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

94–021 PDF 2015

S. HRG. 111–1179 

UPDATE ON THE LATEST 

GLOBAL WARMING SCIENCE 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

FEBRUARY 25, 2009 

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

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

BETTINA POIRIER, Staff Director 

RUTH VAN MARK, Minority Staff Director 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

FEBRUARY 25, 2009 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

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

Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma .................... 3 

Lautenberg, Hon. Frank, U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey ............... 7 

Bond, Hon. Christopher ‘‘Kit’’, U.S. Senator from the State of Missouri ............ 9 

Klobuchar, Hon. Amy, U.S. Senator from the State of Minnesota ...................... 14 

Specter, Hon. Arlen, U.S. Senator from the State of Pennsylvania .................... 15 

Merkley, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from the State of Oregon ................................ 17 

Sanders, Hon. Bernard, U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont ....................... 17 

Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming .......................... 18 

Cardin, Hon. Benjamin, U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland .................... 20 

Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island ......... 22 

Udall, Hon. Tom, U.S. Senator from the State of New Mexico ............................ 23 

Gillibrand, Hon. Kirsten, U.S. Senator from the State of New York .................. 24 

Crapo, Hon. Mike, U.S. Senator from the State of Idaho, prepared statement . 196 

WITNESSES 

Pachauri, Rajendra K., Ph.D., Chairman, United Nations Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change .................................................................................... 25 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 28 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Cardin ............................... 84 

Response to an additional question from Senator Sanders .......................... 85 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 85 

Senator Crapo ............................................................................................ 88 

Field, Christopher, Ph.D., Director, Department of Global Ecology, Carnegie 

Institution for Science, Stanford University; Co-Chair, Working Group II, 

United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ........................ 91 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 94 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Cardin ............................... 113 

Response to an additional question from Senator Sanders .......................... 115 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe ............................... 115 

Response to an additional question from Senator Crapo .............................. 117 

Frumkin, Howard, M.D., MPH, DR.PH., Director, National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; Director, 

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry .......................................... 118 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 121 

Response to an additional question from Senator Sanders .......................... 146 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Crapo ................................ 147 

Happer, William, Ph.D., Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics, Princeton 

University ............................................................................................................. 149 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 152 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe ............................... 163 

(1) 

UPDATE ON THE LATEST 

GLOBAL WARMING SCIENCE 

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2009 

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

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

406, Dirksen Senate Building, Hon. Barbara Boxer (chairman of 

the Committee), presiding. 

Present: Senators Boxer, Inhofe, Carper, Lautenberg, Cardin, 

Sanders, Klobuchar, Whitehouse, Udall, Merkley, Gillibrand, 

Barrasso, Specter, Bond. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator BOXER. The hearing will come to order. 

Today we are going to have a very esteemed panel to discuss 

the latest global warming science. Senator Inhofe and I will have 

6 minutes, not 5, for our opening statements, and then the rest of 

our colleague will have five. And then our friends on the panel, our 

distinguished panel, all of you will have seven minutes in which to 

present, and then we will have questions. 

We are having this hearing because obviously we all feel we 

must be guided by the best available science as we address the 

challenge of global warming. This morning we will hear from several of the world’s leading scientists about the latest global warming science. 

In 2007, the Nobel prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change, the IPCC, painted a stark and sobering picture of 

the future that awaits us if we fail to act quickly to curb global 

warming pollution. The IPCC’s projections for North American include an increase in the frequency and duration of heat waves and 

heat-related illness; an increase in water-borne disease from degraded water quality; more respiratory disease, including asthma 

and other lung diseases from increased ozone or smog concentrations, particularly dangerous to children and the elderly; more winter flooding, reduced summer flows and intensified water shortages 

in the West due to reduced snow pack; droughts and insect invasions that will kill crops and forests and will leave forests more 

susceptible to fire; intensified storms that will batter coastal communities and habitats, with the damage compounded by erosion. 

Since 2007, new studies have confirmed the warnings sounded by 

the IPCC, and many of the latest findings suggest that the situation is more urgent than previously stated. Recent scientific reports 
2 

have found that greenhouse gas emissions are increasing faster 

than predicted, black carbon soot is trapping more of the sun’s energy in the atmosphere than previously understood, sea levels may 

be rising faster than previous estimates predicted, the likelihood of 

destabilizing releases of carbon from melting permafrost is greater 

than once thought. 

We are reminded of the mounting evidence of the threat posed 

by global warming in recent headlines. And I want to share some 

of these headlines with you. The Washington Post: Faster Climate 

Change Feared. The L.A. Times: West’s Trees Dying Faster as 

Temperatures Rise. The Washington Post: Long Droughts, Rising 

Seas Predicted Despite Future CO2 Curbs. And the San Jose Mercury News: Global Warming Danger Threat Increased. 

The testimony we hear today will underscore the urgent need to 

respond to these findings with decisive action. I am so pleased to 

welcome our witnesses today. Dr. Pachauri is the Chairman of the 

U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In 2008, Dr. 

Pachauri accepted the Nobel Prize on behalf of the panel’s 2,000 

participating scientists. And he has been, I say to my colleagues, 

so generous with his time. If any of you have questions for him, 

he is there for you. 

We also have Dr. Christopher Field. He is with us from Stanford 

University. Dr. Field was the Co-Chair of Working Group II of the 

IPCC, which focused on the impacts of global warming. He is an 

expert on how global warming is already affecting North America, 

and the additional impacts that are likely to come with increased 

warming in the future. 

I am also pleased that we have Dr. Howard Frumkin here today. 

Dr. Frumkin is Director of the National Center for Environmental 

Health at the CDC. The last time the CDC testified here on the 

public impacts of global warming, we discovered that the written 

testimony had been heavily redacted by the White House. I am 

looking forward to the opportunity for a full accounting of the dangers global warming poses to human health. 

Dr. William Happer, a Professor of Physics at Princeton, is a witness for the minority today. And I also want to thank him so much 

for participating in this hearing. 

In one of his first major statements after the election last November, President Obama said ‘‘Now is the time to confront this 

challenge once and for all. Delay is no longer an option. Denial is 

no longer an acceptable response. The stakes are too high, the consequences too serious.’’ And in his speech last night, our President 

called on Congress to enact legislation that places a market-based 

cap on carbon pollution. And I believe we must and we will answer 

that call. 

I am convinced that when we address the challenges of climate 

change, the steps we take will create jobs, will reinvigorate the 

economy and will make us more energy independent. The science 

makes it clear that we must not wait any longer to get started. And 

again, I want to say to the scientists here, thank you so very much. 

You are here with no political agenda, you are here to tell us the 

truth as you know it, as you see it. And that is what will guide 

us, the science will guide us. So thank you again very, very much. 
3 

And it is my pleasure to call upon our Ranking Member, Senator 

Inhofe. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you. Before my opening statement, let 

me just acknowledge, we have some very significant things in this 

Committee called Environment and Public Works that have nothing to do with the environment. But the public works, we have a 

Highway Bill coming up, a WRDA bill, Water Resources Development Act, which we want to get back on a 2-year cycle. And you 

are going to find that the Chairman and the Ranking Member will 

be inseparable in these issues. They will be working together, contrary to what you might see today. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator INHOFE. Now, thank you for holding the hearing today, 

Madam Chairman. As you know, no one likes to talk more about 

the global warming science than I do. However, with this being the 

first climate change hearing in the 111th Congress and in the 

midst of this deep financial crisis, the recession, I thought I would 

start by quoting Ronald Reagan: ‘‘There you go again.’’ In these 

turbulent financial times, rather than opening with climate hearings that analyze issues that Americans are concerned about, such 

as how cap and trade policies, which were mentioned last night by 

the President, how they are going to affect the bottom line. 

I don’t need computer models to tell me that the people are hurting financially, that hundreds of thousands of Americans are losing 

their jobs every month, and I don’t need a degree in science to tell 

me that the climate will continue to change and challenge us all. 

I see it every day. Rather as law makers, it is our duty here in this 

Committee to analyze the policy issues that affect all Americans, 

especially in the near term. And I am hopeful that this year we 

will schedule more hearings that address these types of issues. 

Now before I comment on the science and welcome our distinguished witnesses, I thought I would try to put some of these economic issues in perspective with the science. I will use numbers 

that the Americans are unfortunately getting used to. By this chart 

up here, all the bailouts that we have been subjected to, one of the 

problems I have, we are thinking now in terms of billions and trillions, which used to be in millions. If you look at the auto bailout, 

housing bailout, mortgage bailout, and then of course the big bank 

bailout, $700 billion, the economic bailout that was just passed. 

Now, when you compare that to the climate bailout, this is something you have to look at. And the figures we are using here are 

not my figures, these were the figures of the authors of the bill, the 

last climate bill that we had, which was the Warner-Lieberman 

bill. 

Now, what they all have in common is that they represent previously unimaginable amounts of money that the Government is 

currently spending or eventually taxing to throw at our problems 

and try to boost our economy. In the cap and trade context, this 

comes in the form of taxes through passed on higher energy costs, 

in terms of effectiveness. We learned last week that at least with 
4 

the auto bailout, the initial offering didn’t really work, because now 

both GM and Chrysler are coming back for more. 

Now, where does this climate science come in? It comes in once 

again in terms of effectiveness, using our tax dollars wisely, assuming the IPCC’s own targets for stabilization of CO2 in the atmosphere at 450 parts per million, or even less realistic targets being 

argued by many. 

Then the science dictates and the EPA confirms that the U.S. 

only cap and trade policy is not going to be effective. Now, if you 

just stop for a minute and just try logic, if this were back talking 

about the Kyoto thing, assuming all countries are going to do the 

same thing, there could be an argument that to say, even if you 

believe that anthropogenic gases, CO2, in carbon, is causing global 

warming, then what good does it do for us unilaterally to try to do 

this as a Country? Because all that would happen is, and we have 

information from the National Association of Manufacturers and 

others that our manufacturing base would further erode and go to 

countries where there are no emission requirements. And I am 

talking about China and Mexico and some of these other countries. 

So they may argue that on a new global international policy 

where the U.S. should lead in order to reach such pie in the sky 

reduction levels, however, these efforts should be contrasted with 

the reports from just last month from the Chinese government that 

show China is aiming to increase its co-production by about 30 percent in 2015. So they have no intention of dropping it down. We 

have many other quotes that there is not time to talk about here. 

Now, regarding the science. I welcome all the witnesses here 

today including Dr. William Happer. I would say this, and I would 

have done the same, and tried to do the same thing when I was 

chairing this Committee, it is stacked three to one, so anyone who 

is evaluating, this is not representative of an even panel in terms 

of the positions. Dr. Happer is a professor at the Department of 

Physics at Princeton University and former Director of Energy Research in the Department of Energy from 1990 to 1993. He is a fellow of the American Physical Society, the American Association for 

the Advancement of Science, and the National Academy of 

Sciences. I welcome him and all the others. 

As you know, I regularly serve as a disseminator of information 

on the latest science that is not being reported in the mainstream 

media. I have given 12 floor speeches on this document, if anyone 

wants to endure all 12 of them, you can get them on my site, 

Inhofe.senate.gov. And contrary to the media and the United Nations, what they have promoted, there is a growing body of scientific studies and scientists who are openly rebelling against these 

so-called consensus. Recently I released a new report on climate 

scientists, which documents many studies. The report included over 

650 scientists who reject the assertions made by the United Nations. It features skeptical voices of over 650 prominent international scientists, including many, and it has been updated, I 

might add, there are now close to 800 on this list. 

So I would note that with over 650 dissenting scientists or more 

than 12 times the number of U.N. scientists, that is 52, who authored the IPCC’s 2007 summary for policymakers. And I would 

say that it is not really the report, it is the summary for policy-
5 

makers that the media, all these guys at this table over here, are 

looking at. And that is not from scientists, that is from policymakers and for politicians. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Thank you, Madam Chairman, for holding today’s hearing. As you know, no one 

likes to talk more about climate science than I do. However with this being the first 

climate change hearing in the 111th Congress, and in the midst of a deep financial 

crisis and recession, I thought I’d start by quoting Ronald Reagan: ‘‘There you go 

again.’’ In these turbulent financial times, rather than opening with climate hearings analyzing the issues that concern Americans, such as how cap-and-trade policies and taxes will affect our energy prices and our bottom line, we are here today 

to focus once again on speculative computer model predictions of 50 to100 years 

away of a looming climate catastrophe, and the public health and ecological chaos 

that will result from man’s supposed effect on his climate by the continuing use of 

fossil fuels. 

I don’t need computer models to tell me that people are hurting financially, or 

that hundreds of thousands of Americans are losing their jobs every month, and I 

don’t need a degree in science to tell me that the climate will continue to change 

and challenge us all. I see it every day. Rather, as lawmakers, it is our duty here 

in this Committee to analyze the policy issues that affect all Americans, especially 

in the near term, and I am hopeful that this year we will schedule more hearings 

that address these types of issues. 

Now, before I comment on the science and welcome our distinguished witnesses, 

I thought I would try and put some of these economic issues in perspective with 

the science. I will use numbers that Americans are unfortunately getting used to 

seeing with all of the debate on bailouts. As you can see, this chart represents the 

costs of the various government bailouts within the last year (Auto Bailout $17 Billion, Housing Bailout $200B, Mortgage Bailout $275B, Bank Bailout, $700B, Economy Bailout $787B). The bottom number represents the amount of money the sponsors of the Lieberman-Warner bill said would be generated under their cap-andtrade bill, which is included in the billions, to keep the numbers in perspective. 

What they all have in common is they represent previously unimaginable 

amounts of money that the government is currently spending or eventually taxing 

to throw at our problems to try to ‘‘boost’’ our economy. In the cap-and-trade context, this comes in the form of taxes through passed-on higher energy costs. In 

terms of effectiveness, we learned last week that at least with the auto bailout, the 

initial offering will be ineffective, with GM and Chrysler both asking for billions 

more and still leaving bankruptcy options open. Time will tell whether these other 

bailouts are also proven ineffective. 

Now where does climate science come in? It comes in once again in terms of effectiveness, using our tax dollars wisely. Assuming the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC’s) own targets for stabilization of CO2 in 

the atmosphere at 450 ppm (parts per million), the EPA has confirmed that a U.S. 

only cap-and-trade carbon policy will be ineffective. These targets are simply not 

achievable with the approach to climate change that has been the focus of the policy 

debate for years. 

Now my colleagues will argue that we must focus on a new global international 

policy the U.S. should lead in order to reach such pie-in-the-sky reduction levels. 

However, these efforts should be contrasted with last month’s Chinese government 

reports that show China is aiming to increase its coal production by about 30 percent in 2015 to meet its energy needs. In addition, other developing countries state 

they will not agree to binding caps and that climate funding is an entitlement, not 

aid, to be paid for by who else but us? It is time for us to get realistic about these 

policies, and focus on what is achievable, both globally and domestically, to help 

bring down energy costs to consumers and make us more energy secure. 

Now, regarding the science, I welcome all of our witnesses here today, including 

Dr. William Happer. Dr. Happer is a professor at the Department of Physics at 

Princeton University and former Director of Energy Research at the Department of 

Energy from 1990 to 1993. He is a fellow of the American Physical Society, the 

American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the National Academy 

of Sciences. I welcome his and all of the witnesses’ testimony. 
6 

As you know, I regularly serve as a disseminator of information on the latest 

science that is not being reported in the mainstream media. I have given over 12 

floor speeches documenting the politicization of the global warming science issue. 

My continuing fear is that objective, transparent, and verifiable science gets lost in 

the public dialog. 

Contrary to what the media and the U.N. have promoted, there is a growing body 

of scientific studies and scientists who are openly rebelling against the so-called 

‘‘consensus.’’ 

Recently, I released a new minority report on climate science which documents 

many of the studies. That report included over 650 scientists who have challenged 

man-made global warming claims made by the IPCC and former Vice President Al 

Gore. 

It features the skeptical voices of over 650 prominent international scientists, including many current and former U.N. IPCC scientists. This updated report includes an additional 250 scientists and climate researchers since the initial release 

in December 2007. I would note the over 650 dissenting scientists are more than 

12 times the number of U.N. scientists (52) who authored the IPCC 2007 Summary 

for Policymakers. 

I would like to insert this report in the record and I look forward to referencing 

it in questions for the witnesses. 

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

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

Senator, since I only took 5 minutes of my 6, I will answer something you said. The first briefing we held in this Committee was 

on January 7th, and it was called Investing in Green Technology 

as a Strategy for Economic Recovery. So I know you and I disagree 

on the point, but believe me, this Committee is geared toward 

green jobs. We, as a matter of fact, have a new subcommittee, that 

is going to be chaired by Bernie Sanders, and I appreciate your approving of this, that is going to be dealing with the creation of 

green jobs. Because we are going to focus not only on the public 

works side with jobs, jobs, jobs, but also on the Environment side. 

And I also would point out on your chart that a cap and trade 

system isn’t a bailout, it is revenues coming into the Government 

because we are going to have a private cap, we are going to have 

a system that sets a price on carbon and does it in the marketplace, just like the stock market. So it is going to be done out there. 

So rather than a bailout, it is a bail-in. We are going to have 

help here, we are going to receive these large amounts of money 

from a cap and trade system, and I am very excited about that possibility. 

Senator INHOFE. And I would concede to your first comments, but 

I would only say in terms of bailouts, this is the amount of money 

that people, not the people in this, well, including the people in this 

room, many of whom don’t really care that much, but the people 

out in the real world who are going to have to pay for higher energy costs, they are going to have to pay for all this fun that we 

are having up here. 

So I just think we owe it to them, and I applaud you for having 

this science hearing, and I think that we need to let them know 

that the science is not settled. And all these recent things that we 

were talking about have come up, many of whom were the IPCC 

individuals that actually started out with the United Nations on 

this thing, they have come over to the other side. And I named 

names when we had the hearing with Vice President Gore, and I 

notice he is a little bit concerned about the fact that people like 

Claude Allegre from France and people like Nir Shaviv from Israel 

and David Bellamy from the U.K., these are people who were on 
7 

the other side of this issue who are now over on the skeptic side, 

and they are all scientists. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. I allowed you to interrupt me, and now I will finish what I was going to say, which is that a lot of us believe that 

when we attack the problem of global warming, which we believe 

science tells us we must attack, and I would say probably more 

than 90 percent of the scientists, probably more than that, agree 

that we must, and agree on the science. 

There are always outliers, that is fine, and they have their 

rights. But we think it will be a boon to our economy. 

And the last thing I will say before I turn it over to Senator Lautenberg for his time, is that to say that the people in this room 

don’t care about jobs, that is ludicrous. Eighty percent of the American people consider themselves environmentalists. That is, we 

have polled people, 80 percent. Of course they care about jobs. And 

to set the Environment against jobs is ludicrous, because when you 

look back in the history, since we started passing Clean Air, Safe 

Drinking Water and all that, many of which were started under 

Republican Presidents, jobs go along with it. 

So I hope we don’t say that people who care about the Environment don’t care about jobs. We all work for a living. 

Senator INHOFE. I don’t think I said that, Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. Well, you said people in this room don’t care. 

Senator INHOFE. I said that we have activists who are more concerned about causes than that. 

Senator BOXER. Yes. You can see that this is a little bit of a 

touchy subject between us. But we love each other. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. Senator Lautenberg. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK LAUTENBERG, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank 

you for calling these distinguished witnesses to this hearing. 

I welcome our distinguished professor from Princeton, the State 

of New Jersey. We might even have a difference of view, but that 

doesn’t mean that we are not proud of New Jersey and Princeton, 

and their long, distinguished academic record. 

Madam Chairman, it kind of befuddles the mind a little bit when 

we review, have these traditional reviews of what was said and 

how dismissive views are about those who are in attendance here. 

It is hard to understand that, and I am sorry that our friend, Senator Inhofe, has left, because I don’t want to disparage him when 

he is not here. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator LAUTENBERG. And Madam Chairman, thank you for having the hearing. In 2007, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change said the world is warming and humans are responsible. 

This science is sound, their conclusions hard to ignore. The head 

of the IPCC, we are pleased to have Dr. Pachauri here. Welcome, 

all of you. And we look forward to your analysis, Dr. Pachauri, of 

the situation. 
8 

There are new reports that Antarctica is getting warmer. I had 

the opportunity to go there, go to the South Pole just a few years 

ago. And I was dismayed to see places that became kind of familiar 

to me in a very short period of time that had been standing there 

for thousands of years, and suddenly now the breakoffs are Statesize and floating in the ocean as long as they last. 

Members of this Committee were in Greenland. We went there, 

and I don’t know what visual observations mean, but the fact of the 

matter is that the disappearance of ice was obvious. The ground 

that was left behind had turned black. And the rise in sea levels, 

in my view, cannot be further ignored. In fact, the amount of sea 

ice in the Arctic is nearly 40 percent below normal, according to a 

recent report. 

A warming world means rising sea levels, and rising sea levels 

have global implications. Anyone with a coastline has to worry 

about that and plan for these changes. The EPA itself found States 

with coastlines such as our State, New Jersey, California and other 

States represented on this Committee will directly face these risks 

in coming years. With increased greenhouse gases and higher temperatures, we also risk more severe and unstable weather, less productive fisheries from an increasingly acidic ocean and extinction 

of entire species of animals. 

And how about the degradation of health? What is the cost of 

that? Increases in respiratory diseases, those things, when we look 

at our chart, we see comparisons that are really irrelevant in terms 

of what we are talking about here. Because yes, we have to spend 

money on other things. We have to dig ourselves out of a deep economic hole. But we also have a responsibility to our families and 

succeeding generations to do something about this instead of scornfully reviewing what has taken place. 

I don’t know whether of you believe that one of the worst hoaxes, 

hoaxes, a joke perpetrated on the people of this Country is the discussion of the view of global warming. It is outrageous to be so casual about something and make comparisons that don’t do our families any good. With increased gases and higher temperatures, we 

also risk, and we risk more severe unstable weather, less productive fisheries from an increasingly, as I said, I am repeating myself 

here, it gets me. All of us want to protect our planet and our way 

of life for our children and grandchildren and generations to follow. 

And every day we ignore the science and choose to do nothing, 

global warming gets worse and we need to make up for lost time. 

Last year, scientists were talking about the need for America to 

reduce greenhouse emissions by 80 percent by 2050. Now, many 

scientists believe that we need to cut emissions by 90 percent. We 

need to be bold, and this Committee has to lead the way. And together, we will fight global warming and our dependence on foreign 

energy sources, improve our air quality, create millions of new 

high-paying jobs. 

Madam Chairman, I look forward to working with you to craft 

a bill rooted in science to tackle the climate changes we face. 

Thank you very much. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much, Senator Lautenberg. 

Senator Bond. 
9 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER ‘‘KIT’’ BOND, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI 

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

this hearing. I am concerned about the failure of climate modelers 

to predict accurately the global cooling we have seen the last 10 

years. These models don’t explain why we saw temperatures far 

warmer than today than 100 years ago, 1,000 years ago, when the 

Vikings were farming Greenland, and 2,000 years ago, when the 

Romans grew grapes in Britain. So there is much to be learned 

about the science of climate. 

But I want to focus on economics and what the science says 

about the futility of proposed U.S. Government actions. The first 

chart is from the International Energy Agency in Paris. The left 

hand bar shows where carbon emissions are headed in 2030, business as usual. The red portion of the bar shows carbon emissions 

from developing countries in OECD, basically western countries, 

Japan and Australia. The blue portion of the bar is emissions from 

everyone else. 

The green bar is where some want to be. That is worldwide carbon concentrations in the atmosphere of 450 parts per million is 

what some scientists tell us is needed to avoid serious climate 

harm from humans. 

What this chart shows us is that if we cut 100 percent of the carbon emissions from the western developed world, tracked by the 

dashed red line, we would still not do enough to reach carbon concentrations some say are necessary. That means western developed 

countries could park every car, bus and truck, turn off almost every 

television, light, computer, air conditioner and many heaters, idle 

almost every factory and it still would not be enough. This is not 

a prediction, this is a scientific fact just by doing the math of carbon emissions and concentrations. 

Now, the second chart, done with data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, shows how science tells us that if the 

U.S. passes carbon legislation without developed countries like 

India and China taking similar actions, carbon levels will still rise 

dramatically. Near the red arrow pointing up, the thin red line is 

business as usual. The nearby line headed up is U.S. acting alone. 

Basically, no change. 

The only way we halt the rapid rise in carbon concentrations is 

if the U.S. is joined by India and China cutting carbon emissions, 

the green arrow and dashed line. This is important, because our 

guests here from India and the United Nations have said developing countries like India will be exempted from any such restrictions in a new Kyoto Treaty. Our friends from China have made 

similar comments, when they will not accept carbon cut quotas 

from a new Kyoto Treaty. 

For those who say we should be leaders and impose this pain on 

ourselves, what is the purpose of that, if science shows that countries needed to make a difference refuse to follow? We must then 

as why, during a worldwide economic crisis, should we take futile 

actions that science says will do nothing to solve the problem. 

Speaker Pelosi of the House has suggested that this will be a good 

way to raise governmental revenues. 
10 

OMB Director Peter Orszag said this week that the Obama budget is already counting on Government proceeds from a coming cap 

and auction bill. That says tax to me. That is not a market. Some 

have suggested this would be a climate bailout, like our previous 

bank and housing bailouts that have worked so successfully. With 

the Pelosi and Orszag comments, it seems clear that what they 

really want to bail out is the Federal Government with its runaway 

spending and the tremendous amounts of money that would be 

spent hiring people to do these things. 

But how much is a hidden energy tax going to kill American jobs, 

burden U.S. families and devastate retirees, especially in coal-dependent regions? That is to be determined. I happen to live in one 

of those regions, and I am very much concerned that we would devastate the Midwest. Calling this proposed system of governmental 

costs on companies who provide jobs, who produce energy, support 

energy-related jobs, a ‘‘market-based solution,’’ which clobbers people dependent on fossil fuels is a remarkable obfuscation. Let’s call 

it what it is. It is going to be a huge unfair tax. 

The science shows us that the United States acting while China 

and India refuse to act will be futile. I will certainly oppose raising 

energy costs on suffering families and workers during an economic 

crisis when the science says our actions will be futile. I hope my 

colleagues will, too. 

And I thank you, Madam Chair, for giving me this opportunity. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Bond follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER ‘‘KIT’’ BOND, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI

Thank you, Madam Chairman, for hosting this hearing on the current state of climate science. I am concerned by the failure of climate modelers to predict accurately 

the global cooling we have seen the last 10 years. These models also do not explain 

why we saw temperatures far warmer then today 1,000 years ago when the Vikings 

were farming Greenland and 2,000 years ago when the Romans grew grapes in Britain. So, I believe there is much to learn about the science of climate. 

But today I want to focus on what science says about the futility of proposed government actions. This chart is from the International Energy Agency in Paris. The 

left hand bar shows where carbon emissions are headed in 2030 with business as 

usual. The red portion of the bar shows carbon emissions from developed countries 

in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, basically western 

countries and Japan and Australia. The blue portion of the bar is emission from everyone else. The green bar is where some want to be—that is worldwide carbon concentrations in the atmosphere of 450 parts per million. This is what some scientists 

tell us is needed to avoid serious climate harm. 

What this chart shows us is that if we cut 100 percent of the carbon emissions 

from the western, developed world, tracked by the dashed red line, we would still 

not do enough to reach carbon concentrations some say are necessary to avert dangerous climate change. That means western, developed countries could park every 

car, bus and truck, turn off almost every television, light, computer, air conditioner 

and many heaters, idle almost every factory, and it still would not be enough. That 

is not a prediction, that is a scientific fact just by doing the math of carbon emissions and concentrations. 

This second chart, done with data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, shows how science tells us that if the U.S. passes carbon legislation without developed countries like India and China taking similar actions, that carbon levels will 

still rise dramatically. Near the red arrow pointing up, the thin red line is business 

as usual. The nearby line headed up, is the U.S. acting alone—basically no change. 

The only way we halt the rapid rise of carbon concentrations is if the U.S. is joined 

by India and China cutting carbon emissions—the green arrow and dashed lines. 

This is important because our guest here from India and the United Nations has 

said ‘‘developing countries [like India] will be exempted from any such restrictions’’ 
11 

in a new Kyoto treaty. Our friends from China have made similar comments that 

they will not accept carbon cut quotas from a new Kyoto treaty. 

For those who say we should be leaders and impose this pain on ourselves, what 

is the purpose of that if science shows that countries needed to make a difference 

refuse to follow? 

We must then ask why, during a worldwide economic crisis, should we take futile 

actions that science says will do nothing to solve the problem? 

Speaker Pelosi of the House has suggested that this will be a good way to raise 

Federal Government revenues. OMB Director Orszag said this week that the Obama 

budget is already counting on Government proceeds from a coming cap and auction 

bill. 

Some have suggested that this would be a climate bailout, like our previous bank 

and housing bailouts. With the Pelosi and Orszag comments, it seems clear that 

what they really want to bail out is the Federal Government and runaway spending. 

The science shows us that the United States acting while China and India refuses 

to act will be futile. I certainly will oppose raising energy costs on suffering families 

and workers, especially during an economic crisis, when the science says our actions 

will be futile. 

I hope my colleagues will, too. Thank you. 

[The referenced material follows:] 
12 
13 
14 

Senator BOXER. Well, thank you, Senator Bond, for taking the 

opportunity to reiterate the message you have had for us for quite 

a while. I would say you do it very well. 

But I would just point out that these countries that you point to, 

India and China, very key that they do attack this, they do like to 

come into our Country with their goods, and we do have leverage 

under the WTO. And I think that was part of our last approach. 

I am thankful to you for raising this issue because I think it has 

to be key to our next legislation as well. 

And now it is my pleasure to call on Senator Klobuchar. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much, Chairman Boxer, 

and thank you again for making this such a prominent issue and 

having a review of the science, which I think we need to have. 

I also, Senator Bond, live in a cold place, and I bet it is even 

colder than yours. But I will say that the citizens in my State, 

while we are concerned in these economic times to make sure that 

we come up with a solution to this that isn’t going to bring them 

down, I think they see the possibility of opportunity here. Maybe 

it is because we have been a leader in renewable energy, that we 

are fourth in the Country with wind, that we have an aggressive 

renewable standard. But they see, I would say, the glass not just 

half empty, but half full, and see the possibilities. 

We have always been in a leader in our State in science. We are 

the home of the Mayo Clinic, we have given the world everything 

from the pacemaker to the Post-It note, and we see this as our next 

opportunity. I am also a former prosecutor, so I believe in evidence. 

That is why I think it is important that we base our hearing today 

not just on everyone’s rhetoric, but on the information that you are 

going to present us with. 

Senator Lautenberg mentioned we had a trip to Greenland in 

2007. And while I am no scientist, I was able to see first-hand from 

the people that live there what was going on. We learned that 

Greenlanders were planting potatoes in places that only a few 

years ago were covered year-round with ice. We learned that 

Greenland has lost a large portion of their ice sheet. 

But what surprised me most was something I saw during the 

trip in the middle of the ice sheet. We landed on this island that 

was easily the size of a house, and our pilot explained to us that 

the island had only appeared in the last 5 years when the ice had 

melted. As one of the scientists who accompanied us on this trip 

explained to us, Greenland is really the canary in the coal mine 

when it comes to climate change. 

As we all know, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

concluded in November 2007 that global warming is happening, 

that most of the observed increase in temperature is very likely to 

due to greenhouse gases. The report predicted an increase in 

wildfires and public health problems, like heat stroke, asthma and 

even chronic disease. And what is particularly troubling is that actual warming trends are out-pacing the forecasts of the IPCC. 

A story in last Sunday’s Washington Post I thought was quite 

concerning. The article reported on the annual meeting in Chicago 
15 

of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. One 

of the scientists said, ‘‘We are basically looking now at a future climate that is beyond anything we have considered seriously in climate model simulations.’’ I would like to hear about your thoughts 

on that. 

He went on to note that greenhouse gases are being emitted at 

higher rates than previously anticipated and that this is causing an 

unexpectedly high release of carbon from the Arctic permafrost. 

Madam Chairman, the oceans are warming, causing wind speeds 

to increase, which in turn makes the oceans more acidic. But as I 

have always said, to get the support for this across the Country, 

we have to talk about more than oceans. We have to talk about the 

fact that in the Great Lakes, Lake Superior, we have seen declining levels because of the ice melting sooner, which has affected our 

barge traffic. We have seen ice fish houses that can’t get out until 

much later than they usually do, because the ice isn’t freezing. We 

have seen an increase in storms and floods our State. 

Glaciers around the world are melting. We saw this in Greenland, we are seeing it in the Himalayas. I thought it was interesting to learn about how the Chinese traditionally plant two crops 

a year. You think the huge country of China, and when the Himalayan glaciers disappear, where they get their water, the chances 

are that water levels on the main Chinese river that supply Chinese agriculture will also dry up. 

But this is about the lakes in Minnesota. But it is also as farreaching as agriculture in China. That is why this topic is so important. We need the best possible information about the science of 

climate change, so that we can anticipate what is coming. We need 

accurate information in order to draft this legislation, to make this 

legislation fair to the people of this Country, but to actually do 

something and get this done. 

During his speech to the Country last night, President Obama 

talked about this issue and the challenge. He included a call to action, he included a call to action to this Congress to actually get 

cap and trade legislation passed. He sent a clear and powerful message to everyone in this Country and the rest of the world that addressing climate change is a priority. 

I see this, unlike my colleague on the other side, from another 

M State in the Midwest, I see this as an opportunity. We have a 

scientific community that we are going to hear from today that is 

giving us sound information and we have a Congress that for the 

first time stands ready to turn that scientific information into action. 

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and thank you to our panelists. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator Klobuchar. 

Senator Specter. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ARLEN SPECTER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Senator SPECTER. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

I am delighted to be a member of this very important Committee, 

Environment and Public Works. I had served on it many years ago, 

but other committee assignments precluded my being on it and 
16 

now I am glad to be here, especially because the global warming 

issue is going to be a central issue. 

I thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for scheduling this hearing on 

the most up to date scientific evidence. Because that sets the stage 

for what we are going to do. I think the evolution of the views of 

President Bush on the threat of global warming are highly significant. For a considerable period of time, President Bush was a 

doubter. And in the later stages of his Administration, he came to 

agree that global warming was a critical issue. 

There are still some who raise questions, and it is a legitimate 

inquiry. Some of the scientific evidence provides the underpinning 

for what we need to do. 

Two years ago, Senator Bingaman and I introduced legislation on 

global warming and it differed from the parameters of the legislation introduced by Senator Warner and Senator Lieberman, which 

had more exacting standards. But the Warner-Lieberman standards could not be achieved within existing technology, at least that 

is what my studies showed. The contention was raised that if we 

had more exacting standards that technology would advance to 

meet them. Well, that is speculative. And my own view is that we 

ought to have very, very meaningful standards, but they ought to 

be within reach on existing technology. If our technology is improved at a later time, there will be ample opportunity to revise 

the standards, if we deem that necessary and attainable. 

I think it is very important to structure legislation which can receive popular support, public support. My State, Pennsylvania, is 

a big coal-producing State, 30 billion tons of bituminous in western 

Pennsylvania and 7 billion tons of anthracite in northeastern Pennsylvania, very, very important for our economy. And while I applaud what we are doing with $80 billion in the stimulus package 

for energy that is renewable, wind power, solar power, hydropower, 

until we get there, we are dependent on, too much so, on OPEC oil. 

And with clean coal technology, we still have an opportunity to use 

these resources with due regard for the environment and environmental protection, which my record shows is a high point of consideration on my part. 

The Bingaman-Specter bill has gotten significant support from 

not only the power companies, and many have joined in urging its 

adoption, but also from the United Mine Workers. Also a labor organization very concerned about jobs, obviously, which is what they 

should be. But acknowledging that significant steps have to be 

taken, so that when we take a look at the overall picture, I think 

we have to bear that in mind. 

But this is a very important subject, highlighted again by the 

President last night. I look forward to working with you, Madam 

Chairwoman, and the others on this Committee to try to structure 

legislation which can be enacted this year. Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Senator, thank you very much. And thank you 

for the contribution you made to this debate, working with Senator 

Bingaman. It was very important, and it continues to be. Thank 

you. 

Senator Merkley. 
17 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF MERKLEY, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OREGON 

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

bringing this panel of esteemed scientists together. 

Every citizen in my State is certainly impacted by issues regarding climate change, from our farmers, for whom a small change in 

precipitation certainly can change a dry land wheat crop into a 

desert, to our folks in the timber industry who have concerns about 

insect infestations and forest fires, to our folks in our river economy and our coastal economy, dramatically affected by the temperature of the water, the water flows, the course of currents and 

so on and so forth. 

So after a time period in which science has not always been at 

the center of the conversation, I am delighted that we are turning 

to you all for your best insights. Certainly one point I would love 

for you all to address if possible in your testimony is, if we do nothing as an international community, and I do take the point of Senator Bond that the international community needs to work together 

to tackle these issues, if we do nothing and the increase in carbon 

dioxide and methane gas continues apace over the next 50 years, 

what is your best estimate of how much the temperature of the 

planet will increase over a 50-year period, and what is the impact 

on ecosystems and human civilization? 

I associate myself with other comments that have been made 

here, and look forward to your testimony. 

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Sanders. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BERNARD SANDERS, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT 

Senator SANDERS. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for 

your leadership on this issue, not only of great significance to our 

Country, but the entire world. For many years now, at least for the 

last 8 years, the rest of this planet has been wondering what the 

United States of America is doing. I think at this particular moment in history, we are going to rise to the occasion. 

As Senator Merkley just mentioned, I think one of the issues 

that we have to address is not just the cost of addressing the crisis 

of global warming, it is what is the cost, both monetarily, financially, as well as health-wise, of not addressing the issue. I think 

the evidence seems to suggest that if we do not act aggressively in 

cutting back on greenhouse gas emissions and reversing global 

warming, what we are going to look at are trillions of dollars of loss 

in the international economy over a period of years, we are going 

to look at a great amount of loss in terms of extreme weather conditions, flooding, of drought, of hunger, of political instability. 

In fact, I think the CIA is now worried about mass migrations 

as people have to move around and are engaged in struggle for limited natural resources, for food. We are going to look at increased 

disease. What is the cost of all of that if we do not act? 

Second of all, in terms of economics, Senator Boxer and I just 

came from a meeting earlier this morning talking to people from 

all over the Country who are seeing the potential for the creation 
18 

of millions, millions of good-paying jobs over the years as we move 

away from fossil fuels, as we address the economic crisis this Country faces from the importation of some $700 billion a year of foreign 

oil. Think of the jobs that we could create as we move to wind, as 

we move to solar, as we move to geothermal, as we move to biomass. Huge jobs creation in all of that area. 

Clearly, I think as some of our friends on the other side have indicated, this is not just an American crisis, this is an international 

crisis. But we have no credibility with the rest of the world if we 

are not moving forward aggressively. And in fact, what we have 

just heard this morning, as you talk about China, China is moving 

forward aggressively in terms of energy efficiency, in terms of 

solar. Do you think they are dummies there? I don’t think so. They 

know that their lakes and their rivers are heavily polluted. When 

I was in China, people were wearing these masks around their face 

because the air is so polluted. They are not dumb. 

And if we can in fact take a leadership position once again in 

terms of sustainable energy, we can create significant numbers of 

jobs in this Country helping China, helping India with that technology. In fact, we should be a little bit embarrassed that some of 

the technologies that we created in this Country are now being aggressively used around the rest of the world, and we are importing 

products from them. This is the United States of America. We 

should be doing quite the opposite. 

So Madam Chair, thank you, A, for recognizing the huge importance of this issue for people all over the planet, and second of all, 

for understanding what President Obama has made clear for many 

years now, that of course this is a crisis, but it is also an opportunity to make radical changes in energy in America and create 

millions of good-paying jobs. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Barrasso. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. I 

welcome the panel. 

It is fascinating, as we attempt to address this issue, that the 

Pew Research Center did a poll to show where different topics fit 

into the interest of the American people. And right now, at a ranking of 20 different items of importance to the American people, the 

issue of addressing climate change ranked 20th, dead last. The 

American public is dealing with the reality of an economic meltdown, that is a real and an immediate problem. 

So with trillions of taxpayer dollars being directed to stimulate, 

‘‘stimulate’’ the economy, each next step Congress takes to spend 

additional funds on anything is going to be watched closely by the 

American public. We have just passed numerous bailout bills. Senator Inhofe has gone through a chart of the different bailouts that 

we have been dealing with, passed numerous bailout bills over the 

last 6 months. Now, a new $787 billion economic bailout intended 

to create millions of jobs. 
19 

We heard in hearings last year that climate change legislation is 

needed to avert a 4 degree global temperature increase by the year 

2050. This will occur only if India and China fall in line and take 

similar action. Well, China and India are emitting more carbon 

than the United States. It is essential that they participate in any 

international effort. 

If these countries do enact strict and expensive regulations, we 

will then avert the 4 degree and instead incur only a 2 degree increase by the year 2050. And that only comes true if the science 

holds. 

But science doesn’t stop for policymakers. It continually adds to 

itself, building upon our knowledge base. That is why I am glad to 

see these experts here today. Because even now, as many scientists 

tell us that the earth is warming, the science changes as to the 

cause of warming. New reports, in a study that I have recently 

looked at, says that sulfur dioxide emissions from volcanic eruptions may be playing even a larger part in climate change than previously thought, maybe even more important than carbon dioxide. 

A recent study was released suggesting that analysis of leaves in 

peat and lake deposits, as opposed to examining the Arctic ice 

cores, may be a better measurement of the role carbon has played 

in our climate in the pre-industrial era. 

Additional studies have been released suggesting the pace of 

warming has increased, dramatically increased. The Chairman of 

the Committee has shown headlines to that effect. I don’t think we 

can ignore any of these studies. If we can’t ignore these studies, 

then we must consider that a cap and trade bill heavily tilted toward capturing carbon at a cost of trillions to the economy could 

be an outdated solution to the problem. 

We have to get this right. So I would say, let’s get America’s energy as clean as we can, as fast as we can, without raising energy 

prices on the people of America. That means increasing clean baseload 24 hour, 7 day a week power and making that available as 

soon as we can. That means clean coal technology, nuclear power, 

and natural gas. 

Let’s invest in the technology to retrofit existing power plants 

and yes, let’s augment that with an intermittent renewable power 

supply. And we have plenty of available renewable power in Wyoming. All of these sources of energy are clean, low to zero carbon 

emitting and can be developed right here in America. But spending 

trillions of dollars, trillions of dollars, to address climate change 

through an untested cap and trade approach, an expensive proposal, is an unnecessarily risky approach. To me, it is a trillion dollar climate bailout. I would say, let’s adopt a climate change policy 

that makes America’s energy clean, affordable and domestic. 

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. Thanks, Senator. 

I just wanted to point out, we have had a cap and trade system 

to fight acid rain. It has been tested and it has worked. 

And I want to point out that we are going to hear from Senators 

Cardin, Crapo if he is back, and Whitehouse. But at that point, we 

are going to close off the opening statements and hear from our 

panel. 

Senator Cardin. 
20 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN CARDIN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you, Madam Chair. And let me thank 

you for this hearing. It is not the first that we have, and I am sure 

it is not going to be the last to make sure that we have the best 

scientific information as we move forward to deal with one of the 

major problems that we face, not only as a Nation, but as a member of the international community. 

The scientific information on global climate change has been remarkably consistent. There has really been no major change in the 

predictions that we have a serious problem. Now, for the people of 

Maryland, let me talk a little bit about the Chesapeake Bay. The 

Chesapeake Bay is experiencing radical changes. And it is related 

to global climate change. Sea level changes, we have seen a lowering of the dissolved oxygen levels, more precipitation, changes in 

various species and migration patterns, which is jeopardizing not 

only the economy but the character of my State of Maryland. 

So the people of Maryland are concerned about what is happening. And they have a right to expect that this Congress will 

take up the challenge associated with global climate change. 

But the good news is that we all know we have to do something 

about energy from the point of view of our security. And using less 

carbon-based energy sources will be good for our economic security. 

We know that. So this really becomes a win-win situation for our 

Nation. 

So I was proud that President Obama, Madam Chair, last night 

mentioned that one of his priorities in dealing with our economy 

is to deal with a carbon cap. Now, I heard Senator Bond and Senator Barrasso talk about the economic impacts of dealing with global climate change. To me, this is a win-win situation. If you reward 

private companies that can come up with ways to produce energy 

with emitting less carbon, that is a win. And that is what a carbon 

cap does. It energizes the private companies to use their ingenuity 

here in America to lead in technology that will help us not only 

with a cleaner environment, but with energy security, and will also 

help our economy by creating more jobs. 

And yes, there is a penalty under a carbon cap. If you pollute, 

you are going to have to pay for the damage you are causing to our 

economy. To me, that is America. That is what our economy market-based system is based upon that you can make money and help 

our Country. And that is what the carbon cap is about. 

So I heard also the concern about what other countries are doing, 

and I have heard my colleague talk about it. Well, as President 

Obama said last night, this is America, we lead. And it is time that 

we led on this critically important issue. 

Now, I congratulate the Chairman, last year for the bill you 

brought forward, because you recognized the impact that we need 

to have other countries follow our leadership. And if they produce 

products that are bad for the environment, with emitting too much 

greenhouse gases, then there is a price to pay if those products 

come into America. And I have talked to my friends, parliamentarians from other countries. And we need to work within the WTO, 

the World Trade Organization, so that we have consistent inter-
21 

national roles to recognize that all of us are citizens of this planet 

and have a responsibility to reduce carbon emissions. 

But if the United States does not lead, it won’t get done. That 

is the responsibility that we hold. And with President Obama’s 

leadership as the President of our United States, we have a unique 

opportunity, and the world is watching. And I congratulate you, 

Madam Chair, for holding this hearing, so that our decisions will 

be based upon the best scientific information. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Cardin follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN CARDIN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND

Madam Chairman, thank you. 

Over the last 2 years we have heard testimony from a number of individuals. A 

little over a year ago, for example, we heard from Dr. Pachauri, and we are grateful 

that he has come back to provide us with a further update on the science of global 

warming. 

I want to thank Chairman Boxer for her work in keeping the focus on sound 

science as this debate continues. 

While the list of witnesses has included the occasional obligatory nay-sayer, we 

have seen a steady stream of scientists who have provided a remarkably consistent 

set of facts regarding: 

• the state of the global climate system, 

• 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. 

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. In Baltimore, the EPA projects that a three degree Fahrenheit overall air temperature increase in air temperature could increase the heatrelated death toll by 50 percent from 85 to 130 people annually. 

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. 

The science record is remarkable in another key aspect. Time is not on our side. 

The scientific community consistently warns us that the longer we wait to take aggressive action to curb greenhouse gas emissions, the steeper the climb will be to 

meet our targets. 

Thankfully, today we have not simply a strong scientific consensus on the issue. 

We also have an increasing body of evidence that our efforts to address climate 

change will result in a number of net positives for America and the world. 

• Our national security is enhanced as we reduce our reliance on foreign sources 

of oil. 

• Our economy will be recharged as we move to a sustainable energy system and 

the thousands of green jobs it will produce in solar, wind and bio-energy development and energy efficiency projects. 

• And lowering greenhouse gas pollution will almost certainly also result in a 

lowering of other air pollutants, meaning our citizens will be breathing cleaner air. 

Thankfully, today we have both an Administration in the White House as well 

as the congressional leadership we will need to tackle this extraordinary challenge. 

I look forward to hearing from today’s witnesses and learning more about the latest climate science research. 

And I look forward to using this hearing as a strong springboard for us as we 

confront one of the greatest challenges of our age. With your strong leadership, I 
22 

look forward to drafting and passing a climate change bill this year. Let’s get started. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. Senator, thank you very much. 

I see Senator Crapo isn’t here. We will go to Senator Whitehouse. 

If Senator Crapo comes back, we will go to him and then Senator 

Udall, and then we will move forward. 

Senator Whitehouse. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Madam Chair, 

I am always reminded when we go through this exercise of debate with our colleagues and friends over whether climate change 

is really happening of the hearing that you held with the head of 

the health departments of all the States, came here and gave such 

a strong, unanimous statement. I asked her, where was the minority report; she said there wasn’t one. The health directors of Missouri, of Wyoming, of Idaho, of Oklahoma, were all on board. And 

I asked, what is the difference, why is there disagreement here? 

And in a very quiet voice she said, well, we did take an oath to 

protect the health and safety of our people. 

This seems to be the last redoubt where the merchants of doubt 

can still work their obstructive mischief. And it is unfortunate, I 

think. You can always find someone who disagrees with any proposition, you can find scientists who disagree with scientific propositions. You can find lawyers who disagree with legal propositions. 

But responsible humans act on far less information than this. 

And even flinty-eyed, rough, tough, profit, bottom-line driven Republican-leaning insurance companies are modifying their decisions 

and their projections based on this. In Rhode Island, our fishermen 

see different fisheries. Our nurserymen see the seasons changing. 

They have seen winter blooms that they have never seen before. 

Hunters, fishers, naturalists, the black-capped chickadee is the 

State bird of Massachusetts. And it is being replaced by the Carolina chickadee, because the weather is changing. 

We seem to have an inability here to grasp the obvious that people who are out there in the environment, working in the real 

world and the real environment see every single day. I don’t know 

what it is about this place that makes it so. But it saddens me to 

hear colleagues cloak this question in economic gloom as well as everything else. I think that is an unfair thing, it is so un-optimistic 

about America to cloak it in those terms. This could be an area 

where we are creating jobs, where we are creating exports. This is 

a place where we can lower families’ and businesses’ and schools’ 

energy costs. 

This is an area where we improve our national security. We don’t 

have to cloak it in economic gloom. I think it is false, I think it is 

unfortunate. I guess it is rhetorically effective. But I really think 

it is a shame. 

And I hope that the witnesses will talk for a moment during the 

course of their testimony not just about the warming effect of the 

carbon load that we are putting into our atmosphere, but also 

about the ocean acidification effect. Because you know what? Even 
23 

if the .05 percent or whatever it is of scientific opinion that doesn’t 

recognize that something serious is going on here is correct, and 

the warming of the planet may not be related, carbon dioxide is 

going up. It is going up in unprecedented concentrations. The ocean 

is a sink for carbon dioxide. It is absorbing it. When it does, it 

changes the chemistry. I think these are known facts. 

What we don’t know what happens when the chemistry changes, 

because we are hitting unprecedented ocean chemistries. But it appears that things like the small mollusks and species that make up 

krill, for instance, the base of the very oceanic food chain, could 

find themselves in an environment in which they are unable to 

make the shells that hold them together out of calcium carbonate 

in the sea. It could well be that the worst effect for humankind of 

our carbon emissions is not climate change, but it is ocean change. 

And I hope that you will address that for a moment in your testimony. 

I appreciate very much the Senator’s persistent leadership 

through this. I think that as people look back through time and 

look for responsible behavior at this moment, they will see her efforts as a shining example and others as regrettable. 

Senator BOXER. I thank the Senator, and just know, this is a 

great Committee. We have a lot of support for this position. Last 

year we had bipartisan support, and I am hoping we will have it 

again. 

We have been joined by Senator Gillibrand, so we are going to 

hear from Senator Udall and Senator Gillibrand. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Madam Chair. I really want to thank 

you for all of your work on climate change. When I was in the 

House of Representatives, I followed what you did over here in the 

Senate. To me, you were really the leader and stepped out. You put 

a bill on the floor of the U.S. Senate. We had not had in either 

chamber a bill on the floor, debated, amended, discussed. I think 

that helps the American people in an impressive way to start understanding this. 

Then once again today, you have brought together a very distinguished panel to address the issue and to get these issues out. 

Many of the comments I agree with that were made earlier. I 

just wanted to talk a little bit about the West, and urge the panelists to address some of the western issues in terms of climate 

change. I come from a western State, the State of New Mexico. As 

one scientist described to me vividly, what would happen in New 

Mexico, he said with just the trend, the conservative trend, not the 

higher trend or the lower trend, but just the conservative trend of 

where we are headed would be the equivalent in weather of putting, as you all know when you move these clickers around on a 

computer screen, click onto the State of New Mexico and drag it 

300 miles to the south, which means that New Mexico would then 

have the weather of Chihuahua, Mexico. 

Now, if any of you have been to Santa Fe, my home town, or 

been to northern New Mexico, the 10,000 foot mountains, the snow 

pack, if you move New Mexico down to Chihuahua, you imme-
24 

diately wipe out the snow pack, which is the entire water cycle for 

our region. The snow pack occurs in the winter, drains through the 

spring. For example, the community of Santa Fe is fed by two reservoirs. Forty percent of the water of Santa Fe is from these two 

reservoirs. 

And I am just using Santa Fe as an example, this would happen 

all across the West to the snow pack. And I want you to talk about 

that. 

I have also heard, and I think it is a fact, that the West is going 

to be twice as hot in terms of your models than other parts of the 

Country. So that also is going to have an impact, not only on water, 

which we know living in an arid State, we know that water is precious, we know that we have to use it wisely and global warming 

is going to make it so that we are going to have a lot of difficulty 

with water. And one of our other major industries, agriculture, 

which uses water, so that is going to1have an impact. 

So I am very happy to see Dr. Christopher Field here. He was 

someone who mentored a member of my staff that worked with me, 

Johanna Paulsonberg, on climate matters. She has now moved on 

to other things, but it was wonderful having her on my congressional staff, having the benefit of her knowledge that she gained 

from you and from her hard study. So it is great to see you here 

today and I really look forward to hearing the entire panel. 

And once again, I congratulate our Chair for pulling together 

such a distinguished panel, which I think when the American people hear what these folks have to say, they will understand the urgency that we feel for doing something here today. So thank you, 

and I yield my time. 

Senator BOXER. We are getting very close to that moment. 

Senator Gillibrand, you will have the last word. Unless Senator 

Crapo comes back, you will have the last word. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

Senator GILLIBRAND. As your junior member, I will be short and 

sweet. 

Thank you for your extraordinary leadership. I am extremely 

grateful for your voice for change and for holding this hearing. 

Thank you to our panelists for coming, sharing your expertise with 

us. As President Obama said last night, this is an era for solutions. 

We are looking to you for those solutions and for your guidance on 

how best to tackle climate change. 

In New York State, there is no question that climate change exists. You can talk to our hunters in upstate New York, who are 

very familiar with the migratory patterns of birds. They know 

when ice is thawing at a different time of the year. They are very 

much in tune to how our environment has been affected by global 

climate change. You can also ask our mayors and city council members downstate, when they have seen massive flooding in regions 

that previously did not have flooding. 

There are so many concerns State-wide that are affecting everyone. With regard to flooding, it is an enormous challenge for municipalities, for our sewer systems that are going to overrun. It is 

costing enormous amounts of money on the local level. But also, it 
25 

has resulted in lives lost and businesses lost and homes lost in upstate New York, in Delaware County, where that 100 year flood 

seems to be coming every summer. It is an extraordinary challenge 

that we face. So we do need to focus on the solutions. 

I was very, very grateful to President Obama last night, because 

he talked about a vision for energy independence in the next decade. He talked about the investments in green energy, in new manufacturing, in building materials that are carbon-neutral, and in a 

cap and trade policy. He talked about how we need to stimulate our 

entrepreneurs and our innovators to invest in new products, build 

the electric car. It gets the equivalent of 240 miles per gallon. If 

we had an electric car that cost $25,000 to buy, it would revolutionize the entire industry. It would revolutionize our environment, 

and it would be the one thing that could combat global climate 

change tomorrow. 

So the opportunities are clear, and the vision of our President 

and our leaders in the Senate and the House are also clear. So we 

look forward to that partnership. 

I have many grave concerns that I hope you will address. I was 

in the Bronx earlier this week, and I was meeting with our local 

elected leaders. The rates of asthma are so high in many of our 

inner cities because of pollution and because of issues of climate 

change. I hope that you can address how these issues translate to 

my community, to lives lost, businesses lost, homes lost because of 

flooding, how it translates to the health and welfare of our children 

because of chronic diseases, including asthma and allergies that 

are being caused by some of these changes. 

Thank you for being here. Thank you for your leadership. Thank 

you, Madam Senator, for your leadership as our Chairman. I appreciate it very much. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you for your leadership. 

And now, the moment has arrived. We are going to hear from Dr. 

R.K. Pachauri, Chairman, United Nations Intergovernmental Panel 

on Climate Change. It is an honor to have you here, sir. Please proceed for 7 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF RAJENDRA K. PACHAURI, PH.D., CHAIRMAN, 

UNITED NATIONS INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL ON CLIMATE CHANGE 

Mr. PACHAURI. Honorable Chairperson of the Committee, Senator 

Barbara Boxer, honorable members of the Committee, colleagues, 

distinguished ladies and gentlemen, it is indeed a great privilege 

to be able to testify before this Committee and provide an update 

on the latest global warming science. 

I shall proceed promptly to give you what I wanted to present, 

Madam Chairperson. This is just a very quick overview of how the 

IPCC functions. We have the plenary session, which includes all 

the governments of the world and essentially represented by people 

who are scientifically aware of the subject; they approve of the outline of a particular assessment. Then we request governments to 

give us nominations and CVs of the range of experts who would 

work on the assessment. 

When they are selected, we carry out the drafting of the first 

version of the report. This is reviewed by experts. Then we get to, 
26 

on the basis of comments that we receive, which are carefully 

logged and documented. We either accept those comments, or 

where they are rejected, we have to give reasons why they are rejected. And this is done very transparently. Then we move to the 

second draft and so on. 

What I want to emphasize is the fact that this is a very objective, 

open, transparent process whereby we get the best scientists from 

all over the world to work on each of these assessments. I also 

want to ensure I mention that the review process ensures scientific 

integrity, objectivity, openness and transparency. 

We also have great satisfaction in noting that the scientific community has endorsed the findings of the Fourth Assessment Report 

of the IPCC. This includes the National Academy of Science, the 

American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, 

and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. 

Climate science has evolved. We now have much deeper understanding. We have much better observations and data on the basis 

of which I think science has improved and has progressed from one 

assessment to the other, culminating in the Fourth Assessment Report we just completed in November 2007. 

Just to give you an indication of the scale of the human effort 

that goes into this, in the Fourth Assessment Report we had 450 

lead authors. And these are the actual scientists who write the report. We had 800 contributing authors, and these are people who 

are specialized in some specific aspect or the other, and they provide inputs. And we had something like 2,500 scientific expert reviewers. So it is a mammoth exercise, and each of these persons 

work on a voluntary basis. Nobody is paid, nobody gets any benefits. 

The input from the American scientific community was overwhelming. If you look at these numbers, in each of the working 

group we had coordinating lead authors, lead authors, review editors, contributing authors and the total was 825. So I would like 

to express my gratitude on behalf of the IPCC for the enormous 

contribution that the scientific community in the U.S. has made to 

its work. 

The warming of the climate system is unequivocal. This is a 

major finding that we came up with. And I believe there is no 

cause at all for scientific doubt on this. These are observations of 

temperature changes that have taken place and you will notice 

there are ups and downs over here, which is clearly on the basis 

of natural changes, that the climate obviously is influenced by, and 

human changes. 

But what is particularly significant is the fact that if you look 

at the last 100 years, Madam Chairperson, you will get an increase 

of 0.74 degrees Celsius. This is clearly a much steeper slope than 

you will find for the entire 100 years plus that you see on this 

graph. 

Now, if you look at the last 50 years, the rate of increase has 

been even faster, almost twice of what we had in the 100-year period from this time before. And finally, let me emphasize that 11 

of the last 12 years rank among the 12 warmest in the instrumental record of global surface temperature. 
27 

Now, here I would like to show you the observations of temperature changes. If you look at what our models have shown, as a result of just natural factors, then you see a major deviation between 

observations and the projections of these models. But once you add 

man-made factors, and that is essentially the concentration of 

greenhouse gases, you get almost a perfect fit. So I want to emphasize that IPCC’s work takes into account all the natural factors 

that affect climate as well as the human dimensions of what we are 

doing. 

This is a familiar figure, so I shan’t spend any time on it. But 

let me talk of the inequity of climate change impacts. In Africa, for 

instance, by 2020 our projections show that 75 million to 250 million would be affected by water stress on account of climate change, 

and crop revenues could drop very rapidly. So we are really causing 

major distortions and disparities in economic development and 

growth throughout the world. 

I would like to emphasize that delayed emission reductions significantly constrain the opportunities to achieve lower stabilization 

levels, and therefore this is an urgent task that we have to attend 

to. If you look at the need to stabilize, let’s say temperature increase to 2.0 to 2.4 degrees Celsius, we have only up to 2015 as 

the window of opportunity, because we will have to ensure that 

CO2 emissions peak in that year and decline rapidly thereafter. 

Now, this is not going to be an expensive proposition, because 

our estimate is that for this trajectory of stabilization, the total cost 

to the global economy will not exceed 3 percent of the global GDP 

in the year 2030. What does that mean? That means essentially if 

you had no mitigation, this is the kind of increase you would get, 

but with mitigation this line bends downwards. Essentially this 

means that we would only delay the level of prosperity that we are 

likely to achieve by a few months, or at the most a year. 

But the good news is that there are huge co-benefits of mitigation, which the honorable Senators have already mentioned, health 

co-benefits, much greater employment, increased energy security 

and mitigation can result in near-term co-benefits that could substantially offset the cost of mitigation, in fact, even lead to negative 

costs. 

Now, I would like to just end by giving some quotations. This is 

what the Secretary General of the United Nations has said, and finally, some quotations from the President of the United States, 

President Barack Obama. 

Thank you very much, Madam Chairperson. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pachauri follows:] 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 

Senator BOXER. Dr. Christopher Field, Director, Department of 

Global Ecology, Carnegie Institute for Science, at Stanford. And he 

was Co-Chair of Working Group II, which looked at the problems 

that we will be facing in our continent here. So we are very anxious 

to hear from you, sir. 

STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER FIELD, PH.D., DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF GLOBAL ECOLOGY, CARNEGIE INSTITUTION 

FOR SCIENCE, STANFORD UNIVERSITY; CO-CHAIR, WORKING 

GROUP II, UNITED NATIONS INTERGOVERNMENTAL PANEL 

ON CLIMATE CHANGE 

Mr. FIELD. Thank you, Madam Chairman and members of the 

Committee. 

It is a pleasure to review the latest updates on the science and 

to give you a feel for the way that the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change serve as a very strong foundation 

for new observations that are coming together all the time. These 

two pieces fit together in a comprehensive and increasingly compelling way. 

I want to repeat a couple of the comments that Dr. Pachauri 

made about the strength of the IPCC process. The numbers of scientists who participate in the IPCC is, of course, very, very large. 

But what is important about the process is that it represents an 

incredibly consistent distilling. Every statement that makes its way 

into the IPCC is challenged, tested, challenged again. And by the 

time a statement makes it into the IPCC reports, it has really 

passed an incredibly high threshold. This is to be contrasted with 

the broader scientific literature, which includes a wide range of results that are interesting ideas and stand the initial test of time 

but haven’t really been exposed to the kind of tests that the IPCC 

reports are, incredibly important distinction about the value of assessments. 

Perhaps the key conclusions from the Fourth Assessment Report 

released in 2007 is that there has been clear, unequivocal evidence 

of warming, 1.3 degree Fahrenheit over the last 100 years. I think 

an even more important conclusion is that now we have increasingly compelling evidence that human actions are very likely responsible for most of the warming over the last 50 years. We have 

a wide variety of fingerprints, fingerprints that allow us to test 

whether it is greenhouse gases or some other putative mechanism. 

What we see consistently with each of these fingerprints is that the 

quantitative results, the qualitative results, point toward the unequivocal role of the greenhouse gases in driving the warming that 

has occurred. 

There is a question of how much warming will occur in the future. It is clear that the mechanisms that have been put in place 

by greenhouse gas emissions will continue and without decisive action to reduce CO2 emissions to the atmosphere, the business as 

usual type of possibilities result in temperatures at 2100 where, 

with a low emissions pathway, we could end up with global average 

warming of somewhere in the range of 2 to 5.2 degrees Fahrenheit. 

With a high possibility, it could be in the range of 4 to 11. Of 

course, the recent trajectory of greenhouse gas emissions has even 

been higher than what is characterized as the highest scenario in 
92 

the IPCC reports, leading to the conclusion that we fundamentally 

haven’t tested the consequences of the emission trajectory that we 

now know we are on. 

There are a wide variety of impacts, and they go everywhere 

from ecosystems to industry to human health. I want to characterize some of the most important findings of the IPCC with regard 

to impacts on the United States, especially. One of the most compelling is that there is clear evidence that we have already seen, 

impacts on western water resources. There is earlier peak in the 

flow of western rivers. There is a decrease in the amount of snow 

that is stored in the western snow pack. It is up to 30 percent in 

many years. We are also seeing a decreased springtime and summertime flow in many rivers that are important to the support of 

ecosystems. 

The projections of climate change impact for water resources in 

the West are really compelling. There is this gigantic tongue of reduced runoff, essentially, severe drought, that runs all the way 

from California to Oklahoma. The broad swath of the Southwest is 

basically robbed of the water to have sustainable lifestyles. 

It is clear that we are seeing increased areas consumed in wildfire already. The quadrennial fire review just released by the U.S. 

Federal agencies shows that in the 1980s, there were 50 wildfires, 

more than 50,000 acres. In the decade starting in 1999, there were 

240. The projections are clear that as the time between the melt 

of the snow in the spring and the first snow in the fall increases, 

we have greater and greater risk of wildfires and more and more 

problems associated with fighting wildfires. 

It is also clear that many U.S. cities are already seeing increased 

numbers of heat waves, hot days, hot nights, and extended periods 

of heat. And there are very many cities, Sacramento is a good example, where just a small amount of warming transitions days that 

are uncomfortably hot into potentially life-threatening heat waves. 

So we are very close to a threshold in a very large number of American cities. 

It is very difficult to translate the full range of climate impacts 

into economic costs. The IPCC has attempted to do that, and comes 

up with a relatively wide range. The range is that the social cost 

of carbon, the integrated damages across all the sectors could be 

anywhere from $3 to $95 per ton of CO2. That could result in, if 

we take the integrated costs of the CO2 emitted this year worldwide, anywhere from $110 billion to over $3.6 trillion of cumulative 

impacts, and if you contrast that with the cost of stabilization, the 

costs are really quite modest. Several of you have already spoken 

about the possibility that we might achieve net economic benefits 

as a consequence of tackling climate change, and the IPCC concludes the same. But there also could be costs that could be as 

much as 3 percent of GDP going out to 2030. 

If you look at new observations, it is clear that things have continued to change, and they have changed very rapidly, mostly in 

ways that were discussed by the IPCC, but haven’t yet been confirmed, because the evidence wasn’t yet strong enough. CO2 emissions have been increasing very, very rapidly. From 2000 to 2007 

the annual rate of increase was 3.5 percent per year, contrasted 

with 0.9 percent per year from 1990 to 1999, over a threefold in-
93 

crease. We have seen rapid shrinkages in the area covered by Arctic ice, so that in 2007, the area of minimum summer ice in September was 37 percent less than the long-term average. It was 

more than 20 percent less than the previous low in 2005. And just 

within the last few months, we have seen confirmation that the 

continent of Antarctica has been warming, and it has been warming at a rate of almost .2 degrees Fahrenheit per decade, comparable in pace to much of the rest of the southern hemisphere. 

In some we are seeing a very wide range of documented impacts. 

We have increased confidence that these are due to humans and 

the fingerprints are really compelling. Many areas of risk for the 

United States, and the costs for mitigation appear to be modest in 

terms of the long-term costs of doing nothing. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Field follows:] 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much. 

And now, we are going to turn to Dr. Howard Frumkin, Director, 

National Center for Environmental Health, Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention. He is the Director of the Agency for Toxic 

Substances and Disease Registry. 

Thank you very much, Doctor. 

STATEMENT OF HOWARD FRUMKIN, M.D., MPH, DR.PH., DIRECTOR, NATIONAL CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH, 

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION; DIRECTOR, AGENCY FOR TOXIC SUBSTANCES AND DISEASE REGISTRY 

Dr. FRUMKIN. Madam Chair, members of the Committee, thank 

you very much for the opportunity to testify today. 

It is clear that your eloquence as Senators far outstrips our aptitude as PowerPoint users here on the panel. 

[Laughter.] 

Dr. FRUMKIN. Dr. Field addressed himself to earth system 

changes, and drew heavily on the earth and atmospheric sciences 

to update you. I would like to turn now to the human impacts of 

climate change and draw on the health sciences to update you. I 

do this, because climate change is expected to have very real impacts on the health and well-being of real people. That is of great 

concern to us at the CDC and we think to the entire Nation. 

The health science research, as it emerges, is suggesting to us a 

number of impacts of climate change on health and well-being. 

They are shown here on this slide, and they are described in more 

detail in my written testimony. The direct effects of heat can be 

dangerous to people, especially during heat waves, as we have 

seen. Severe weather events, both rapid ones like tornadoes and 

hurricanes, and drawn-out ones, like floods, have a range of impacts on health, as we have seen tragically in recent years in this 

Country. 

Air pollution worsens in several respects under warming scenarios. That has impacts on cardiovascular and respiratory health 

and on longevity. Allergies are expected to worsen because certain 

plants that are sources of allergens, from ragweed to poison ivy, 

seem to thrive under climate change scenarios. 

Many vector-borne diseases, traditionally called tropical diseases, 

in a reminder that these diseases are ecosystem dependent. As ecosystems shift and as the range of these diseases shifts, we expect 

impacts on human vulnerability and on disease incidence as well. 

Water-borne diseases are clearly linked to severe rainfall events 

and to changes in temperature. Threats to the water and food supply can be serious, as agricultural output changes under climate 

change scenarios. That in turn affects nutrition and health status. 

Mental health impacts are considerable. We are now appreciating that one of the longest-lasting and most serious impacts of 

Hurricane Katrina, for example, has been the mental health impact. We need to attend to that in future climate change scenarios 

as well. Finally, the possibility of dislocation and migration has 

public health impacts on those who need to move. 

Each of these health impacts teaches us specific lessons that are 

important to keep in mind. With regard to heat, we have long expe-
119 

rience with heat waves, we have conducted extensive epidemiologic 

studies, we know who in cities is most vulnerable and we know the 

steps that we can take to protect the health of people from the effects of the heat wave. This is a good example of how good epidemiology and good preparedness can help us protect the public. 

Infectious diseases teach us a different lesson. These are extremely complex phenomena. Climate change is expected to affect 

the baseline risk of infectious diseases, but many other factors play 

a role as well, from air conditioning to the presence of screens to 

underlying health status. We need considerable research to understand best how infectious diseases will unfold. We also need very 

good surveillance and early warning systems. These are key tools 

in public health, because we need to recognize these diseases, if 

and when they change their range. 

The mental health outcomes remind us of the need to be very 

broad-thinking and holistic as we consider the impacts on health. 

And the question of food is a reminder that we need to look outside 

the health sector itself and upstream to other sectors whose activities and products affect and determine health. For example, agricultural output—we have evidence emerging now that protein content of certain food crops is diminished under climate change scenarios. That will affect the nutritional value of foods that some people eat, and for some that will have a measurable health impact. 

The good news here is that few of these are new problems. Many 

of these are longstanding problems. Climate change serves not as 

a revolutionary change, but as an amplifier or multiplier of existing 

and fairly well understood risks. We have in our public health tool 

box the tools and strategies that we need in many cases to address 

these problems and to protect the public. These, after all, are the 

tools and strategies of public health preparedness. 

We need to undertake surveillance and data collection, collecting 

the baseline information that we need to track trends and to recognize perturbations. We have talked earlier in this panel about modeling and forecasting. We need to downscale modeling and forecasting from the global scale to the regional and even the local 

scale, where health impacts will play out. And we need to extend 

existing models to health impacts themselves. 

We need to take direct actions to protect the public. For example, 

heat wave preparedness plans are available for cities to use; GIS 

systems can identify who is vulnerable, buddy systems can be put 

in place to reach out to those individuals when heat waves should 

occur, they can be brought to refuge centers if necessary to protect 

them during a heat wave, the health care system can be prepared 

and equipped to deal with hyperthermic health outcomes. We know 

how to do those plans, and we need to be working on those. 

We need effective communication. Using the lessons of health 

communication, we have great experience in the health sector in 

delivering tough messages: exercise more, eat better food, quit 

smoking. Many of the same communication techniques will be useful as applied to climate change, so that people can receive and understand useful information, and not despair, but take constructive 

action. 

We need to undertake training and capacity building, so that at 

the State and local level, members of our health departments know 
120 

how to use these tools, know how to implement them, and can do 

their job to protect the public. And we need to undertake research, 

because there is much we still need to learn about climate change, 

the biomedical and basic biological dimensions of climate change, 

as they will affect health. 

I want to close by pointing to the benefits of taking many of 

these steps, and these are co-benefits. Indeed, there are sweet spots 

here. The public health actions we need to take to protect against 

climate change, ranging from research to surveillance to early 

warning systems, will have benefits across the entire system of 

public health, not simply limited to climate change. 

In effect, many of the actions that we need to take to address climate change will have benefits for health more broadly. If we shift 

our transportation patterns to more walking and bicycling and less 

use of vehicles, those are steps we need to take in an increasingly 

sedentary and overweight society anyway. And those will also be 

steps that address climate change. 

So the combined health, economic and social benefits of addressing climate change are very much on our mind as we prepare the 

public health responses to best protect the public. Thank you very 

much. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Frumkin follows:] 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 
149 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much. 

Dr. William Happer, Professor of Physics, Princeton University. 

And as I understand it, also Chairman of the George C. Marshall 

Institute. Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM HAPPER, PH.D., CYRUS FOGG 

BRACKETT PROFESSOR OF PHYSICS, PRINCETON UNIVERSITY 

Mr. HAPPER. Thank you. 

Let me state clearly where I probably agree with the other witnesses. We have been in a period of global warming, but it has 

been going on for about 200 years. Also, there have been several 

periods, like the last 10 years, when the warming has ceased. In 

fact, there has been a little bit of cooling over the past 10 years. 

There have even been periods of substantial cooling, for example, 

from 1940 to 1970. You can see that on Dr. Pachauri’s chart. 

Atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide have increased 

from about 280 to 380 parts per million over the past 100 years. 

The combustion of fossil fuels, coal, oil, natural gases, contributed to this increase in the atmosphere. Finally, increasing concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere will cause some warming of 

the earth’s surface. The key question is, will the net effect of the 

warming and any other effects of CO2 be good or bad for humanity? 

I believe the increase of CO2 will be good. 

I predict that future historians will look back on this period 

much as we now look back on the period just before we passed the 

18th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to prohibit the manufacturing, sale or transportation of intoxicating liquors. At the time, 

the 18th Amendment seemed to be exactly the right thing to do. 

It was the 1917 version of saving the planet from the ravages of 

climate change. 

More than half the States enacted Prohibition laws before the 

18th Amendment was finally ratified. Only one State, Rhode Island, voted against it, and my hat is off to the Senator from Rhode 

Island. I am sorry he is not here. 

There were many people who thought that prohibition might do 

more harm than good, but they were completely outmatched by the 

Temperance movement, whose motives and methods have much in 

common with the movement to stop climate change. Deeply sincere 

people felt they were saving humanity from the evils of alcohol, 

just as many people now sincerely think they are saving humanity 

from the evils of CO2. 

Prohibition was a mistake, and our Country has probably still 

not fully recovered from the damage it did. For example, institutions like organized crime got their start in that era. Drastic limitations on CO2 are likely to damage our Country in an analogous 

way. There is tremendous opportunity for corruption there. 

There is little argument in the scientific community that the direct effect of doubling CO2 concentrations will be a small increase 

in the earth’s temperature, on the order of 1 degree Centigrade. 

That is not enough to worry about it. Further increases will cause 

even less temperature rise. 

To get the scary scenarios that we hear about, water vapor and 

clouds must amplify the direct effects of CO2. In fact, observations 

suggest that water vapor and clouds actually diminish the already 
150 

small global warming expected from CO2, not amplify it. The evidence comes from satellite measurements of infrared radiation escaping from the earth into outer space, from measurement of the 

sunlight reflected from clouds and from measurements of the temperature of the earth’s surface. 

I keep hearing about the pollutant CO2, or about poisoning the 

atmosphere with CO2. CO2 is not a pollutant. It is not a poison and 

we should not corrupt the English language by depriving pollutant 

and poison of their original meaning. When we exhale, each of us 

here, our exhaled breath is 4 percent CO2. That is about 40,000 

parts per million, 100 times the current atmospheric concentrations. CO2 is absolutely essential for life. Commercial greenhouse 

operators often use CO2 as a fertilizer to improve the health and 

growth rate of their plants. Plants and our own primate ancestors 

evolved when the levels of atmospheric CO2 were about 1,000 parts 

per million, a level we will probably not reach by burning fossil 

fuels. By the way, the oceans did just fine then, at 1,000 parts per 

million. There was no problem with acidification and lots of coral 

reefs grew very vigorously. 

We are all aware that the green revolution has increased crop 

yields around the world. Part of this wonderful development comes 

from improved crop varieties, better use of mineral fertilizers, herbicides, et cetera. But no small part of the yield improvement has 

come from increased atmospheric levels of CO2. If we decrease our 

current levels of CO2 to those that prevailed a few hundred years 

ago, I don’t know how we would do that, but if we did, we would 

lose part of the green revolution, and the green revolution has yet 

to run its course, if we let CO2 continue to go up. 

I often hear there is a consensus behind the idea of impending 

disaster from climate change that already it may be almost too late 

to avert this catastrophe, even if we stop burning fossil fuels. Well, 

first, what is correct in science is not determined by consensus, but 

by experiment, observation, testing. I can’t think of any other 

branch of science where an international organization is needed to 

determine the truth. This is the first time this has ever happened. 

Second, I don’t think there is a consensus about an impending 

climate crisis. Like the Temperance movement 100 years ago, the 

climate catastrophe movement has enlisted the mass media, leadership of scientific societies, trustees of charitable foundations, many 

other influential people to their cause. Even elementary school 

teachers and writers of children’s books terrify our children with 

the idea of impending climate doom. Children should not be force 

fed propaganda masquerading as science. Many of you know that 

in the year 2007, a British court ruled that if Al Gore’s book, An 

Inconvenient Truth, was used in British public schools, that children had to be told of 11 particularly troubling inaccuracies. For 

example, the court ruled it was not possible to attribute Hurricane 

Katrina to CO2. Indeed, if we had taken a small fraction of the 

many billions of dollars that we spent on climate change research 

and propaganda and fixed the dikes and pumps around New Orleans, there would have been no disaster. 

I regret that climate change issues have become confused with 

serious problems like secure energy supplies, protecting our environment and figuring out where future generations will get energy 
151 

or chemical feedstocks after we have burned all the fossil fuel we 

can find. I hope we don’t confuse these laudable goals with 

hysterics about carbon footprints. I hope Congress will choose to 

promote investment in technology that addresses real problems and 

scientific research that will help us cope with these real problems. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Happer follows:] 
152 
153 
154 
155 
156 
157 
158 
159 
160 
161 
162 
163 
164 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much. 

I just want to put into the record a list of the various foundations 

that the ExxonMobil gives money to, and note that Dr. Happer, 

your George C. Marshall Institute receives almost a million dollars 

over the past 10 years from Exxon. 

Your words are very alarming to me, sir, because you are basically saying to these three gentlemen that they are feeding us 

propaganda. And I have read other things you have said which 

compares people who are talking about climate change to the Germans during the Nazi era. I have that, I will put that in the record. 

[The referenced information follows:] 
165 
166 
167 
168 
169 
170 
171 
172 
173 
174 
175 
176 
177 
178 
179 
180 
181 
182 

Senator BOXER. And you also talked about hysterics. Now, the 

last thing I would say that came out of these three scientists was 

hysterics. I was wondering when they would actually raise their 

voice above a very modest level. They are very clear in what they 

have learned from the science. I haven’t heard hysterics. 

So I would, because you made that charge, ask each of them to 

just talk about how you view the scientific consensus on this. Is 

there a consensus on this, and are people who are saying it is 

hysterics or saying it is propaganda, are they outliers in terms of 

the scientific community? And I don’t mean particularly Dr. 

Happer, but just, he is saying things that some outliers and some 

members of this Committee say. 

And I think it is important, I know Dr. Pachauri, you have put 

forward all the steps that were taken. But if you could just address 

in just conversational terms whether or not what you have told us 

today is propaganda or hysterics. 

Mr. PACHAURI. Thank you, Madam Chairperson. Let me once 

again repeat that the IPCC functions on the basis of mobilizing the 

best talent from across the world. And incidentally, all those that 

are chosen for carrying out this task are essentially those that have 

been nominated by governments and then carefully selected on the 

basis of the record of research that they have carried out. 

I also want to state that all the work that the IPCC does is based 

on peer-reviewed literature. The IPCC itself doesn’t carry out any 

research. It looks at peer-reviewed literature in well-established 

journals. And therefore, if this doesn’t represent a consensus of the 

best scientific expertise drawn from all over the world, I would like 

to ask what would. 

And I mentioned also, Madam Chairperson, that in the Fourth 

Assessment Report, we had an overwhelming number of people 

from the U.S., very distinguished scientists. And these were those 

who were actually nominated and then subsequently selected by 

the IPCC. They were nominated by the previous Administration. I 

am talking about the year 2002, 2003. 

And finally, may I also say with all due respect to our distinguished colleague from Princeton—very truly an outstanding institution; I myself have had some association and continue to have a 

modest association with a somewhat relatively unknown institution 

called Yale University. 

I would like to emphasize this analogy of the Temperance movement. I think if you go down the annals of history, you will find 

more people have suffered for having opposed conventional thinking on subjects like cosmology, on the laws of gravity. I just want 

to mention one single name. In the year 1600, there was a person 

called Giordano Bruno who was burned at the stake simply because he believed that the world is really something that is part 

of a much larger universe. 

So I would like to submit that whenever new knowledge has 

emerged, there has been resistance, there has been denial and ultimately, thank God, the truth has prevailed. And I would believe 

the truth exists today. 

Senator BOXER. Well, let me do this, because my time is running 

out. I am going to ask the last question of mine to Dr. Field, and 

pick up again on what Dr. Happer said. First, he said that there 
183 

was a cooling trend, and then he switched and said, I think increases of CO2 will be good for humanity. So I don’t know from that 

whether he thinks there is a cooling trend or—— but let’s forget 

that. 

He said, increases of CO2 will be good for humanity. So I guess 

I need to ask Dr. Field and Dr. Frumkin quickly to explain whether 

they agree with that or not. 

Mr. FIELD. Thank you very much. The temperature records for 

2008 have just been released by NASA’s Goddard Institute for 

Space Studies; 2008 was the ninth warmest year in the instrumental record. The fact of the matter is that CO2 does increase the 

growth of some plants, but not all plants. Some major crops, corn, 

sugar cane, sorghum, use a different photosynthesis pathway and 

are not at all stimulated by increased atmospheric CO2. 

Early results on CO2 as an agriculture fertilizer suggest that it 

might be quite powerful in increasing yields by maybe 25 to 30 percent, but recently we have developed a series of new technologies 

called free air CO2 enrichment that allow us to do genuine field 

scale tests of how much doubling atmospheric CO2 increases the 

growth of major crops. And the evidence is that doubling CO2 in 

cooler regions in the United States can increase crop growth maybe 

10 to 20 percent. So certainly not a significant amount. And in the 

context, well, it could be important. 

And in the context of the rising temperatures that are caused by 

the greenhouse effect of CO2, we basically see downward pressure 

from the climate change and a small upward pressure from the 

CO2. The IPCC conclusion is that in the United States, for the next 

few decades, we might see those approximately balancing each 

other out. Once the temperature increase gets to be greater than 

about 3 degrees Fahrenheit, the warming trend is expected to be 

the dominant one, with crop yields going down. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

And Dr. Frumkin, since you are an expert on health, do you 

agree that CO2 is going to be good for humanity, an increase in 

CO2 is going to be good for humanity? 

Dr. FRUMKIN. No, Senator Boxer. The combination of rising CO2

and the associated earth system changes, such as warmer temperatures, will have a range of impacts on health, as I described earlier. 

Both the diminished agricultural output, especially in vulnerable 

parts of the world, and the other impacts, such as worsening air 

pollution and aggravation of allergies, collectively give us much 

more concern than reassurance. 

Senator BOXER. Senator Inhofe. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you. 

Let me share something I was just handed. This is new news 

that came out apparently today. The U.K. Register has reported 

that ‘‘Japanese scientists have made a dramatic break with the 

U.N. and western-backed hypotheses of climate change. The IPCC’s 

conclusion that from now on atmospheric temperatures are likely 

to show a continuous, monotonous increase should be perceived as 

an unprovable hypothesis.’’ 

Dr. Pachauri, you have made several statements in 2003 and 

2008 concerning the Flat Earth Society, which I think is fine. t is 

a type of name calling I suppose that is good. It can get that way. 
184 

Many scientists who doubt what you claim are included in our 

U.S. Senate minority report, the one I referred to. And they have 

cited you and Al Gore as other characterizations of skeptics as one 

of the key motivating factors to publicly speak out in dissent. Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs is one of those scientists 

who are not happy with your comments. Briggs specializes in the 

statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society’s Probability and Statistics Committee, and is an associate editor of the Monthly Weather Review. He wrote in 2008, 

‘‘After reading U.N. IPCC Chairman Pachauri’s asinine comment 

comparing skeptics to Flat Earthers, it is hard to remain quiet.’’ 

Paleoclimate expert Augusto Mangini of the University of Heidelberg in Germany criticized the U.N. IPCC summary, ‘‘I consider 

the part of the IPCC report which I can really judge as an expert,’’ 

in other words, the reconstruction of the paleoclimate, ‘‘wrong.’’ He 

added, ‘‘The earth will not die.’’ 

South African nuclear physicist and chemical engineer Dr. Philip 

Lloyd, a U.N. IPCC co-coordinator, lead author who has authored 

more than 150 publications, stated ‘‘The quantity of CO2 we 

produce is insignificant in terms of the natural circulation between 

air, water and soil. I am doing a detailed assessment of the U.N. 

IPCC’s reports and the summary for policymakers identifying the 

way in which the summaries have distorted the science.’’ 

Victor Emmanuel Vacquier, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the University of New Mexico stated ‘‘the models and 

forecasts of the U.N. IPCC are incorrect because they only are 

based on mathematical models and presented results scenarios.’’ 

Indian geologists, and you could probably help me with the pronunciation of this name, Dr. Pachauri, but it is Arun Ahluwalia, 

of Punjab University, and a board member of the U.N.-supported 

International Year of the Planet, ‘‘The IPCC has actually become 

a closed-circuit. It doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open 

minds. I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize is being 

given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not 

geologists.’’ 

Dr. Nicholas Drapela of the faculty of the Oregon State University chemistry department described the U.N. IPCC this way: ‘‘The 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is a body of the 

United Nations, it is not a scientific body, it is a political body.’’ Dr. 

John Rignold, a U.K. emeritus engineering professor at the University of Southampton, who held the chair in industry instrumentation at Southampton, accused the U.N. of censorship on July 23d 

of 2008, just last year. Dr. Rignold wrote, ‘‘Here was a purely political body posing as a scientific institution. They acted in concert to 

keep out alien or hostile opinion. Peer review developed into a 

mantra that was picked up by political activists who clearly had no 

idea of the procedures of science or its learning societies.’’ 

Another one of the IPCC scientists not happy with your group’s 

process accused the IPCC of ignoring skeptical comments. The 

IPCC 2007 expert reviewer, Medhav Chandakar, a Ph.D meteorologist, a scientist with the Natural Resources Stewardship Process, 

who has over 45 years’ experience in climatology, meteorology, 

oceanography, and who has published nearly 100 papers and reports, said ‘‘To my dismay, IPCC authors ignored all of my com-
185 

ments and suggestions for major changes in the first order draft 

and sent me the second order draft with essentially the same text 

as the first order draft. None of the authors of the chapter bothered 

to directly communicate with me or with other expert reviewers 

with whom I communicate on a regular basis on many issues that 

were raised in my review. This is not an acceptable scientific process.’’ 

I want to comment on another one. This is the former Colorado 

State climatologist, Roger Pielke, Sr., analyzed your most recent, 

and this is you, Dr. Field, your most recent scientific claims on 

February 15th, 2009. Dr. Pielke suggested that this claim conflicts 

with real world observations. He observed that since mid-2003, 

there have been no upper ocean global average warming and observation which is not consistent with the GISS model predictions. 

Over this time, the recent and current tropospheric temperature 

data also shown in the lower tropospheric temperatures today are 

no lower than they were in 2002. The recent global warming is less 

than the IPCC models predict and even more so in disagreement. 

And this is a quote, he said, ‘‘When will the news media,’’ this is 

significant, I agree with this, ‘‘When will the news media and others realize that by presenting such biased reports, which are easily 

refuted by real world data, they are losing their credibility among 

many of the scientific community as well as the public?’’ 

Let me just say, Dr. Happer, you have had a lot of criticism here 

by the others. I thought I would take the 2 minutes I have remaining—— 

Senator BOXER. You had seven. You had seven when we started. 

So you are out of time. 

Senator INHOFE. I hope you will have the opportunity to refute 

and certainly do that to each and every allegation in perhaps a 

written communication. Would you do that? 

Mr. HAPPER. Well, do I have some time to respond? 

Senator BOXER. Well, excuse me. You have run out of your 

seven minutes. I gave you seven, I had seven. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. So we are going to have to put it off. But I could 

also say, you spent your entire 7 minutes attacking the rest of the 

panel, so we will need to have these—— 

Senator INHOFE. No, I was quoting scientists, Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. Who were attacking the IPCC. 

Senator INHOFE. That is correct. 

Senator BOXER. And I would like to put into the record this 

Japan Society of Energy and Resources that you broke the news to 

us, they are dominated by the power companies in Japan, the gas 

chemical companies. And I put that in the record. 

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

Senator BOXER. I would call on Senator Lautenberg. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

I want to ask Dr. Pachauri, what are the credentials for membership in the IPCC? Is there a credential that one has to bring to be 

a member? This is a member association, is it not? 

Mr. PACHAURI. May I respond to that, Madam Chairperson? 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Yes. 

Mr. PACHAURI. Right. 
186 

Senator LAUTENBERG. That is my time. 

Mr. PACHAURI. Yes, sir. So as I mentioned, what we do is we 

first, on the basis of—— 

Senator LAUTENBERG. As short as you can, please. 

Mr. PACHAURI. Yes, detailed exercise, scope out the contents of 

a particular report, then we write to governments to send us nominations of scientists who can work on the report. These are then 

selected by the bureau of the IPCC purely on the basis of their research record and their CVs. So it is entirely a merit-based system. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. How many members presently constitute 

the organization? 

Mr. PACHAURI. Well, there is no permanent membership per se. 

For each particular report, we mobilize a team of the best scientists 

that we can get. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. How many people contribute to it? 

Mr. PACHAURI. Well, like in the last Fourth Assessment report, 

we had 450 people who actually wrote the report, 2,500 odd who 

actually reviewed various drafts, and in addition, 800 so-called contributing authors. So I would say roughly 4,000 plus. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Dr. Happer, I have to commend you for 

courage, even though we radically differ on the view of what is 

happening. 

From 1980 to 1994, it is said by CDC, and correct me, Dr. 

Frumkin, if I am wrong, that there was a 75 percent increase in 

the number of cases of asthma and 150 percent increase among 

children. Now, is that some kind of a coincidental thing, or do you 

believe that there is any kind of cause that might bring that situation to us? Dr. Happer. 

Mr. HAPPER. Oh, for me? 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Yes. I am sorry. 

Mr. HAPPER. I am glad you asked. I actually started a little company that looks at asthma and lung imaging a few years ago. So 

I learned a fair amount about that. The people I talk to, physicians, 

felt that much of it was due to indoor dust and that, especially 

slum dwellers were exposed to such dust. I am not a physician, but 

it was believed to be sort of a lifestyle thing. 

Now, maybe that is associated with temperature one way or another. Maybe more air conditioning is a bad thing, I don’t know. 

But this is the limit of what I can respond to on this. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Dr. Frumkin. 

Dr. FRUMKIN. Asthma is on the rise. The causes are very complex 

and not fully understood. But what is clear is that once people have 

asthma, and this is especially an issue for children, some of the effects of climate change especially affect those individuals. They are 

especially susceptible. So the problems with air pollution, and the 

problems with allergen production that rise with climate change 

are especially worrisome for those with asthma, a larger population 

now than it has been in the past. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Dr. Happer, you dispute the fact that a 

consensus has validity, do I understand you correctly? 

Mr. HAPPER. Consensuses are often wrong in science and in other 

spheres of human life. For example, in my field, physicists covered 

themselves with shame 100 years ago when they debated with Darwin how old the earth was. I mentioned some of this in my written 
187 

testimony. But there was complete consensus in the physics community the earth couldn’t be more than a few tens of millions of 

years old. They were completely wrong and Darwin was right. 

So consensus is not the way to determine the truth. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Do you challenge the findings that were 

presented here by your colleagues about the growth in warming 

and the severity of storms, sea rising? 

Mr. HAPPER. Yes, I do, actually. If you look at the records of hurricanes, they have not increased at all. That is public knowledge. 

And as for warming, it is still not as warm as it was when the Vikings settled Greenland. They were not growing potatoes, but they 

were exporting sheep to Norway. So there have been huge fluctuations in the climate that IPCC doesn’t even try to explain. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Do you think there is a conspiracy, Dr. 

Happer? 

Mr. HAPPER. No, no, not at all. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Well, permit me to finish the sentence, 

please. That this is a, that there is a conspiracy that is presenting 

this thing that is a hoax that is being delivered to the world at 

large because of a conspiratorial alliance? 

Mr. HAPPER. No. I really respect the people working on this. I 

think they really think they are doing good, they want to save the 

world. We all have an urge to do something good. That is why we 

are put in the world. I think they have made a mistake. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. No, but can this, the charge that this is a 

hoax, that global warming is a hoax, could you say that that is the 

kind of a joke you could laugh at? 

Mr. HAPPER. No, I don’t agree that it is a hoax. I said what I 

thought it was, I think it is a mistake. A hoax means that someone 

is intentionally trying to deceive you. I don’t think that is the case. 

I don’t think that my colleagues are doing that at all. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you very much. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

Senator Klobuchar. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

Thank you to all of you. 

I wanted to ask just some specific scientific questions on the status of the research. We have heard a lot, Dr. Pachauri, about how 

there has been some changes to the models about concerns about 

even more immediate and dramatic climate changes. And I have 

heard some of that is due to the increased levels of methane emissions that may be coming from the melting of the polar ice. Could 

you enlighten us about this idea that these methane emissions 

coming from the polar ice are going to create more global warming? 

Mr. PACHAURI. Absolutely, Madam Senator. As a matter of fact, 

there are a number of other factors also which, with further warming, could lead to larger emissions of greenhouse gases. The oceans, 

for instance, which hold large quantity of carbon dioxide, with 

warming could lead to a release of some of that carbon dioxide. 

This is an area which is being studied in considerable detail. But 

the indications are very clear that, for instance, the permafrost 

melting will result in other greenhouse gases, and additional greenhouse gases being emitted into the atmosphere. 
188 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. So it is more than just the warming started 

all this, so when, I am just trying to understand this, so when suddenly the ice starts to melt, that actually leads to more of these 

gases getting out, is what you are saying? OK. 

And then, second question I had is just about the timing of this. 

The next IPCC report is going to be out in 2014, is that right? And 

I am just thinking, we are doing all this work right now, and is 

there going to be some kind of preliminary assessment out in between the last one and this one? 

Mr. PACHAURI. Actually, to carry out a thorough and reliable assessment of climate change, we really need this kind of period of 

time, Senator. And this time around, we are also developing some 

new scenarios of the way economic growth, technology changes and 

so on will take place. So we really would not be able to come up 

with anything more than a very preliminary assessment of how 

things are changing. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Could you tell me a little, just based on 

your international work, about how some of the major economies 

like India and China are interpreting some of the IPCC data and 

what is happening there? 

Mr. PACHAURI. Senator, there is a substantial concern in all the 

countries of the world about the impacts of climate change. Because some of these nations are going to be impacted, are going to 

receive the impacts of climate change that would really disrupt not 

only their economy but their ecosystems and so on. 

One point that I would like to mention is that the problem today 

has been caused not by flows or emissions that are taking place 

currently but by the stock which has accumulated essentially as a 

result of development in the industrialized countries. And I think 

it is for this reason that the framework you mention on climate 

change talks about common but differentiated responsibility. 

And therefore, may I submit—this is purely a personal opinion— 

I think for a country like the United States to lead is critically important. The number of technologies that you develop over here, 

whether it is motorcars or something else, will be used by the developing countries as well. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Exactly. Mr. Field, could you talk about, 

you talked about your assessments and what is happening and the 

models. Could you focus a little on the Midwest and what you have 

seen there? In our State, we seem to have more fires and floods 

and things in recent years, especially in the warm years. Could you 

talk about that? 

Mr. FIELD. The United States is expected to have diverse impacts 

of climate. And some of those impacts will be positive. There are 

deaths that result from cold temperature. And the real challenge 

in trying to understand the overall effect is to add up the pluses 

and the minuses and the conclusion of the IPCC and of the scientific assessment process is that the minuses dramatically outweigh the benefits. 

In the United States, many of the most serious impacts will be 

a consequence of changes in water supply and precipitation is one 

of the things that is difficult to project from the climate models. In 

the United States, the clearest decreases in expected precipitation 

are in the West and the Southwest, with uncertain trends in the 
189 

upper Midwest. I think the things that we see clear evidence of in 

the upper Midwest are increased number of heat wave days, even 

in cities that are relatively cool. The consequences of heat waves 

vary from place to place, and cooler cities are not necessarily immune from them. There also are a wide range of concerns about 

sustainability of water resources in the Great Lakes Region and 

the transportation is subject to relatively modest—— 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. The barge traffic and—— 

Mr. FIELD [continuing]. Increases in lake level, which become increasingly difficult to predict in an environment where year to 

year, variation rainfall increases. And that is one of the clearest 

consequences of the climate models. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much. I appreciate all of 

your work. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Merkley. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you, Madam Chair. One of the contrasts in the testimony that I thought was very stark was the difference between Dr. Pachauri’s testimony that 11 of the last 12 

years ranked among the 12 warmest years in the record of global 

surface temperature and Dr. Happer’s testimony that the last decade has been a cooling period. Could either of you or anyone else 

kind of comment on this dramatic difference and what leads you 

to such starkly opposite conclusions? 

Mr. HAPPER. Well, I could take a start. You can look at the satellite record of the temperature, you could click on the Internet, 

you can find it. And the temperature peaked about 10 years ago, 

at the time of an El Nino. And since then, it has been slightly 

trending downward. In fact, it peaked at a time when we were at 

a peak of the records of temperature. 

But they are not very old. For example, we don’t have good 

records of temperature in the 1930s. My guess is it was probably 

hotter in the 1930s, but it is certainly consistent that the last 10 

years could be high temperature years if the record of temperature 

only goes back 40 years. 

Senator MERKLEY. So for me to clarify, you are using the same, 

we are talking apples to apples, you are talking about the global 

surface temperature, not in a particular part of the globe and so 

forth? 

Mr. HAPPER. The satellite temperature, yes. 

Senator MERKLEY. Dr. Field. 

Mr. FIELD. Yes, 2008 was the ninth warmest year in the instrumental record. The two warmest years were 1999 and 2005. It is 

difficult to tell for sure, because they were about the same. And 

there is no question that all the warmest years in the record have 

been recent ones. 

There is also no question that the current temperatures are 

warmer than any time we have seen in the last 400 years, and very 

likely for the last 2,000 years. It also is very difficult to say that 

in a domain with strong directional warming, we wouldn’t see an 

occasional warm year. The climate is a very complicated system, 

and we want to make sure that we don’t set people up to be misled 

by a single exceptionally hot year or a single exceptionally cool 

year. 
190 

Mr. PACHAURI. Senator, I projected a picture of global mean surface temperature going back in time to the middle of the 19th century. And I clearly indicated, unfortunately not adequately due to 

shortage of time, that there are ups and downs in this record. 

But if you look at the last 100 years, for which I showed you a 

line that essentially shows the slope of changes, and particularly 

deal with the last 50 years, then the trend is unmistakable. We are 

on a path of increased warming, and there is no question about it. 

And we are not talking about predictions of the weather, as Professor Field has rightly said. You could get a terribly cold year, you 

could get a terribly hot year. But it is the trend, and the pattern 

that we should really be concerned about. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you. If I could just follow up on that, 

I did find your chart very useful. You said the kind of trend line 

for 100 years is .074 degrees Centigrade per decade, the last 50 

years .128 degrees Centigrade per decade. And my, by the estimates of how much the temperature might increase over the next 

50 to 100 years, I am assuming that it appears very likely that the 

number of Centigrade degree increase per decade is very likely to 

increase substantially beyond that. 

If one was to take, for example, and look at just the next decade, 

where is kind of the estimate for that decade? 

Mr. PACHAURI. Well, if we do nothing, Senator, then we would 

get an increase of about 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade. That is the 

kind of increase that we see. But this would become much sharper 

if we don’t do anything about the problem, but that is the immediate projection. 

Senator MERKLEY. So I want to follow up on one last piece here, 

which is the line of carbon dioxide parts per million in the atmosphere, going from 280 historically to 380. It sounds like there is a 

lot of consensus across everyone’s testimony in that regard. Is there 

still substantial belief in the scientific community that if we don’t 

constrain the part per million at about 400 parts per million that 

we are on a, very difficult to reverse the trend of global warming 

that we are on? Are we in the, we use the terrorist alert signals 

if we will, are we on the orange zone or the red zone or just how 

close are we to a situation where it would be very hard to reverse 

the impact? 

Mr. PACHAURI. Senator, if we want to limit global mean temperature increase to say, 2 to 2.4 degrees Celsius, then we have to stabilize CO2 equivalent concentration levels at between 445 to 490 

parts per million. Now, that is just a little above where we are 

today. And that is why I said we have just about 6 years left in 

which we will have to bring about peaking of emissions and then 

start reducing them thereafter. And we have got, in the IPCC 

Fourth Assessment Report, several scenarios of reduction that need 

to be achieved for different levels of temperature increase. 

Senator MERKLEY. Dr. Happer, you wanted to respond? Very 

briefly, because my time has run its course. 

Mr. HAPPER. I just wanted to say a few things. Many people 

don’t realize that over geological time, we are really in a CO2 famine now. Almost never has the CO2 level been as low as it has been 

in the Holocene, 280, that is unheard of. Most of the time it is at 

least 1,000, and it has been quite a bit higher than that. The earth 
191 

was just fine in those times. We evolved as a species in those times 

when the CO2 levels were three or four times what they are now. 

And the oceans were fine, plants grew fine, animals grew fine. 

So it is baffling to me that we are so frightened of getting nowhere close to where we started. 

Senator MERKLEY. My time is up. 

Senator BOXER. Take a little extra time, because this is a weird 

kind of place you have taken us to. Because you are taking us back 

how many years, Dr. Happer? To when we were fine? 

Senator MERKLEY. Pleistocene, I think was the—— 

Ms. HAPPER. Well, most people think primate evolved about 80 

million years ago. 

Senator BOXER. OK, there you go. I don’t even know how to say 

this, but a lot has happened since then—— 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER [continuing]. In terms of where people are living 

and working. We have a society now. So to say go back to those 

days, I shudder to think of what it means is going to happen. So 

either I am missing something or you just don’t seem to think 

times have changed. 

Mr. HAPPER. Well, I don’t think that the laws of nature, physics 

and chemistry have changed in 80 million years. Eighty million 

years ago, the earth was a very prosperous place. There is no reason to think it will suddenly become bad now. 

Senator BOXER. OK. Dr. Field, if things were to go back the way 

it was then in terms of the amount of carbon in the air, which Dr. 

Happer said was wonderful times, how much was in the air then, 

sir? 

Mr. HAPPER. It is a little hard to be sure, but three or four times 

what we have now. 

Senator BOXER. Three or four times more, what would happen to 

the people here? And could you just talk reality? Because, don’t do 

it from up here, do it from here. And this is not coming off Senator 

Carper’s time. I am going to give him two extra minutes because 

of this. But I feel this is really the most extraordinary argument 

I have ever heard, that we could go back to the times that were 

so long ago and everything would be fine. You need to talk to me 

about that. 

Mr. FIELD. I would like to give you two observations that are 

well-known from the historical data. We know that the CO2 concentrations are higher now than they have been at any time in the 

last 650,000 years. It is not like it was yesterday when they were 

higher. 

We know the last time they were higher for sure was probably 

about 50 million years ago. I am sorry the Senator from Wyoming 

isn’t here, because 50 million years ago there were crocodiles in 

Wyoming. We might go back—— 

Senator CARPER. Some would say there still are. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. FIELD [continuing]. To a very, very different world. 

Senator BOXER. Well, that is the point. I mean, we are trying to 

preserve society as we know it and Dr. Happer says, just go back 

to the way it was 50 million years ago. I am not telling that to my 

grandkids. 
192 

Senator Merkley, since that was your good—I will give you a 

minute or two and then I will give Tom as much time. 

Senator MERKLEY. I want to say a few things. The first is that 

homo sapiens were not on this planet during the Pleistocene. And 

so we are indeed talking about ecosystems that have changed dramatically and certainly human civilization having come and been 

established far more recently. 

The second is, I just have to comment on the parallel you drew 

to Prohibition. It would seem if you draw the parallel to the issue 

of being concerned about the health impacts of alcohol then the 

parallel would be, your commentary would be, increased alcohol 

consumption is not much of an issue, doesn’t have a health consequence, might even be beneficial. 

After 10 years of testimony in the State of Oregon on the impacts 

of alcohol consumption on health and the huge toll it takes on families, I say if you really want to exploit that parallel you might come 

to a very different conclusion about rising temperatures. 

Mr. HAPPER. May I respond? 

Senator BOXER. We are not going to have responses now. We are 

going to go to Tom Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

That was pretty good, Senator Merkley. Very good. 

I was an undergraduate, went to Ohio State University. From 

time to time I go back and visit my old alma mater. I was last 

there a little over a year ago, and I spent some time in the Polar 

Research Center there. It is run by a couple of folks that several 

of you know, Drs. Lonnie and Ellen Thompson. They were good 

enough to share with me their research, which involves, I think, 

climbing tall mountains in places along the equator, going up to 

the ice caps and trying to measure, collect ice samples and measure 

levels of CO2 that go back hundreds of thousands of years, maybe 

close to a million years. 

And my recollection of what they shared with me that day was 

that if you go back about that far over 500,000, over 600,000, over 

7000,000 years, you find that the, and look from back then to the 

present, you will find that we are going through a period of time 

where levels of CO2 are probably higher than any time in all the 

years represented in their samples. They also show a pretty close 

correlation to increases in temperature with the increases in CO2. Are you all at all familiar with their research and do you have 

any comment on it? Dr. Field. 

Mr. FIELD. There is a very rich body of information that has 

come from the study of ice cores. The longest ice cores come from 

Antarctica where there is incredibly deep ice. And those have been 

incredibly useful in mapping out the trajectory of ice ages and 

interglacials that we have experienced. Those have also been incredibly important for figuring out how powerful the effect of CO2

on climate is. Essentially, we know that the ice ages are triggered 

by small changes in the shape of the earth’s orbit, and we can calculate the physics very precisely of how much warming that would 

cause. 

There is information stored in the ice cores that tells us how 

much warming actually occurred, and then we can use the difference between the amount that the change in the shape of the 
193 

orbit should have caused and the amount that actually occurred as 

one of the most effective ways to figure out powerful a climate forcing agent the CO2 is, and a lot of the information we have on the 

climate sensitivity comes from those ice cores. 

Senator CARPER. Dr. Pachauri. 

Mr. PACHAURI. Senator, I would just like to mention that over 

the last 650,000 years, as Professor Field has mentioned, we have 

had remarkable stability in the concentration of carbon dioxide in 

the earth’s atmosphere. And I would also like to mention that 

about 125,000 years ago, when we had warming more or less at the 

same level that we are heading toward today, but that was for very 

different reasons, we had sea level rise of several meters. And I 

think that is the kind of thing that we might be heading toward 

that has been brought out very clearly in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. 

Senator CARPER. Stay on sea level risk if we could for a little bit. 

Just by a show of hands, has anyone on our panel ever been to 

Delaware? Oh, good for you. A State not known for its mountains 

or hills. In fact, I kid people, and I say, I think in my State, the 

highest point of land in my State is a bridge. We have great beaches, though. And a lot of people do come to our beaches. 

We are told that, according to the IPCC, that if global temperature rises I think by about 2 degrees Celsius in the years to come, 

we are going to see a sea level rise of close to two feet. No, I think 

it is close to four feet, maybe four to five feet. My understanding 

is that this would not be a good thing for my State of Delaware. 

And I say with tongue in cheek that instead of people going to the 

beaches to swim or surf at Bethany or Rehoboth or Dewey Beach 

they would go to Dover Beach or Wilmington Beach or Newark 

Beach, and instead of going to NASCAR racing at Dover Downs, 

they would go there for sailboat regattas. 

I just want to ask, what you, setting aside those thoughts, but 

the threat of that kind of sea level rise, as much as three or four 

or five feet, with a rise in temperatures of maybe 2 degrees Celsius, 

what might that impact be for us on the East Coast? Even around 

here in Washington, DC? 

Mr. PACHAURI. Senator, even with a 2 degree increase in temperature, we have estimated that due to thermal expansion of the 

oceans alone, worldwide we would get sea level rise, and this is 

thermal expansion alone, of 0.4 to 1.4 meters. So let’s say you are 

somewhere in the middle of that range. We are talking about at 

least a two feet increase in sea level. 

And this is something that in a sense, the world has already 

been committed to, so we have to do something to bring about a 

reduction in that. And quite apart from the impacts on the U.S., 

may I say that there are several small island states that will be 

completely wiped out. The country of Bangladesh, which has over 

160 million people, will have no place to go, and several other regions of the world. 

But I will let Professor Field talk about that, if you permit. 

Senator CARPER. Yes, the East Coast, just talk about—I appreciate very much your mentioning the island states and Bangladesh. 

But the East Coast. 
194 

Mr. FIELD. The impacts of a modest sea level rise, and I hate to 

say modest, because two to four feet is big in terms of impacts, but 

even a small amount of sea level risk can have big impacts. A specific example, I will start with California and I will get to the East 

Coast in a minute. In the delta of the Sacramento River, we know 

that a one foot sea level rise is enough to change the once in a 100 

year flood to once every 10 years. That is what we really see. If you 

look at the damages from sea level that comes from the extremes, 

and what you see is even a small amount of sea level rise of a few 

inches, can make the extremes come dramatically more frequent. 

When you get up to two to four feet, you are seeing the once in a 

100 year flood come every year. 

The other thing that is really important in the eastern U.S. 

where there are big estuaries is that sea level increase in the one 

to two to three feet range can essentially eliminate all the estuaries, and especially important in urbanized areas where you have 

a squeeze between the developed zone and the open water, essentially the rising sea level just pushes the water right up to the sea 

walls or whatever the retaining structures are that each community has erected. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you both for those comments. 

Let me ask, one other question, and that is, well, let me go back 

to Drs. Ellen and Lonnie Thompson for a moment. If you were a 

critic of their research and you were trying to poke a hole in the 

work that they have done, how would you go about doing that? 

How could their work be discredited? Any ideas? 

Mr. PACHAURI. I am sorry, I didn’t quite get whose work you 

would—— 

Senator CARPER. The people I talked to at Ohio State University, 

Drs. Lonnie and Ellen Thompson. How would you go about discrediting their work if you were trying to poke holes in it? 

Mr. FIELD. Well, I am a great fan of their work, I would certainly 

never try to discredit it. And as in most areas of science, there are 

many teams that have drilled these ice cores. The Thompsons are 

the specialists in high altitude alpine ice cores. And the patterns 

that they see are in many cases very similar to the patterns that 

come from other teams that have drilled ice cores in Greenland and 

other teams that have drilled ice cores in Antarctica. You see a progression of the atmospheric CO2 varying between about 200 parts 

per million during the ice ages, about 280 during the interglacials. 

And I think that in all science, the whole idea is that it should be 

testable and repeatable. There are many groups that are out there 

doing the tests. I think that the overall body of information from 

the ice cores has stood the challenge of a great many tests already. 

Senator CARPER. All right, thank you. 

Last question I will ask, just a short one. I understand recent 

studies have shown that sulfur dioxide and black carbon may be 

global warming agents. And I just wonder, is the IPCC looking at 

these pollutants and their contributions to climate change? 

Mr. PACHAURI. Yes, as a matter of fact, we have looked at that, 

Senator, even in the Fourth Assessment Report. Undoubtedly this 

is a factor, but may I submit that this is something that really 

doesn’t have an impact uniformly across the globe. Because the extent of black carbon that you have is largely a localized phe-
195 

nomenon. Of course, it moves from one region to the other. But this 

is clearly a factor. It would have an impact, for instance, as has 

been found, on the monsoons in South Asia and in other parts of 

Asia. It certainly had an impact in China, to some extent. 

So it is a very localized phenomenon. And we are finding out 

more and more about this situation. 

Senator CARPER. Our thanks to each of you for joining us today 

and for your work and your testimony. Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

Well, to the panel, you have been very gracious with your time. 

I am very grateful to all of you for coming, all of you, including our 

dissenter, because I think we got somewhere today. I now see it 

clearly. If we decide that more and more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is fine and it was just great 50 million years ago, when 

there was three to four times as much, I mean, if we decide that, 

and we don’t mind that things changed dramatically for our people. 

I could tell you in California, this is important, that the preliminary analysis from our bill there addressing global warming is 

going to avoid 400 premature deaths, 11,000 incidences of asthma 

and lower respiratory symptoms and 67,000 lost work days by 

2020. That is something that is good. If we don’t do it, people are 

going to die. Simple. Straightforward. Going to get sick and they 

are going to die. 

Now, if you think going back to all those years ago and those levels and everything is wonderful and fine and that is your view of 

the future, God bless you. But I don’t agree. I will fight you ever 

step of the way. I view it as uncaring, I view it as irresponsible. 

If anything we need to do, it is to leave this planet in the condition 

as good as we got it from our parents. 

We are going to work at it in this Committee. We are going to 

have that choice between my colleagues who say, do nothing, the 

party of nope, versus do something, the party of hope. And in doing 

so, we are going to make our Country far more prosperous. I will 

tell you, this is a great issue for us in this Committee. 

And nothing good comes easy. It was hard for this Committee, 

long before we were here, to pass the Clean Water Act, the Safe 

Drinking Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Superfund 

Program, this Committee has an amazing, amazing record of stepping up to the plate. And we did it last year, we are going to do 

it this year. 

And we have been challenged by our President. I couldn’t be 

more proud of this Committee. And Senator Inhofe and I, you 

know, we kid a lot, but we really do have a fondness for each other. 

On this issue, it is like Dr. Happer and Dr. Pachauri. I mean, it 

is just, we are definitely coming from a very different place, and 

as we see today, a very different time. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. I didn’t really know it went back that far. But 

now, this is giving me new energy for this fight. 

So thank you to my Committee, both sides. Thank you to this illustrious panel. Maybe you didn’t feel like you were helping us, but 

you really did help us today, all of you. Thank you very, very much, 

and we stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:28 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 
196 

[Additional statement submitted for the record follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE CRAPO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO

Ms. Chairwoman, thank you for the opportunity to share a few words. Also, thank 

you to the witnesses for being here with us today to discuss the science of climate 

change. 

As a new member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, I am 

looking forward to robust and thorough discussions about the environmental challenges facing our Nation and our world. I am equally hopeful that we will fully explore all available solutions to some of the most pressing issues of our day such as: 

ending our Nation’s foreign dependence on oil, achieving energy security and finding 

ways to promote clean energy. Solutions to these issues will make our Nation safer, 

stronger, and provide a cleaner world for our children and grandchildren. 

The best way to promote the goals of a clean, healthy environment is through a 

framework of incentives for clean energy production. Incentives for wind and solar 

are important, but a realistic goal for the advancement of clean energy must include 

incentives for nuclear energy production, carbon capture and sequestration, geothermal and hydropower. 

In this time of economic turmoil, we need to find a way to promote clean energy 

faster and cheaper, and I am concerned about the costs of past proposals before this 

Committee. 

For example, the Environmental Protection Agency estimated that S. 3036, the 

Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act would cost $6.7 trillion to implement. Yet, 

the National Association of Manufacturers estimated that this legislation would cost 

our economy 3–4 million jobs. Passage of this type of legislation would absolutely 

negate the predicted benefits of the Stimulus package, which President Obama has 

stated will ‘‘save or create’’ 3.5 million jobs. Therefore we should proceed very cautiously—carefully analyzing the implications of all climate proposals before this 

Committee. 

Since 2001, the United States has spent over $35 billion on global climate change 

initiatives, more than all other countries combined. This money has been spent on 

investments in clean technologies, international partnerships, and clean technology 

usage. We are also beginning to see the fruits of our legislative labor as the Energy 

Policy Acts of 2005 and 2007 begin to take effect and make a real difference to the 

Nation’s domestic energy portfolio. 

Today, there are 17 companies and consortia pursuing licenses for 26 new nuclear 

reactors, representing an investment of approximately $80 billion to $100 billion 

and the creation of thousands of jobs. Plans are in place to build cellulosic ethanol 

plants using loan guarantees and incentives from the 2005 and 2007 Energy Bills, 

and there has been a significant investment in renewable power sources. 

To ensure that we transition to clean energy at the lowest cost to the consumer, 

we could take steps to create a Clean Electricity Standard that rewards a broad 

array of advanced clean sources, like: nuclear power, clean coal, hydro-power, efficiency, and renewable sources. We can also focus on improving management of our 

Nation’s forests, allowing the forests to double the current amount of sequestered 

carbon. 

These approaches will ensure American energy independence, create jobs, and 

grow the U.S. economy. This will also provide a roadmap for others to follow, sharing the best economic and environmental solutions for the U.S. with developing nations around the world. 

Æ