need two of our Republican friends to show up, and we 

need four, we need eight Senators, but only two Republicans? Oh, 

eight Senators and two Republicans, eight Democratic Senators 

and two Republican Senators need to show up. Then I guess we 

need a majority of those present and voting to subpoena this document. This isn’t easy, and I have avoided this, because I know on 

84 

the House side it is a little easier for the majority. But they can’t 

get the document. The only thing they were allowed to do, as I understand it, is read it, not take any notes. One person. And I am 

not going there. Nobody made me queen of this Committee. If we 

can’t get this for everybody to see, that is not an offer I take. It 

has to be made public. This is about public endangerment. 

So I am going to call on Senator Whitehouse to ask a couple 

more questions, then I have a closing statement. And I so appreciate your all being here. 

Senator, please go ahead. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Just one very quick question. Mr. Burnett, 

do the procedures of the Clean Air Act relative to granting or denial of waivers anywhere provide for a policy preference of the 

President to enter into that process? 

Mr. BURNETT. First, I should say, be clear, I am not a lawyer. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. It is OK, I am not a scientist, and I have 

been messing around with that. 

Mr. BURNETT. I think that your question does involve at least a 

matter of administrative law. It is—— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Let me ask it to you in a non-legal way. 

Let me ask it to you just in a factual way, then. In the course of 

preparing Administrator Johnson for this, in the course of preparing the decision that was made to recommend that a partial 

waiver be granted, do you recall any discussion about how the process required at some point evaluation of a Presidential preference, 

or, sorry, a policy preference of the President? 

Mr. BURNETT. I will simply observe that in the final decision document, I don’t believe that there is any reference to a policy preference as a legal justification for the decision made. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Fair enough. I appreciate it. 

Senator BOXER. OK. The information we have obtained through 

the investigation in this Committee raises serious questions regarding the account of events provided to this Committee, including statements by Administrator Johnson. This Committee will 

pursue this matter further with all the resources at its disposal. 

Along with Senator Whitehouse, who has taken the lead on this, 

I will participate in a full Committee hearing in the Judiciary Committee convened by Chairman Leahy on the extraordinary use of 

privilege and obstruction of oversight in the Congress on global 

warming issues. 

This Thursday, we will convene, as I said, a business meeting to 

consider a subpoena for the endangerment finding Mr. Burnett 

spoke of today. The White House has not agreed to provide this 

critical EPA document, clearly subjected to oversight of this Committee. Our Committee rules do require that we have Republican 

participation in the meeting, and we are so hopeful that they will 

be here. Because it isn’t a question of how we view global warming, 

it is a question of information, frankly, that has been developed by 

professionals at the EPA. We are paying the salaries of those people, the taxpayers are. The people have a right to see what good, 

caring people like Mr. Burnett have put on paper, have put in an 

e-mail to lay out a strategy as to first of all, are we endangered? 

They said yes. How? They explain it. And very important, I note 

to Mr. Burnett and others, who serve so courageously over at EPA, 

85 

and Mr. Burnett had to take his stand by leaving, but there are 

many others there, they want us to do something. 

And in this document, we will learn what we can do under the 

Clean Air Act. And as Mr. Burnett said, you can use it responsibly, 

you could use it in not such a responsible way. I am very anxious 

to see that document. I need to see the document to do my job. My 

colleagues need to see the document to do their job. 

So all I want to say to all of you here today who came to testify, 

that we really so appreciate your valuable time. We are going to 

get to the truth. The most important thing is, when we get to the 

truth, truth is power. And we are going to start acting in a responsible way to address a critical issue that is coming at us very hard 

and very fast. If we owe nothing else to our kids and grandkids, 

it is to take action. And you are going to help us do that. 

So I thank you very much. We stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:28 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR

FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Madame Chairman, I am very disappointed to see that this Committee is once 

again beginning its deliberations on global warming in the wrong manner. Rather 

than focusing on substantive issues that would be helpful to the debate on global 

warming legislation, this Committee is choosing to engage in more political theater 

with a predetermined outcome. The rushed process and the complete lack of understanding of the policy implications of the Lieberman Warner doomed it from the 

start. Opposition to the bill was not limited to Republicans, as nearly 30 percent 

of Senate Democrats refused to support the bill. 

If this Committee were serious in undertaking efforts to draft global warming policy rather than score political points, it should be focusing its efforts in a much more 

methodical and deliberative manner that acknowledges the complexity of the issues 

surrounding any mandatory emission reduction policy. Regardless of my own position on this topic, the Committee should be exploring issues to help build a record 

on how to draft a cap and trade system, the level of technology currently available 

to achieve reductions, how to allocate credits, how to design an auction system, how 

to create a domestic offset program, what the international impacts will be on trade 

and particularly exports, how to effectively contain costs through a transparent 

mechanism, and the list could go on. 

Instead we are here to politicize the internal deliberative process of the Administration under the guise of an update on the science of global warming hearing. 

While I welcome the opportunity to discuss the latest science on global warming, 

doing it in this heavily political setting with a predetermined outcome focused on 

internal deliberations of the Executive is not the right venue for such discussion. 

It is my view that regardless of Administration, the President acting through the 

entire executive branch is fully entitled to express his policy judgments to the EPA 

Administrator, and to expect his subordinate to carry out the judgment of what the 

law requires and permits. It can be argued that the ‘‘unitary Executive concept’’ promotes more effective rulemaking by bringing a broader perspective to bear on important regulatory decisions. It also enhances democratic accountability for regulatory 

decisionmaking by pinning responsibility on the President to answer to the public 

for the regulatory actions taken by his Administration. Therefore, I consider this debate over censorship within the Administration to be a non issue. All administrations edit testimony and all documents go through interagency review before any 

final agency action. I cannot support any investigations that could have a chilling 

effect within the deliberative process of the Administration, and cause future career 

and political employees from refraining from an open and honest dialog. 

Regarding the real subject of the hearing, it is no secret what my views on the 

science of man-made global warming are. I welcome Dr. Roy Spencer, who will be 

updating the Committee on his recent theoretical and observational evidence that 

climate sensitivity has been overestimated, as well as giving his perspective on 

White House involvement in the reporting of agency employee’s work. 

I am also happy to report that there are several updates that are worth noting 

for purposes of the record for this hearing. Numerous peer-reviewed studies, analyses and prominent scientists continue to speak out to refute many conclusions of 

86 

the IPCC. I have documented in the past how the consensus on the ‘‘science is settled’’ debate has been challenged, and in many cases, completely refuted, from the 

hockey stick, to the Stern Review, to the IPCC backtracking on conclusive physical 

links between global warming and observed hurricane frequency and intensity. 

Just this past week, a major new study was published in the peer-reviewed journal Climate Dynamics that finds worldwide land warming has occurred largely in 

response’ to oceans, and not carbon dioxide. There have also been recent challenges 

by Russian scientists to the very idea that carbon dioxide is driving Earth’s temperature and a report from India challenging the so-called ‘‘consensus.’’ The Physics 

and Society Forum, a unit within the American Physical Society, published a new 

paper refuting the IPCC conclusions where the editor conceded there is a ‘considerable presence’ of global warming skeptics within the scientific community. 

More and more prominent scientists continue to speak out and dissent from man 

made global warming. In June, the Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever, 

declared himself a ‘‘skeptic’’ and said ‘‘global warming has become a new religion.’’ 

Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanna Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive 

a PhD in meteorology also dissented in 2008. ‘‘As a scientist I remain skeptical’’ of 

climate fears, Dr. Simpson said in February of this year. In June, a top U.N. IPCC 

Japanese Scientist, Dr. Kiminori Itoh, turned on the IPCC and called man-made 

global warming fears the ‘‘worst scientific scandal in the history.’’ In addition, more 

evidence of challenges to global warming occurred when two top hurricane scientists 

announced they were reconsidering their views on global warming and hurricanes. 

As the normal scientific process continues to evolve and models continue to improve, there have many more instances documented that are positive developments, 

which should be embraced, rather than ridiculed or immediately attacked by the 

media or policymakers. It is my hope that as more and more of these researchers 

speak out, scientific objectivity and integrity can be restored to the field of global 

warming research. 

Æ