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

25–111 PDF 2017

S. HRG. 112–975 

UPDATE ON THE LATEST CLIMATE CHANGE 

SCIENCE AND LOCAL ADAPTATION MEASURES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

AUGUST 1, 2012 

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

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

BETTINA POIRIER, Majority Staff Director 

RUTH VAN MARK, Minority Staff Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

AUGUST 1, 2012 

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 

Sanders, Hon. Bernard, U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont ....................... 76 

Sessions, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama ............................. 77 

Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland ................ 84 

Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey ........... 86 

Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island ......... 88 

WITNESSES 

Field, Christopher B., Ph.D., Founding Director, Carnegie Institution of 

Washington’s Department of Global Ecology, Professor of Biology and Environmental Earth Science, Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, Senior Fellow, Stanford University ............................................................. 93 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 96 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Boxer ................................ 103 

Christy, John R., Ph.D., Distinguished Professor, Director of the Earth System Science Center, Department of Atmospheric Science, University of Alabama in Huntsville .............................................................................................. 106 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 109 

McCarthy, James J., Ph.D., Alexander Agassiz Professor of Biological Oceanography, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University ..................... 131 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 134 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Boxer ................................ 172 

Griffin, John B., Secretary, Maryland Department of Natural Resources ......... 217 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 219 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Boxer ................................ 225 

Fielding, Jonathan, M.D., MPH, MBA, Director, Los Angeles County Department of Public Health, National Association of County and City Health 

Officials ................................................................................................................. 233 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 235 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Boxer ................................ 240 

Thorning, Margo, Ph.D., Senior Vice President and Chief Economist, American Council for Capital Formation .................................................................... 243 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 245 

(1) 

UPDATE ON THE LATEST CLIMATE CHANGE 

SCIENCE AND LOCAL ADAPTATION MEASURES 

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 1, 2012 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in room 406, 

Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Barbara Boxer (Chairman of 

the Committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Boxer, Inhofe, Lautenberg, Cardin, Whitehouse, Udall, Merkley, Sessions, Crapo, and Boozman. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator BOXER. Good morning, everybody. I want to welcome my 

colleagues, and I want to welcome our distinguished panel. Everyone will have an opening statement. We will be 5 minutes, and we 

will try to stick to it. Go a little bit over, that is fine. 

Colleagues, climate change is real. Human activities are the primary cause, and the warming planet poses a significant risk to people and the environment. I believe to declare otherwise is putting 

the American people in direct danger. The body of evidence is overwhelming. The world’s leading scientists agree. And predictions of 

climate change impacts are coming true before our eyes. 

The purpose of this hearing is to share with the Committee the 

mountain of scientific evidence that has increased substantially 

over time, time that I believe we should have used to reduce carbon 

pollution, the main cause of climate change. 

In 2011 the National Academy of Sciences released the Final Climate Report. It concluded: ‘‘Climate change is occurring. It is 

caused largely by human activities. It poses significant risks for a 

broad range of human and natural systems, and the preponderance 

of evidence points to human activities as the most likely cause for 

most of the global warming that has occurred over the last 50 

years.’’ 

Even some former climate deniers now see the light. Just this 

past weekend, Professor Richard Muller, a self-proclaimed climate 

skeptic, wrote the following in the New York Times: ‘‘Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I 

concluded that global warming was real, and the prior estimates of 

the rate of warming were correct. I am now going a step further. 

Humans are almost entirely the cause.’’ 

2 

Claims by the remaining skeptics are overcome with an examination of the facts. At the first hearing of this Committee when I became Chairman on January 30, 2007, I invited all Senators to give 

their views on climate change, all Senators in the U.S. Senate. 

More than one-third of the Senate spoke out. We put together a 

book. Do we have that book here? Yes. And this is the way the 

book looked, and it included the voices of the Senate, colleagues 

from all different political persuasions. 

At that time, Senator McCain wrote we are no longer talking 

about how climate change will affect our children’s lives as we did 

a few years ago. We are talking about how it already is impacting 

the world. Drought, declining snow packs, forest fires, melting ice 

caps, species dislocation, habitat loss, and extreme weather events 

all are examples of how climate change is impacting us. We need 

to act to mitigate and adapt to these devastating events. I believe 

he was right then. 

Senator Snowe said Arctic glaciers and polar ice caps millions of 

years old are melting; sea levels are rising. Our own Federal agency, NOAA, reported that 2006 was the warmest year since regular 

temperature records began in 1895, and the past 9 years have been 

the warmest on record. And she was right then. 

Now, more than 5 years later, we continue to see evidence that 

the climate is changing around us through trends in extreme 

weather. And we simply cannot afford to ignore the warnings. And 

we have some charts I would like to show. 

The first chart shows a wildfire in Bastrop, Texas, that destroyed 

1,500 homes in 2011. Chart 2 shows a man in what used to be his 

home in that area. There is nothing left. Chart 3 is a headline from 

The Guardian in the United Kingdom, Deadly Heat Waves Will Be 

More Frequent in Coming Decades Say Scientists. Mega-heat 

waves like the one estimated to have killed tens of thousands in 

Western Europe in 2002 will become up to 10 times more likely 

over the next 4 years, a study suggests. 

There are many examples of how the climate is continuing to 

change around us. NOAA reported in June that the previous 12 

months had been the warmest 12-month period the nation has experienced since recordkeeping began in 1895. Many cities set alltime temperature records during the month of June. Over 170 alltime warm temperature records were broken or tied. 

As of July 3rd, 56 percent of the U.S. experienced moderate to 

exceptional drought conditions. Scientists at NOAA have confirmed 

the record breaking Texas drought was strongly influenced by climate change. 

NASA reported last month that an iceberg twice the size of Manhattan—you could see the size of that iceberg—broke off of Greenland, a phenomenon that is expected to be repeated as the climate 

continues to warm. Scientists have also linked warming of the 

oceans to the emergence of a group of bacteria in the Baltic Sea 

in Northern Europe. These recent event make it clear that the climate continues to change, and the likelihood of extreme events is 

growing greater which puts our nation, and puts our people, at 

risk. 

In 2008 Congress blocked action. We needed six more votes to 

take action on climate change. But Congress blocked action, and we 

3 

have lost valuable time. But progress has been made. The Obama 

administration deserves credit for moving forward with measures 

to reduce pollution and improve the nation’s energy efficiency. New 

automobile efficiency will reduce carbon pollution by over 6 billion 

tons while saving consumers $1.7 trillion in fuel costs. 

The GSA has reduced energy consumption by 20 percent over 

2003 levels. By 2020 the GSA expects to increase its renewable energy production and procurement to 30 percent of annual energy 

consumption. 

According to the Brookings Institution, in 2010 2.7 million workers were employed at more than 40,000 companies across the nation in the clean energy sector. And bipartisan proposals, such as 

the Bennet-Isakson SAVE Act which would reduce barriers to home 

energy efficiency improvements, offer ways to reduce harmful carbon pollution. 

So, colleagues, we cannot turn away from the mountain of evidence that climate change has already started to impact the planet 

and will only grow worse without action. Leading scientists who 

are testifying today on the latest science will reinforce that point. 

Taking action to address this serious problem will benefit us, will 

benefit us and future generations, will actually reduce energy costs 

in the long-term for our people, make us energy independent, and 

create millions of jobs. 

So, I look forward to hearing from the witnesses. But before we 

do that, we will hear from colleagues. And this is one that is a little 

bit different than a highway bill. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. You may see a few disagreements on this panel. 

With that I would call on my friend, Senator Inhofe, for his statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

In a way it should not be any different from the highway bill. We 

just have different beliefs, different ideas, and that is what this is 

all about today. 

Senator BOXER. Yes. 

Senator INHOFE. And so, this seems like the good old days. We 

used to have these hearings all the time. It has been, what, since 

February 2009, I think, since we had one of these on the science. 

So I am glad we are back to doing it now. 

Back then we heard promises from the Obama administration of 

the clean energy revolution with green jobs and propped up by billions of taxpayer dollars going to companies like Solyndra. What 

came of all those promises? The global warming movement has 

completed collapsed, and the cap and trade is dead and gone. 

I suspect a look back over the past 3 years will be a little painful 

for some. In 2009 the Democratic President, overwhelming majority 

in the House and the Senate, the majorities, the global warming 

alarmists were on top of the world. They thought they would reach 

their goal and have an international agreement. All of that was 

there. I mean, why not? We had a Democrat President, Democrat 

majorities in the House and the Senate. 

4 

It did not happen. Of course, what drove the collapse of the global warming movement was the science of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It was finally exposed, I 

had been exposing it for some time, but it actually was exposed 

when Climategate came. 

And here is something interesting. I am going to read this into 

the record. These are publications that were on the alarmist side 

of this issue. And yet the change that took place, the New York 

Times editorial, ‘‘Given the stakes, the IPCC cannot allow more 

missteps, and at the very least, must tighten its procedures and 

make its deliberations more transparent.’’ The panel’s chairman, 

again, quoting from the editorial, is under fire for taking consulting 

fees from business interests. 

The Washington Post: ‘‘Recent revelations about the flaws in that 

seminal IPCC report ranging from typos in key dates to sloppy 

resourcing are undermining confidence not only in the panel’s 

work, but also in the projections about climate change.’’ Newsweek, 

some of the IPCC’s most quoted data in recommendations were 

taken straight out of unchecked activist brochures and newspaper 

articles. The U.K. Daily Telegraph on Climategate, Climategate is 

the worst scientific scandal of our generation. 

This is the science on which all of these things have been based. 

Now, how unpopular is the global warming movement now? The 

Washington Post recently published a poll revealing that Americans no longer worry about global warming, and one of the reasons 

is that they do not trust the scientists and their motives. 

The IPCC has even lost trust in the left. Andrew Revkin of the 

New York Times—he was one that was always on that side—recently called for the IPCC Chair, Pachauri, to make a choice between global warming activism and leading the IPCC. They are 

also saying similar things about global warming alarmist James 

Hansen. As David Roberts of Grist acknowledged, Hansen has become, quoting now, so politicized that people tend to dismiss him. 

Just one look at this Committee and we can see how bad things 

have gotten for the alarmists. Today, there are no Federal witnesses here to testify, as was called out in an article this morning, 

I think it was in Politico. President Obama himself never dares 

mention global warming. He will not say the term. And some of the 

left have noticed that Bill McKibben recently criticized the President for not attending the Rio∂20 and acknowledged that 20 years 

ago George Bush did attend. And Obama did not even attend. 

It has got to be very hard for my friends on the left to watch the 

President who promised he would slow the rise of oceans posing in 

front of pipelines in my home State of Oklahoma pretending to like 

oil and gas. I imagine they are trying to keep quiet because they 

know that President Obama is still moving forward with his global 

warming agenda. They just do not want the American people to 

know it. 

Now, what the American people do not know, President Obama 

is doing, through his bureaucracy, what he could not do legislatively. And we have already identified $68.4 billion that has been 

spent on his global warming agenda. And people are not even 

aware of it. He did it without any authorization from Congress. 

5 

Today, we should have a fascinating debate. I want to thank Climatologist Dr. John Christy for appearing before the Committee to 

provide his insights. I am also looking forward to testimony from 

Margo Thorning, as we have heard from her before, and it will be 

very good. 

Let me just—we have been through this now for the past 3 and 

a half years, and the results are clear. President Obama’s green energy agenda has been a disaster. The time has come to put these 

tired, failed policies to rest and embrace the United States’ energy 

boom so that we can put Americans back to work, turn this economy around, become totally energy independent from the Middle 

East, and ensure energy security for the years to come. 

I really believe this. We, just in the last couple of years—no one 

is going to deny the fact that we have more recoverable reserves 

in coal, oil, and gas than any other country. We could be totally 

independent. And those who say we have got to have green energy 

to become independent from the Middle East, we can do that now, 

just doing what every other country in the world does, and that is 

develop our own resources. 

And while I made the comment about the President not saying 

the words global warming, let me compliment one of my fellow Senators. Senator Sanders had read my book and was down on the 

floor on Monday and I happened, when I got off the plane and 

came in, there are people like Senator Sanders, in his heart, he believes everything that he says. There is no hypocrisy in him. And 

you see a lot of that in Washington. 

But you do not see as much of the people who sincerely are willing to fight for the things that they believe in, as is Senator Sanders. I said this on the Senate floor. And I say it again. And I know 

he believes everything that he says. He knows that I believe, in my 

heart, everything that I say. 

So, I was talking to Senator Cardin on the elevator coming up 

here, and we both said, is that not what the Senate is supposed to 

do? All of us represent different people, different philosophies, say 

what we really believe. And I think that is a healthy thing. 

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

I must say it feels like we’re back to the good old days. It may be hard to believe, 

but it was in February 2009, during the height of the global warming alarmist 

movement, that this Committee last held a hearing on global warming science. Back 

then we heard promises from the Obama administration of a clean energy revolution with green jobs propped up by billions in taxpayer dollars to companies like 

Solyndra. 

What came of all those promises? The global warming movement has completely 

collapsed, and cap and trade is dead and gone. 

I suspect a look back over the past 3 years will be a little painful for my friends 

on the other side. In 2009, with a Democratic President and overwhelming Democratic majorities in the House and the Senate, global warming alarmists were on 

top of the world—they thought they would finally reach their goal of an international agreement that would eliminate fossil fuels. Yet the Waxman-Markey cap 

and trade bill didn’t happen. 

Of course, what drove the collapse of the global warming movement was that the 

science of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 

was finally exposed. For years I had warned that the United Nations was a political 

body, not a scientific body—and finally the mainstream media took notice: 

6 

New York Times editorial: ‘‘Given the stakes, the IPCC cannot allow more 

missteps and, at the very least, must tighten procedures and make its deliberations 

more transparent. The panel’s chairman . . . is under fire for taking consulting fees 

from business interests . . . ’’ (February 17, 2010) 

The Washington Post: ‘‘Recent revelations about flaws in that seminal IPCC report, ranging from typos in key dates to sloppy sourcing, are undermining confidence not only in the panel’s work but also in projections about climate change.’’ 

Newsweek: ‘‘Some of the IPCC’s most-quoted data and recommendations were 

taken straight out of unchecked activist brochures, newspaper articles . . . ’’ 

UK Daily Telegraph on Climategate: ‘‘The worst scientific scandal of our generation.’’ 

Just how unpopular is the global warming movement now? The Washington Post 

recently published a poll revealing that Americans no longer worry about global 

warming, and one of the reasons is because they don’t trust the scientists’ motivations. 

The IPCC has even lost the trust of the left. Andrew Revkin of the New York 

Times recently called for IPCC chair Pachauri to make a choice between global 

warming activism and leading the IPCC. They are also saying similar things about 

global warming alarmist James Hansen. As David Roberts of Grist acknowledged, 

Hansen has ‘‘become so politicized that people tend to dismiss him.’’ 

Just one look at this Committee and we can see how bad things have gotten for 

the alarmists: today there are no Federal witnesses here to testify about the grave 

dangers of global warming. President Obama himself never dares to mention global 

warming, and some on the left have noticed: Bill McKibben recently criticized the 

President for not attending the Rio ∂ 20 sustainability conference, noting that, ‘‘Unlike George H.W. Bush, who flew in for the first conclave, Barack Obama didn’t 

even attend.’’ 

It must be very hard for my friends on the left to watch the President who promised he would slow the rise of the oceans posing in front of pipelines in my home 

State of Oklahoma pretending to support oil and gas. 

I imagine they are trying to keep quiet because they know President Obama is 

still moving forward with his global warming agenda—he just doesn’t want the 

American people to know about it. 

Now what the American people don’t know: President Obama is doing through his 

bureaucracy what he couldn’t do legislatively. He is spending billions of taxpayer 

dollars on his global warming agenda. We’ve already identified $68 billion. 

Today we should have a fascinating debate. I want to thank climatologist Dr. 

John Christy for appearing before the Committee to provide his insights. I am also 

looking forward to the testimony of Dr. Margo Thorning, a noted economist who will 

discuss the economic pain of the Obama EPA’s current regulations. 

We’ve been through this now for the past 3 and a half years, and the results are 

clear: President Obama’s green energy agenda has been a disaster. The time has 

come to put these tired, failed policies to rest and embrace the U.S. energy boom 

so that we can put Americans back to work, turn this economy around, become totally energy independent from the Middle East, and ensure energy security for years 

to come. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much, Senator. 

I want to clear two things up. I did not ask for any witnesses 

from the Administration. I wanted outside scientific voices because 

I did not want to see this turn into an attack on the Obama administration. Clearly, clearly, it is still is turning into that, but that 

is OK. I did not want to have a witness become the face of the 

Obama administration because they have done a lot on this. 

And I want to put in the record what I talked to before. Because 

you heard my colleague say, no jobs, nothing further. Let me just 

say something here. We are going to put in the record the report 

from the Brookings Institution. They said the clean economy which 

employs some 2.7 million encompasses a significant number of jobs 

in establishments spread across a diverse group of industries. 

Though modest in size, the clean economy employs more workers 

than the fossil fuel industry. 

7 

So, let us just get this straight. Yes, the Obama administration 

has taken some steps. And yes, we have seen job creation. We will 

put that in the record. 

And we will call on Senator Sanders. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

8 


25111.001
9 


25111.002
10 


25111.003
11 


25111.004
12 


25111.005
13 


25111.006
14 


25111.007
15 


25111.008
16 


25111.009
17 


25111.010
18 


25111.011
19 


25111.012
20 


25111.013
21 


25111.014
22 


25111.015
23 


25111.016
24 


25111.017
25 


25111.018
26 


25111.019
27 


25111.020
28 


25111.021
29 


25111.022
30 


25111.023
31 


25111.024
32 


25111.025
33 


25111.026
34 


25111.027
35 


25111.028
36 


25111.029
37 


25111.030
38 


25111.031
39 


25111.032
40 


25111.033
41 


25111.034
42 


25111.035
43 


25111.036
44 


25111.037
45 


25111.038
46 


25111.039
47 


25111.040
48 


25111.041
49 


25111.042
50 


25111.043
51 


25111.044
52 


25111.045
53 


25111.046
54 


25111.047
55 


25111.048
56 


25111.049
57 


25111.050
58 


25111.051
59 


25111.052
60 


25111.053
61 


25111.054
62 


25111.055
63 


25111.056
64 


25111.057
65 


25111.058
66 


25111.059
67 


25111.060
68 


25111.061
69 


25111.062
70 


25111.063
71 


25111.064
72 


25111.065
73 


25111.066
74 


25111.067
75 


25111.068
76 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BERNARD SANDERS, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT 

Senator SANDERS. Madam Chair, thanks very much for holding 

this important hearing. 

Let me begin by concurring with my friend—and he is my 

friend—Jim Inhofe. Senator Inhofe and I were on the floor the 

other day. We have very strong political and philosophical differences. On occasion we agree, on transportation and infrastructure. But certainly on the issue of global warming we have profound disagreements. 

Do I have any doubt that Senator Inhofe is sincere and honest 

about what he believes? I have no doubt about it. And I think he 

and I are also in agreement that having honest, straightforward 

debates on this issue is good for the Senate and good for the people 

of the United States of America. 

I may be wrong on this, but I think Senator Inhofe, in many 

ways, is the leader of the Republicans on the issue of global warming. And I am going to challenge—I think Senator Inhofe’s positions are extreme, I think they are dead wrong, and I am curious 

to see how many of our Republican friends agree with Senator 

Inhofe. And that is kind of going to be the thrust of the work that 

I am going to be doing in the near future. 

Let me begin by saying that I certainly agree with approximately 

98 percent of active publishing climate scientists according to the 

National Academy of Sciences that global warming is real and that 

global warming is significantly driven by human activity. I think 

the broad consensus—not everyone, to be sure, and I think we may 

have a scientist here today who disagrees—but I think the overwhelming majority of peer reviewed scientists who write on this 

issue believe A, global warming is real, and B, global warming is 

significantly caused by human activity. 

In my view, as Americans, as part of the greatest country on 

Earth, we have a moral responsibility and an economic responsibility to lead the world in cutting greenhouse gas emissions and 

transforming our energy system to energy efficiency and sustainable energies such as solar, wind, geothermal, and biomass. 

Senator Inhofe often makes a point, which is valid, which is the 

United States cannot do it alone. If we did it tomorrow, what about 

China, what about India, what about Brazil? He is right. But if we 

do move forward with our technology, with our expertise, we could 

create jobs in this country, not only transforming our own energy 

system but leading other nations away from fossil fuel to energy efficiency and sustainable energies. 

Now, we have heard a lot, and we have heard it from Senator 

Inhofe again today, about the economic implications of transforming our energy system. And I wanted to pick up on the point 

that Senator Boxer has made. 

Studies done—there have been a whole bunch of studies done by 

economic groups, but there was one by the McKinsey consulting 

firm in 2009, and also the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy in 2010, confirming that we can meet our 2020 target of reducing emissions 17 percent from 2005 levels through cost 

effective energy efficiency alone. 

77 

Now, I come from a cold weather State. Senator Inhofe comes 

from a warm State. They use a lot of air conditioning there, I suspect. We use a lot of oil in our State. I can tell you firsthand because we are moving fairly aggressively in Vermont. Not as fast as 

we should. But we have seen, through weatherization projects, people saving substantial sums of money on their fuel bills, 20, 30, 40 

percent, through retrofitting their own homes. And when you do 

that, you are cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 20, 30, 40 percent. 

In Vermont, we have made a good start. We have a long way to 

go, and we are leading the country. If we do that, we can make 

huge cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. And you know what else 

we do? We are going to create jobs in the process of doing that. 

A White House Middle Class Task Force report found that we 

can save up to 40 percent of the energy being used in our homes 

and our buildings with existing technology. In Vermont, we have 

weatherized 15,000 homes over the last 10 years, saving the average household over $900 a year on fuel bills. That is a lot of money 

for a middle class person. 

Madam Chair, it is beyond comprehension to me that in the year 

2012 we are still giving huge subsidies to fossil fuels, a 19th century technology. And when we hear about so-called Solyndra and 

other problems, please understand that in a 10-year period we are 

providing—the Federal Government is providing—over $113 billion 

to coal, oil, and gas. A 10-year period, over $113 billion. Meanwhile, 

here in the Senate we face opposition to continuing modest incentives—modest incentives—for solar and wind like the Production 

Tax Credit or the 1603 Grant Program. 

So, it is time to get our act together. I have got to say this. I 

think, and maybe Senator Inhofe will agree with me on this issue. 

The whole world is debating global warming. I think most people 

would agree with the position that many of us, on this side, are 

taking. Some will agree with what Senator Inhofe is saying. But 

I think, and Senator Inhofe is right on this issue, we need—we cannot run away from this issue. We have got to put it front and center. We need debates. 

I thank Senator Boxer for this hearing today. And I hope we will 

continue this discussion in this Committee and on the floor of the 

Senate. 

With that, I would yield. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

Senator Sessions. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF SESSIONS, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you. 

Well, let me say with regard to Senator Inhofe, I came here, was 

on this Committee for the first 2 years in the Senate 15 years ago, 

and I believe that actual fact, empirical data, since that day has 

validated Senator Inhofe’s skepticism and has demonstrated the incorrectness of the computer modeling that the global warming 

alarmists have produced. 

Now, that is fact. That is science. And we are going to talk about 

that today. And if that is so, the question for the American policyVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:25 Aug 07, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\25111.TXT SONYA
78 

makers is how much can we demand this economy pay to meet and 

confront a fear that is not being proven by empirical data? So, that 

is the question. 

President Obama is engaged in a systematic drive to promote the 

global warming agenda, and in fact said electricity prices will necessarily skyrocket. So, this is a big issue. We are making this decision right now, and it will be part of the next election, I suppose. 

Let us look at this question that has been discussed a lot lately 

about storms and temperature extremes and how this is a product 

of global warming. The data does not show that. This is a chart 

that I hope all of my colleagues will look at. It shows, from NOAA’s 

data, when the record high and record low temperatures for each 

State were set. The largest number of record highs was set in the 

1930s, by far. Twenty-five out of 50 States set their record highs 

in the 1920s or 1930s. You look at this chart from 1960 through 

today. Every decade they have had more record cold temperatures 

than record high temperatures. 

Now, I do not know whether that is conclusive evidence about 

anything. But it does suggest we are not having more extremes, either highs or lows, now than before. But to the extent States have 

set record temperatures recently, more of them have been record 

lows than record highs. And Senator Inhofe, you had a record ¥31 

degrees in Oklahoma recently. That is a dramatic thing. We have 

to look at what is happening. 

Now, this is not what the models have said. The computer models say that if CO2 goes up, temperature will go up. And these are 

the IPCC scientists, Nobel Prize winners and so forth. That is what 

they are predicting. 

Now, look at this chart. When I came to the Senate, Dr. Christy 

testified before this Committee, Dr. Lindzen at Harvard, the scientists at MIT, they express skepticism. But the overwhelming 

group of scientists says the computer models show that we are 

going to have dramatic changes in our temperature. 

This chart reflects the latest computer models, not the ones earlier which were even more extreme. These are the latest computer 

models. The black line shows what the computer modeling predicted that temperatures would be. These two lower lines, based on 

satellite data and temperature, show that from about the time that 

I came to the Senate in 1997, the temperature has basically stayed 

flat. 

Yes, it has increased from 1975, from 1980, to 2010, .2 of 1 degree. Now, you do that over 100 years, that is about .6 of 1 degree 

if that trend were to follow. But in the last 10 years, we have seen 

virtually no change in the temperature. This is from empirical 

data, what is really happening. 

So, I guess I am saying, Madam Chairman, we have got to be 

careful not to ask the American people to bear an immense economic burden to try to defeat a computer modeling that is not coming out to be correct. And we know, throughout history, that temperature has been up and down—— 

Senator SANDERS. Would the Senator yield for 1 second? 

Senator SESSIONS. Yes. 

79 

Senator SANDERS. Did you just say, I just wanted to clear the 

record, that in the last decade we have seen no change in the temperature? Is that what you just said? 

Senator SESSIONS. I say that the empirical data, and Dr. Christy 

will explain that these are not his numbers, but they are the numbers that have been published, show that the temperature is basically the same. 

Senator SANDERS. In the last decade? 

Senator SESSIONS. Yes. 

Senator SANDERS. OK. Thank you. 

Senator SESSIONS. Yes, that is the chart. And so, we have heard 

a lot of spin the other way. I think it is time for the nation to discuss it. If those numbers are wrong, Senator Sanders, so be it. We 

would have to confront that issue. But I do not think they are 

wrong. I think they are correct. And that means that we need to 

be careful about what price we expect the American people to pay 

to meet the visions of people who are not being proven correct by 

reality. 

Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Senator, may I just say, and we will put in the 

record an article that talks about credibility in climate change. 

Ninety-seven to 98 percent of the scientists do not agree with the 

1 to 2 percent that you are citing. It is fine. There are still probably 

1 to 2 percent of scientists who do not believe that lung cancer is 

associated with smoking—— 

Senator SESSIONS. Madam Chairman, I am offended by that. 

Senator BOXER. Please do not be—— 

Senator SESSIONS. I am offended. I did not say anything about 

the scientists. I said the data shows it is not warming to the degree 

that a lot of people predicted, not close to that much. And you are 

asking us to have unprecedented high electricity prices in order to 

avoid a danger that is not as real as it appears, it seems to me. 

So we will have a hearing. If I am wrong, I will acknowledge it. 

But I do not think so. 

Senator BOXER. Yes. And I am going to ask the scientists about 

the data that you have used. All I was pointing out is that the conclusion you are coming to is shared by 1 to 2 percent of the scientists. You should not be offended at that. That is the fact. 

Senator SESSIONS. I do not believe that is correct, Madam. 

Senator INHOFE. I have to chime in here because I have not had 

a chance, Madam Chairman, to get my—— 

Senator BOXER. Go right ahead. And then we will return and go 

to Senator Cardin. 

Senator INHOFE. When we had our, I thought, very enjoyable 

joint effort on the floor between Senator Sanders and myself on 

Monday, one of the things that came up about the NAS, the National Academy of Sciences, I do not think we should let it go beyond our recognition that there is a lot of criticism of the NAS and 

their motives. 

Let us keep in mind that the NAS issued a report of the coming 

ice age in 1975. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has turned 

itself into—I am quoting now from Seth Bornstein, which was on 

the other side of this issue—turned itself into an advocacy group 

on policy promotion. 

80 

I only want to say I disagree with you when you say 1 or 2 percent. I have on my Web site over 1,000 names, and I think it is 

kind of interesting when you come up with someone who was a 

skeptic and became an alarmist, that is one out of maybe 1,000 as 

I mentioned on the floor. So, there is a lot of, the science is clearly 

divided out in the real world, and that is what this hearing is all 

about. 

Senator BOXER. OK. All right. 

Senator SESSIONS. And Madam Chairman—— 

Senator BOXER. Yes, go right ahead. 

Senator SESSIONS. I would acknowledge that we may well have 

some warming, and it may well be human caused. The disagreement that I am concerned about is how much we can affect it, how 

much we can afford to spend to alter it, and I am skeptical of the 

proposal that we have seen. 

Senator SANDERS. Would my friend yield? 

Senator BOXER. Just one moment. I am going to try to gain some 

kind of traction here, and then we will, all I am going to do now, 

instead of getting a debate going, is put into the record, this is 

something we have not done in a while. It is kind of exciting. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator INHOFE. Yes, the highway bill got kind of boring there. 

It really did. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. Yes, we agreed on everything there, which is 

very unusual. 

I am going to put into the record, and I hope Senator Sessions 

that you will look at this, it is a paper by the journal, it is the National Academy of Sciences. It is our people. And basically, I do not 

want to get into another argument with you, but they used the figure 97 to 98 percent of climate researchers agreed with the fact 

that this is occurring now. 

So, I am just, you can read this. You may not agree with the—— 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, that would be 3 percent. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. All right. All right. We will put this on the 

record. Thank you. 

Senator Cardin, thank you for your patience. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

81 


25111.069
82 


25111.070
83 


25111.071
84 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND 

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

you for calling this hearing on an update of the latest climate 

change science, and listening to our witnesses, and local adaptation 

measures, which I really do think is critically important. 

I would make just an observation on some of the discussion that 

has already taken place by my colleagues. When we talk about 

averages, it can be misleading. One of the consequences of climate 

change is extreme weather conditions. You can have a drought in 

one part of the country and a flood in another part of the country, 

and the equal averages. But the consequences to the people of this 

nation are severe when we have these extreme weathers. 

And Senator Sessions, you mentioned the cost of adaptation, the 

cost of dealing with these issues. Those who have survived the 

wildfires have endured a real cost. And those who tried to deal 

without electricity for over a week in 100 degree weather suffered 

significant economic losses. 

So, I think we have to recognize that extreme weather conditions 

have a real burden and cost on our society. Those of us who are 

trying to deal with living on a coast and seeing the rising sea level, 

wondering how we are going to protect our critical assets, which 

may be just a homeowner’s property, or it may be the Government’s Naval Academy, are worried about what the effects of climate change are going to be on the coasts to our country. So, I do 

think we have to keep this in balance as to the cost to our society. 

Climate change is upon us. It is real. This year the United States 

has seen an increased number of major, deadly storms that are 

devastating to our communities. We have seen major wildfires, not 

only in the West but also in the Plains States. We are experiencing 

a drought that is right now affecting 60 percent of the country and 

is predicted to cause food prices to rise. 

The time to act is now, to harden our infrastructure against extreme heat, to strengthen our electric grid, and to prepare our public health infrastructure to protect our coastal zones and low lying 

areas. 

Today we will hear not only from scientists who will explain to 

us the data showing how climate is changing, but we will hear 

from a second panel of policymakers and experts who will tell us 

the efforts we need to take and projects that are currently underway. 

Unfortunately, we are already seeing these problems happening. 

Just last month, Washington, DC, hit 95 degrees or higher for the 

11th straight day, the longest consecutive streak on record. This 

streak coincided with a devastating multi-day power outage that 

crippled the Washington area. In my home State of Maryland, hundreds of thousands of folks were without power for days and were 

forced to contend with extreme heat without air conditioning. 

The extreme weather that Marylanders had to deal with this 

year is just a continuation of the weather emergencies that folks 

across the country were faced with last year. The administrator of 

NOAA wrote that last year, and I quote, 14 extreme weather related events caused an incalculable loss of human life and cost the 

U.S. economy more than $55 billion. 

85 

The extreme weather of 2011 has continued into this year, not 

only with strong storms and intense heat but with dangerous and 

deadly wildfire seasons in the American West. A brutal heat wave 

in late June fueled the Wild Oak Canyon fire just outside of Colorado Springs. This fire forced the evacuation of more than 32,000 

residents and engulfed almost 350 homes, almost forced the evacuation of the United States Air Force Academy, and tragically killed 

two people. 

Madam Chair, these extreme weather events and increased temperatures are not theoretical. They are happening to us right now. 

And when those of us in this hearing room leave this building 

today, we will be walking into one of the worst sustained heat 

waves on record for this area. 

These extremes are the new normal, and they are affecting our 

nation’s infrastructure, our environment, and our public health and 

safety. It is time we get serious about adapting our infrastructure 

and systems to these new realities. From our transportation infrastructure to our water systems to public utilities, major systems 

are being negatively impacted by heat and storms. 

Last month at Washington Reagan National Airport, a U.S. Airways regional jet became stuck in the tarmac when temperatures 

over 100 degrees melted the asphalt. There was a DC train derailed just down the road last month after tracks buckled in the extreme heat. The extreme Derecho storm system that devastated the 

Maryland, Virginia, and DC area last month left thousands and 

thousands of people without power for a week during severe heat. 

This is a public health issue, a public safety issue. We lost lives. 

As a result, Governor O’Malley has ordered a special task force to 

specifically examine solutions for adapting its utility infrastructure 

to extreme heat and major storms. 

Our water infrastructure already is in desperate need of repair. 

EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson told Congress that adapting to 

changing hydrological conditions caused by climate change is a significant issue that water systems must act to address. These 

hydrological changes will likely result in too little water in some 

places, too much water in other places, and degraded water quality 

in other areas across the country. According to that study of the 

National Association of Clean Water Agencies, the costs of dealing 

with these new realities will approach $1 trillion through 2050. 

I am the sponsor of a bill, the Water Infrastructure Resiliency 

and Sustainability Act, to equip our communities to adapt their 

water systems to these changing conditions, and I thank the Chair 

for being a co-sponsor on that legislation. 

Madam Chair, I believe that we have a responsibility. I have a 

responsibility in Maryland, to the people in this country, to do all 

I can to prepare us for the consequences of climate change. We 

need to adopt our water infrastructure, our transportation infrastructure, and our electrical grid. We need to help farmers to adapt 

so that our food supply in the world remains reliable. 

We need to adapt our coastal regions to prepare for sea level rise 

that is already beginning to threaten some of our coastal communities. We need to improve our public health infrastructure to deal 

with the heat related illnesses that result from these extreme temperatures. In short, we need to act now to protect our communities. 

86 

I look forward to the witnesses to give us help and direction of 

what we can do to help prepare our nation. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. Senator Lautenberg, then followed by Senator 

Whitehouse, unless a Republican comes back. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thanks very much, Madam Chairman, for 

daring to walk into this bonfire of reality. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator LAUTENBERG. I find it quite incredible that we are still 

raising the question about whether global warming is a real problem. 

In 2003, in this very room, we heard that global warming was 

the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people. We had 

a hearing in this building that included a scientist from the Pasteur Institute, and his view was that, and I speak some French 

poorly but I do like the accent, but I will leave it out for the moment—— 

[Laughter.] 

Senator LAUTENBERG. He said that it is quite incredible. We 

would know absolutely if we had global warming by the increase 

in mosquitoes, increases in malaria. And we have not seen that. 

There cannot be any global warming, he said in quite understandable English. 

And we have gone through these, I am going to call them charades for the moment, and our friends on the other side happen to 

be very likeable, but they are wrong. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Anyway, one of the things that we ought 

to be—— 

Senator INHOFE. I agree with half your statement. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Oh, you are not likeable? 

[Laughter.] 

Senator LAUTENBERG. I have to ask your kids, I guess. 

One of the things that all of us ought to be able to agree on is 

that we need to get our science from scientists, not politicians nor 

industry lobbyists. And the scientists at NASA, the National Academy of Sciences and every other leading scientific body have made 

it clear that global climate change poses a very serious threat to 

humanity. 

In the past, that threat may not have seemed urgent. But in recent months these dangers have become impossible to ignore. Right 

now, we are seeing the effects of climate change all around us, and 

we have got to take notice and action immediately because whatever costs we might be seeing increases with now are dwarfed by 

what could be the result of laissez-faire, leave it alone and not 

bother with it; it will take care of itself. 

Well, last year was the 11th hottest year on record, it was the 

11th hottest year on record according to the Commerce Department’s Annual State of the Climate Report. Heat waves and flooding to droughts and extreme tornadoes, the U.S. in 2011 experiVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:25 Aug 07, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\25111.TXT SONYA
87 

enced some of our most destructive weather ever. And 2012 is on 

pace to be even worse. 

The first 6 months of this year have been the hottest on record 

for the continental United States, and though our colleague from 

Alabama has found some solace in the fact that he found places 

where it is cold, the fact of the matter is that you cannot deny 

these temperature levels in the recent months. It has led to the 

worst drought in our nation in more than half a century, resulting 

in 1,200 counties being declared natural disasters by USDA. And 

these droughts are killing crops throughout the country, forcing 

taxpayers to dole out $30 million to $40 million for Federal crop 

insurance payments, according to a recent report. 

Hot and dry conditions have also led to thousands of forest fires 

throughout the United States. According to NOAA, June wildfires 

burned more than 1.3 million acres of land, the second most on 

record. We saw most recently the destruction in Colorado Springs 

where nearly 350 homes were destroyed at the cost of $9 million. 

And we have to be clear. This is just the beginning. The destruction we see throughout the country and globe is simply a thing of 

signs to come. And if we do not act now to stem the worst effects 

of climate change, we are looking at once greater problems with 

hotter temperature, rising sea levels, extreme weather and spread 

of diseases, climate change poses a serious threat to our way of life. 

Nothing, nothing is more important to any of us who have children than to care about the kind of a country, the kind of an environment, we are going to be leaving for them. And we have to remember that the state of the planet that we leave them is the ultimate test of our stewardship. 

It has become abundantly clear that we cannot let the doubters 

deter action any longer because they prefer to ignore the inconvenient facts of an overwhelming scientific consensus. We have got to 

act on that now. 

And I want to call attention, Madam Chairman, to an article that 

is talked about ravenously, almost, in our Senate, The Conversion 

of a Climate Change Skeptic. It is an article by a man named Richard Muller. He is a professor of physics at the University of California Berkeley, former MacArthur Foundation Fellow. In a very 

short paragraph, he said, ‘‘Call me a converted skeptic. Three years 

ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that in my 

mind threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last 

year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I am now going a step 

forward,’’ he says, ‘‘humans are almost entirely the cause.’’ 

So, I do not know how we dismiss the evidence we see around 

us and the comments made from reputable organizations. But I 

think this debate ought to be over, and we ought to move, not discussing today’s hearing, it is very important, but in the body that 

we all spend so much time in, that we ought to get on with trying 

to solve the problem instead of dismissing it. 

Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much. 

Senator Whitehouse, and then we will get to our panel. 

88 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate 

the opportunity to participate in this important hearing. 

Yesterday marked the end of what is expected to be one of the 

top five warmest months on record. The USDA recently declared 

nearly 1,400 counties in 31 States disaster areas as a result of the 

ongoing drought. NASA and NOAA declared the last decade the 

warmest decade on record. 

So, I am glad we have come together to discuss the science of climate change. Virtually all respected scientific and academic institutions have stated that climate change is happening and that 

human activities are the driving cause of this change. 

Many of us here in Congress received a letter from a number of 

those institutions back in October 2009 supporting this consensus. 

This letter was signed by the heads of the organizations listed 

here. These highly esteemed scientific organizations do not think 

the jury is out. They recognize that, in fact, the verdict is in, and 

it is now time for us to act. 

As Senator Lautenberg mentioned, Dr. Richard Muller at the 

Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project recently revealed how 

he has become a converted climate skeptic. In a New York Times 

op-ed, he cites the findings from his research which was, ironically, 

partially funded by the Koch brothers, that the Earth’s land temperature has increased by 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit in the past 250 

years and 1.5 degrees over the past 50 years. He states, ‘‘Moreover, 

it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from 

the human emission of greenhouse gases.’’ 

Unfortunately, human emission of greenhouse gases is on the 

rise. This year a monitoring station in the Arctic measured carbon 

dioxide at 400 parts per million for the first time. This is 50 parts 

per million higher than the maximum concentration at which scientists predict a stable Earth climate. And it is way out of the 

bandwidth of 170 to 300 parts per million that has prevailed for 

the last 8,000 centuries on the Earth’s surface. 

A 2012 report by the IPCC concludes that climate change increases the risk of heavy precipitation. Rhode Islanders are no 

strangers to heavy precipitation. In 2010 we saw flooding that exceeded anything Rhode Island had seen since the 1870s when 

Rhode Island started keeping records. 

At the height of the rain, streets in many Rhode Island towns 

looked more like rivers than roads. Local emergency workers sailed 

down Providence Street, a main road in West Warwick, by boat and 

Jet Ski, down a main road on boats and Jet Skis in order to assist 

residents trapped by the flood waters. While we cannot link that 

exact storm to climate change, we do know that climate change is 

increasing the risk of extreme weather like we saw in Rhode Island. 

As a New Englander, I was very concerned at a report released 

this week by Environment America, When It Rains, It Pours, which 

found that in New England, ‘‘Intense rainstorms and snowstorms 

are happening 85 percent more often than in 1948.’’ Not only are 

these inundations happening more often, but the largest events are 

actually dumping more precipitation—around 10 percent more, on 

89 

average—across the country. For States like mine, as you can see, 

these storms are dangerous, expensive, and cause lasting damage. 

Ensuring the integrity of our infrastructure in the face of a rapidly changing climate is essential, and our coastal States face a 

unique set of challenges, what I call the triple whammy. We must 

adapt not only to extreme temperatures and to extreme weather 

events, but also to sea level rise. 

Long-term data from tide gauges in the historic sailing capital of 

Newport, Rhode Island, show an increase in average sea level of 

nearly 10 inches since 1930. At these same tide gauges, measurements show that the rate of sea level rise has increased in the past 

two decades compared to the rate over the last century. This is consistent with reports that since 1990 sea level has been rising faster 

than the rates predicted by models used to generate IPCC estimates. 

Sea level rise and the increase in storm surge that will accompany it will bring devastation to our doorsteps. Critical infrastructure in at-risk coastal areas, roads, power plants, waste water 

treatment plants will need to be reinforced or relocated. One consequence of rising sea levels is that local erosion rates in Rhode Island doubled from 1990 to 2006. And some freshwater wetlands 

near the coast are transitioning to salt marsh. 

In Rhode Island, we are trying to be proactive. We have to, 

frankly, if we want to protect public health and safety. Rhode Island has 19 high hazard dams that have been deemed unsafe by 

our Department of Environmental Management. We have 6,000 onsite waste water treatment systems located near the coast, several 

landfills that may be susceptible to coastal erosion, and evacuation 

routes that could be under water as sea levels rise. 

In 2008 our Coastal Resources Management Council adopted a 

climate change and sea level rise policy to protect public and private property, infrastructure, and economically valuable coastal 

ecosystem. In 2010 our General Assembly created the Rhode Island 

Climate Change Commission to study the projected effects of climate change on the State, develop strategies to adapt to those effects, and determine mechanisms to incorporate climate adaptation 

into existing State and municipal programs. 

A draft progress report from the commission lists many ways the 

State is planning to adapt to climate change including National 

Grid, our electricity and natural gas utility, undertaking a statewide substation flooding assessment and the Army Corps of Engineers, FEMA, and the Rhode Island Emergency Management 

Agency conducting a hurricane and flooding evacuation study. And 

the list goes on and on. 

In the town of North Kingston, Rhode Island, they have taken 

the best elevation data available and modeled 1, 3, and 5 feet of 

sea level rise, as well as 1 foot of sea level rise plus 3 feet of storm 

surge. By overlaying these inundation models on top of maps identifying critical infrastructure like roads and emergency routes, railroads, water treatment plants, and estuaries, the town will be able 

to prioritize transportation, conservation, and relocation projects. 

They are also able to quantify the costs of sea level rise. In one 

small area of the town, 1 foot of sea level rise would put—I am 

sorry, I have taken over my time. Let me just ask unanimous conVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:25 Aug 07, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00093 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\25111.TXT SONYA
90 

sent for the remainder of my statement to be put into the record 

as if I had read it. 

Senator BOXER. Absolutely. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And I thank the Chairman. I just want to 

emphasize that this is not just a hypothetical problem in Rhode Island. It is real, and real government agencies, real big corporations, real people are facing the facts and having to respond. 

[The prepared statement of Senate Whitehouse follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND

Yesterday marked the end of what’s expected to be one of the top five warmest 

months on record. The USDA recently declared nearly 1,400 counties in 31 States 

disaster areas as a result of the ongoing drought. NASA and NOAA declared the 

last decade the warmest on record. In 2011 we faced 14 weather related disasters 

totaling more than a billion dollars each in overall damages and economic costs. And 

we already have several in 2012. 

I am glad we have come together to discuss the science of climate change. Virtually all respected scientific and academic institutions have stated that climate 

change is happening, and that human activities are the driving cause of this change. 

Many of us here in Congress received a letter from a number of those institutions 

in October 2009, stating that: 

Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, 

and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by 

human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple 

independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer reviewed science. 

This letter was signed by the heads of the following organizations: 

American Association for the Advancement of Science 

American Chemical Society 

American Geophysical Union 

American Institute of Biological Sciences 

American Meteorological Society 

American Society of Agronomy 

American Society of Plant Biologists 

American Statistical Association 

Association of Ecosystem Research Centers 

Botanical Society of America 

Crop Science Society of America 

Ecological Society of America 

Natural Science Collections Alliance 

Organization of Biological Field Stations 

Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics 

Society of Systematic Biologists 

Soil Science Society of America 

University Corporation for Atmospheric Research 

These highly esteemed scientific organizations don’t think the jury’s still out. 

They recognize that in fact, the verdict is in, and it’s time to act. 

In fact, over the weekend, Dr. Richard Muller, professor of physics at the University of California, Berkeley, director of the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature 

project, and a former MacArthur Foundation Fellow, revealed how he’s become a 

converted climate skeptic in a New York Times op-ed. He cites findings from his 

research—partially funded by the Koch brothers, ironically—that the Earth’s land 

temperature has increased by 2 and a half degrees Fahrenheit in the past 250 years 

and 1 and a half degrees over the past 50 years. He states, ‘‘Moreover, it appears 

likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.’’ 

Unfortunately, human emission of greenhouse gases is only on the rise. In 2011 

the Mauna Loa Observatory documented the biggest annual jump in carbon dioxide. 

And this year a monitoring station in the Arctic measured carbon dioxide at 400 

ppm for the first time. This is 50 ppm higher than the maximum concentration at 

which scientists predict a stable climate. And this is well outside the 170–300 ppm 

range that has existed for the past 8,000 centuries. 

A 2012 report by the IPCC concludes that climate change increases the risk of 

heavy precipitation. Rhode Islanders are no stranger to heavy precipitation. In 2010 

91 

we saw flooding that exceeded anything we’ve seen since the 1870s when Rhode Island started keeping records. At the height of the rains, streets in many Rhode Island towns looked more like rivers than roads. Local emergency workers sailed 

down Providence Street, a main road in West Warwick, by boat and Jet Ski; down 

a main road on boats and Jet Skis; in order to assist residents trapped by the flood 

waters. 

While we can’t link that exact storm to climate change, we know that climate 

change is increasing the risk of extreme weather events like this one. As a New 

Englander, I was concerned by a report released this week by Environment America. ‘‘When It Rains, It Pours,’’ found that, in New England, ‘‘intense rainstorms and 

snowstorms [are] happening 85 percent more often than in 1948. The frequency of 

intense rain or snowstorms nearly doubled in Vermont and Rhode Island, and more 

than doubled in New Hampshire.’’ And not only are these inundations happening 

more often, but the largest events are actually dumping more precipitation—around 

10 percent more on average—across the country. For States like mine, as you can 

see, these storms are dangerous, expensive, and cause lasting damage. 

We are moving down a troublesome and unknown path where the best thing we 

can do is prepare for dramatic environmental shifts. We must look to science and 

scientists and use the best available data to protect and prepare both our natural 

and built environments, which sustain us and our economy. Ensuring the integrity 

of our infrastructure in the face of a rapidly changing climate is essential. Coastal 

States face a unique set of challenges—what I call a triple whammy—as we must 

adapt not only to extreme temperatures and weather but also to sea level rise. 

As average global temperatures rise, less water will be stored in snowpack and 

the ice sheets of Antarctica and Greenland. We also know that at higher temperatures water expands to greater volume. Predictions for sea level rise range from 20– 

39 inches by the year 2100, with recent studies showing that the numbers could be 

even higher due to greater than expected melting of glaciers and ice sheets. 

Long-term data from tide gauges in the historic sailing capital of Newport, Rhode 

Island, show an increase in average sea level of nearly 10 inches since 1930. At 

these same tide gauges, measurements show that the rate of sea level rise has increased in the past two decades compared to the rate over the last century. This 

is consistent with reports that since 1990 sea level has been rising faster than the 

rate predicted by models used to generate IPCC estimates. 

Sea level rise and the increase in storm surges that will accompany it will bring 

devastation to our doorsteps. Critical infrastructure in at-risk coastal area—roads, 

power plants, waste water treatment plants—will need to be reinforced or relocated. 

Additionally, our estuaries, marshes, and barrier islands that act as natural filtration systems and buffers against storms will be inundated, with little time or space 

to retreat and move inland as they have in the past. 

One consequence of rising sea levels is that local erosion rates in Rhode Island 

doubled from 1990 to 2006, and some freshwater wetlands near the coast are 

transitioning to salt marsh. Increased sea level and erosion puts critical public infrastructure at risk. In Rhode Island, we have a small but vibrant coastal community, Matunuck, where beaches have eroded 20 feet over the past 12 years. The 

town faces very difficult decisions as the only road connecting about 1,600 residents 

and several restaurants and businesses is protected by less than a dozen feet of 

sand. The road, which provides access for emergency vehicles and lies on top of the 

water main, must be protected. But what are the costs of protecting this piece of 

road for areas nearby or further down shore? Often, when you protect one area of 

beach from erosion by hardening or altering the shoreline, you do so at the sacrifice 

of other areas. 

These are not easy decisions for communities with limited resources when lives 

and livelihoods are at risk, and climate change will only make things worse. To best 

protect infrastructure and the communities and families that live in at-risk areas, 

we must plan ahead, using the best and most reliable science, and be able to 

prioritize adaptation efforts. 

In North Carolina, the State legislature considered a measure that would have 

severely restricted the ability of their Coastal Resources Commission to employ scientific estimates of future sea level rise. This type of thinking will cost money and 

lives in the future. 

In Rhode Island, we’re taking a different approach. We have to if we want to protect public health and safety. Rhode Island has 19 ‘‘high hazard’’ dams that have 

been deemed ‘‘unsafe’’ by our Department of Environmental Management. We have 

6,000 onsite waste water treatment systems located near the coast, several landfills 

that may be susceptible to coastal erosion, and evacuation routes that could be underwater as sea levels rise. 

92 

In 2008 our Coastal Resources Management Council adopted a Climate Change 

and Sea Level Rise Policy to protect public and private property, infrastructure, and 

economically valuable coastal ecosystems. The policy states the following: 

• The Council will integrate climate change and sea level rise scenarios into its 

operations to prepare Rhode Island for these new, evolving conditions and make our 

coastal areas more resilient. 

• It is the Council’s policy to accommodate a base rate of expected 3–5 foot rise 

in sea level by the year 2100 in the siting, design, and implementation of public and 

private coastal activities and to ensure proactive stewardship of coastal ecosystems 

under these changing conditions. It should be noted that the 3–5 foot rate of sea 

level rise assumption embedded in this policy is relatively narrow and low. The 

Council recognizes that the lower the sea level rise estimate used, the greater the 

risk that policies and efforts to adapt to sea level rise and climate change will prove 

to be inadequate. 

This policy is already helping the State make smart decisions. For example, when 

a new pump station was needed at a sewage treatment plant, CRMC looked at sea 

level rise models before determining where it should go, avoiding future relocation 

costs or malfunction in the face of flash flooding and sea level rise. 

In 2010 our General Assembly created the Rhode Island Climate Change Commission to study the projected impacts of climate change on the State, develop strategies to adapt to those impacts, and determine mechanisms to incorporate climate 

adaptation into existing State and municipal programs. A draft progress report from 

the Commission lists many ways the State is planning to adapt to climate change, 

including: 

• Creating a ‘‘Structural Concept and Contingency Plan to Inundation of the 

Ferry Terminals and Island Roadway Systems’’; 

• Creating the ‘‘Central Landfill Disaster Preparedness Plan’’; 

• National Grid, our electricity and natural gas utility, undertaking a ‘‘Statewide 

Substation Flooding Assessment’’; and 

• The Army Corps of Engineers, FEMA, and the Rhode Island Emergency Management Agency conducting a ‘‘Hurricane and Flooding Evacuation Study.’’ 

The list goes on and on. 

In the town of North Kingston, Rhode Island, they have taken the best elevation 

data available and modeled 1, 3, and 5 feet of sea level rise, as well as 1 foot of 

sea level rise plus 3 feet of storm surge. By overlaying these inundation models on 

top of maps identifying critical infrastructure like roads, emergency routes, railroads, water treatment plants, and estuaries the town will be able to prioritize 

transportation, conservation, and relocation projects. They are also able to quantify 

the costs of sea level rise. In one small area of the town, 1 foot of sea level rise 

would put 2 buildings, valued at $1.3 million, underwater. Five feet of sea level rise, 

however, jeopardizes 116 buildings valued at $91 million. 

Similarly, by modeling how sea level rise will impact estuaries, towns can preserve areas that will stay wetlands or undeveloped areas that will become wetlands 

in the future, as opposed to areas that will be lost. Estuaries act as nurseries for 

our hugely valuable fisheries and protect our homes, buildings, and communities 

from storm surge. There is already limited funding to protect these important ecosystems, and this kind of planning promotes efficiency in spending. 

Now is the time to start making policy that helps us all adapt to the emerging 

scientific reality that our actions affect our environment. 

Nature could not be giving us clearer warnings. Whatever higher power gave us 

our advanced human capacity for perception, calculation, analysis, deduction, and 

foresight has lain out before us more than enough information to make the right 

decisions. Only a wild and reckless greed, or a fatal hubris, could blind us to our 

world’s distress signals. Fortunately, these human capacities provide us everything 

we need to act responsibly, if only we will. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much. 

Now, we turn to our esteemed panel. We have two majority witnesses and one minority witness. 

Our first witness is Dr. Christopher B. Field, Founding Director, 

Carnegie Institution of Washington’s Department of Global Ecology, Professor of Biology and Environmental Earth Science, Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, Senior Fellow, Stanford University. 

We welcome you. 

93 

We ask all of our witnesses to try to stick to 5 minutes. We will 

give you a little leeway there, but if you can keep it to 5. 

STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER B. FIELD, PH.D., FOUNDING DIRECTOR, CARNEGIE INSTITUTION OF WASHINGTON’S DEPARTMENT OF GLOBAL ECOLOGY, PROFESSOR OF BIOLOGY 

AND ENVIRONMENTAL EARTH SCIENCE, FREEMAN SPOGLI 

INSTITUTE FOR INTERNATIONAL STUDIES, SENIOR FELLOW, 

STANFORD UNIVERSITY 

Mr. FIELD. Thank you, Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member 

Inhofe, and Members of the Committee. I am delighted to appear 

before you today to discuss one of the most important issues facing 

our nation, the challenge of a changing climate. 

The link between climate change and the kinds of climate extremes that lead to disasters is clear. To quote the latest report of 

the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a changing climate leads to changes in the frequency, intensity, spatial extent, 

duration, and timing of extreme weather and climate events and 

can result in unprecedented extreme weather and climate events. 

My name is Chris Field. I am a working scientist. Over the past 

35 years I have published more than 200 peer reviewed papers 

about all aspects of climate change. In 2008 I was asked by the 

Bush administration to help coordinate the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or IPCC. That is work that I 

now do as an unpaid volunteer. 

In my testimony today, I will address three aspects of the state 

of science of climate change. Three key points. The first, climate 

change is real. Second, some kinds of extreme events are already 

increasing. Third, climate change leads to risks in the kinds of extreme events that can lead to disasters. 

Climate change science is complex, technical, and rapidly changing. We are very fortunate in climate science to be able to take advantage of a wide range of comprehensive assessments so that all 

the scientists who are working in this complicated topic can bring 

their ideas together, sort them out, see which ones stand the test 

of time, and present balanced, authoritative overviews of what is 

known and what is not known about climate science. 

And recent assessments overwhelmingly support the conclusion 

that ‘‘Climate change is occurring. It is very likely caused primarily 

by the emission of greenhouse gases from human activities and 

poses significant risk for a range of human and natural systems.’’ 

This is from the 2011 report of the U.S. National Academy of 

Sciences and is absolutely characteristic of what is coming from all 

of the major assessments by national academies of scientists from 

around the world and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change. 

The conclusion that warming in the climate system is unequivocal is supported by many kinds of data. Could I have the first 

chart, please? Several groups have analyzed weather station data, 

and they all reach strikingly similar conclusions. As you can see 

from the figure on the easel, global land areas warmed by about 

2 degrees Fahrenheit since 1900. We really have reached the point 

where the question of whether the Earth is warming is no longer 

in doubt. 

94 

In its 2012 report on extreme events and disasters, the IPCC 

concludes, based on observations, not on models, that we have experienced increases in three kinds of extremes—extremes of high 

temperatures, extremes that are associated with intense precipitation, and extremes that are associated with high sea levels, basically storm surge. It also provides evidence that human caused climate change has played a role in these kinds of extremes. 

Now, for some kinds of climate related extremes, we do not yet 

know the strength of the link with climate change. But for many 

other categories of extreme climate and weather events, the pattern is increasingly clear. Climate change is shifting the risk of hitting an extreme. The IPCC concludes that climate change increases 

the risk of heat waves, heavy precipitation, and droughts for most 

land areas. 

These findings about risk do not speak directly to the role of climate change in any particular event. In this sense, the increase in 

risk of a climate extreme from climate change is parallel to the increasing risk of an accident from speeding in a car. We can point 

clearly to the causal mechanism, but it is still difficult to predict 

exactly when or where the crisis, either the accident from speeding 

in a car or the disaster that is related to climate change, will occur. 

But still, we can still have high confidence in the driving mechanism. It is also important to recognize that just as many factors influence the risk of a car accident. 

The risk of climate related disasters is also influenced by a number of things like disaster preparation and early warning. As a result of recent progress in understanding the role of climate change 

and the risks of extremes, it is now possible to quantify the way 

that climate change alters the risk of certain kinds of extremes. 

For example, climate change at least doubled the risk of the European heat wave of 2003. This was a major event that resulted in 

tens of thousands of excess mortalities. 

For the 2011 Texas drought, La Nin ̃ a—this is the cold water in 

the eastern Pacific—played a role. But recent research by David 

Rupp and colleagues indicates that there is now more than 20 

times greater likelihood of high temperatures during a La Nin ̃ a 

than in the 1960s. More than 20 times greater likelihood of high 

temperatures now than in the 1960s. 

Let me conclude with a comment about the 2011 Texas drought. 

The U.S. is an agricultural superpower. It is our responsibility, I 

believe, to maintain the ability of our citizens and the people of 

Texas to sustain their role as the nation’s second largest producer 

of agricultural income. For this hope to be realized, the farmers 

and ranchers of Texas have to have access to the best available information so that they can make sound choices about their future 

and their children’s future. 

In summary, there is no doubt that the climate has changed and 

that changes will continue with an amount that is determined by 

the amount of heat trapping gases that we release into the atmosphere. There is also no doubt that a changing climate changes the 

risk of extremes, including extremes that can lead to disasters—— 

Senator BOXER. Ten seconds; close it up. 

Mr. FIELD [continuing]. Recognizing these changing risks is critical, if we are to make good decisions about the challenges of proVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:25 Aug 07, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\25111.TXT SONYA
95 

tecting and enhancing our natural legacy, our economy, and our 

people. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Field follows:] 

96 


25111.072
97 


25111.073
98 


25111.074
99 


25111.075
100 


25111.076
101 


25111.077
102 


25111.078
103 


25111.079
104 


25111.080
105 


25111.081
106 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Dr. Field. 

Now, I understand—Senator Sessions, would you like to introduce the minority witness, John Christy, Dr. Christy? 

Senator SESSIONS. I would be honored if you would allow me to 

do that. 

Senator BOXER. I would love for you to do that. Sure. 

Senator SESSIONS. Dr. Christy is a Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science, I believe the only climatologist here today. 

Since 1987 he has been a professor at the Atmospheric Science Department at the University of Alabama, Huntsville. He currently 

serves as Director of the Earth Science System Center. He holds 

Master and Doctorate degrees in Atmospheric Sciences from the 

University of Illinois and in mathematics and a Master of Divinity. 

He has served as Alabama State Climatologist since 2000. During his time, he was worked with Dr. Roy Spencer to produce a 

global temperature data set from satellite observation. For their 

work, Drs. Christy and Spencer were awarded NASA’s prestigious 

Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement in 1991. Five years 

later he and Dr. Spencer were recognized by the American Meteorological Society for the development of a precise record of global 

temperatures from operational polar orbiting satellite data. 

For his contribution to climatology and research, he was inducted 

as a Fellow into the American Meteorological Society in 2002. He 

has been involved with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change by serving as a contributor and lead author on U.N. reports. Through his efforts working with the IPCC, satellite temperature became classified as high quality data sets for the purpose 

of climatology research. 

He served on five different national research council panels and 

committees, participated in research projects funded by NASA, 

NOAA, DOE, and DOT and the State of Alabama, published numerous times in journals including Science and Nature, Journal of 

the Climate, and Journal of Geophysical Research. He has spent 

time in Africa. He is married with children and is no stranger to 

Washington. He has testified over a dozen times at the House and 

the Senate. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much. And I reserve the right to 

extend and revise my introductions to include the life stories, the 

awards, and the great speeches of our two witnesses. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. But you could not have done a better job. 

Dr. Christy, go ahead. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN R. CHRISTY, PH.D., DISTINGUISHED 

PROFESSOR, DIRECTOR OF THE EARTH SYSTEM SCIENCE 

CENTER, DEPARTMENT OF ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCE, UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA IN HUNTSVILLE 

Mr. CHRISTY. Thank you, Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member 

Inhofe, and Senator Sessions and Committee members. 

I am a climate scientist. I build data sets from scratch to answer 

questions about climate variability and to test assertions people 

make about climate change. And that really is what the scientific 

method is all about. 

107 

During the heat wave of late June and early July, high temperature extremes were becoming newsworthy. Claims were made that 

thousands of records were broken each day, and that is what global 

warming looks like. And that got a lot of attention. 

However, these headlines were not based on climate science. As 

shown in Figure 1.3 of my testimony, which did not make it here 

today, it is scientifically more accurate to say this is what Mother 

Nature looks like because events even worse than these that we 

have seen here have happened in the past before greenhouse gases 

were increasing like they are today. 

Now, it gives some people great comfort to offer a quick and easy 

answer when weather strays from the average rather than struggle 

with what the real truth is. The real truth is we do not know 

enough about the climate to even predict events like this. 

Climatologists looking at the heat wave would not be alarmed because the number of daily high temperature records set in the most 

recent decade was only—were actually less than half of that set in 

the 1930s, as shown in my written testimony. 

Senator SESSIONS. Would you like to use this chart that I had? 

Mr. CHRISTY. No, it is a different chart. It is a different chart. 

But thank you, Senator. It is a different chart. More dramatic, I 

think, but I did not make it up. 

I suppose most people forget that Oklahoma set a new record low 

of 31 below; it was not 27, it was 31 below this past year. And in 

the past 2 years, towns from Alaska to my home State of California 

established records for snowfall. 

The recent anomalous weather cannot be blamed on carbon dioxide. More evidence is available now to suggest that the climate is 

not as sensitive to extra greenhouse gases as previously thought, 

and now I will put that second one there. This is a spaghetti chart. 

There are 34 climate models on there. 

But if you just focus on the black line that Senator Sessions 

showed earlier, that is what the models indicate should be happening now. And yet the real world, where the circles are, you see 

it at the bottom, is what has actually happened. 

The temperature of the models clearly has overdone what has 

happened, and when considering legislation I would encourage you 

to base it on the observations rather than the speculative trends 

of climate models. And basing legislation on observations means 

addressing the large year to year variations that were talked 

about, like droughts and flood that caused so much economic distress. 

There is still a discrepancy between the warming and the traditional surface data sets and less warming in the atmosphere. A 

new study led by my colleague, UA Huntsville’s Richard McNider, 

along with my observational studies, explains part of the reason for 

the difference. When the surface and air around a thermometer 

station are disturbed by, say, urbanization, farming, aerosols, and 

so on, nighttime surface temperatures will appear to be warm due 

to a complicated turbulent process, not the greenhouse effect. The 

bottom line is that traditional surface temperature is contaminated 

by such effects and is not an accurate indicator of greenhouse 

warming. 

108 

When it comes to legislation or regulatory actions, there really is 

nothing that will definitively alter whatever the climate is going to 

do. However, I suspect there will be some discernible economic consequences if energy costs rise. 

As more CO2 is released back into the atmosphere, there are benefits that are often overlooked. Most notable of these is the 

invigoration of plant life on which we and the rest of the animal 

world depend for food. CO2 is fundamentally plant food, and therefore, our food. 

Today, carbon energy provides about 87 percent of the world’s energy demand. So, if CO2 is increasing, that is an indicator that a 

nation is providing energy for its people who then live longer, 

healthier, and more productive lives. As someone who has lived in 

Africa, I can say that energy—without energy, life is brutal and 

short. So this is a goal of poor countries, to access energy. 

I will close with this unpleasant thought. Demanding a reduction 

in worldwide CO2 emissions without affordable, reliable alternatives means reducing the hope for prosperity of our fellow world 

citizens who are struggling to escape their impoverished condition. 

Thank you for your time. I will be happy to answer questions 

that you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Christy follows:] 

109 


25111.204
110 


25111.082
111 


25111.083
112 


25111.084
113 


25111.085
114 


25111.086
115 


25111.087
116 


25111.088
117 


25111.089
118 


25111.090
119 


25111.091
120 


25111.092
121 


25111.093
122 


25111.094
123 


25111.095
124 


25111.096
125 


25111.097
126 


25111.098
127 


25111.099
128 


25111.100
129 


25111.101
130 


25111.102
131 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much, Dr. Christy. 

Now we are going to turn to our last witness on this first panel, 

Dr. James McCarthy, Alexander Agassiz Professor of Biological 

Oceanography, Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard. 

And we will expand your repertoire when we get to the written 

record. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES J. MCCARTHY, PH.D., ALEXANDER AGASSIZ PROFESSOR OF BIOLOGICAL OCEANOGRAPHY, MUSEUM OF COMPARATIVE ZOOLOGY, HARVARD UNIVERSITY 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Thank you, Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member 

Inhofe, and members of the Committee for your attention to the 

important matter of climate change. 

I wish today to talk about new evidence that we see in the ocean 

for climate change and evidence of the ocean’s response to the 

changing conditions in the atmosphere as we are increasing the insulation of the atmosphere with the addition of greenhouse gases. 

The first figure that we will show on the easel is a checklist. It 

is a checklist that you might have imagined assembling in the 

1960s when people were first saying, well, if greenhouse gases continue to increase, what would you expect to be the indicators in climate. This was published in 2009, a joint effort of NOAA and the 

American Meteorological Society. 

If you could read those indicators, this is a figure that is contained in my written testimony, it is Figure 1 in the testimony as 

well; you would see that every indicator that you would expect to 

change, and the direction it would change the Earth through 

warming with the addition greenhouse gases is, in fact, what we 

have observed. 

Now, one of the interesting aspects of this that I wish to spend 

a bit of time on today is how the deep ocean has changed. The 

oceans are vast. The Pacific Ocean alone covers over 40 percent of 

the planet. The average depth is about 2 miles. And so, as we hear 

a lot of talk about variation on land and the measurement of land 

temperature, the ocean is sampled in a different way. It has historically been sampled by ships, by oceanographic vessels, but also 

by other ships that have done routine measurements of ocean temperature and sometimes ocean temperature at depth as well. 

So, what was implemented in the early 2000s was a major new 

effort to understand how the ocean heat content is changing at 

great depth. If we could put up the second slide. This is also from 

my written testimony; it is Figure 2 in the written testimony. 

What we now know from this array of about 3,500 buoys that are 

moving around the oceans at all times covering all areas of the 

ocean, areas that are not typically well sampled, is that most of the 

heat that has been put into our Earth climate system as a result 

of greenhouse gases is actually in the ocean. 

More importantly, these new sensing systems allow for precise 

detection of how this is changing over time. And so what we see 

is that the change over time in the deep ocean heat content—and 

this is a graphic that I have in my written testimony—has increased steadily over time, and we now know it with increasing 

precision because of these buoys that are moving about the world’s 

oceans and constantly monitoring the deep ocean heat content. 

132 

When I began my career in ocean science, most ocean scientists 

could not have imagined that the deep ocean—which we knew in 

many areas had been at constant temperature for decades and even 

a century—would change in our lifetimes. We now see it is everywhere. 

Now, this has implications for sea level rise. It also tells us, as 

we see this steady trend of increase in the ocean, deep ocean heat 

content, that the noise and the signature on land, and statements 

such as, well, it really hasn’t warmed much in the last 10 years, 

you can see that the ocean has warmed steadily over the last 10 

years. So, whereas on land there are questions about where the observations are and local variation, these get smoothed out in the 

ocean. 

Now, I would like to turn to another subtle part of how this all 

plays in. As the deep ocean warms, of course the ocean continues 

to expand. As the mercury warming in the thermometer rises, the 

ocean warms; it will rise. 

If you look at the estimations of how sea level would rise over 

time, estimations that would have been made a decade or two ago, 

we did not have a really good understanding of how the deep ocean 

was responding. We do now. So estimates of sea level rise and projections of sea level rise are going to be much more precise in the 

future. 

Another term in sea level rise is the loss of ice from glaciers in 

the Arctic and the Antarctic. Again, with satellite measurements to 

inventory the amount of ice in Greenland and Antarctica, we can 

now see very precisely how it is changing. So this, in addition, 

gives us increased confidence and understanding. You cannot 

project something, you cannot predict a trend, unless you know 

what is causing it. But with these new measurements now, in the 

ocean and with ice, we understand much more than we did a decade ago about sea level rise. 

We also note changes in Arctic sea ice are affecting climate. Believe it or not, if you lose ice in the Arctic, you can bring more cold 

air down into the center of the United States. Papers published on 

this in the last couple of years have shown the role of large undulations in the jet stream. You have less ice in the Arctic, you lose the 

insulation. So the ocean, the warm ocean, the moist ocean, loses 

heat and loses moisture to the atmosphere. If that moves south to 

where we are, we can actually get not only more snow but more 

cold weather. 

I would like to conclude then with a slide on sea level rise. So 

40 percent of the world’s population lives about 60 miles from the 

coast. And we know that the rate of sea level rise is increasing. We 

know that it is increasing now at a rate of about three times what 

it did a century ago. And we know that the projections made only 

a decade ago, very cautious projections because we did not understand what was happening on Greenland the way we do now, or 

the Antarctic, are going to lead to higher projections of sea level 

rise going forward. 

So, I would like to just conclude by pointing out that we see that 

it is variable. The red area indicates where sea level rising is occurring at the highest levels. And the reasons for this have to do with 

ocean circulation. 

133 

Senator BOXER. If you could wrap it up. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. I would just like to conclude by saying that there 

is no debate that the Earth’s temperature is increasing. Over the 

last half-century, the atmosphere, land surface, ocean surface, and 

deep ocean and ice loss in polar regions have all confirmed this. 

And they can only be explained by the increase in greenhouse 

gases. There is no scientific evidence that refutes this conclusion. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McCarthy follows:] 

134 


25111.103
135 


25111.104
136 


25111.105
137 


25111.106
138 


25111.107
139 


25111.108
140 


25111.109
141 


25111.110
142 


25111.111
143 


25111.112
144 


25111.113
145 


25111.114
146 


25111.115
147 


25111.116
148 


25111.117
149 


25111.118
150 


25111.119
151 


25111.120
152 


25111.121
153 


25111.122
154 


25111.123
155 


25111.124
156 


25111.125
157 


25111.126
158 


25111.127
159 


25111.128
160 


25111.129
161 


25111.130
162 


25111.131
163 


25111.132
164 


25111.133
165 


25111.134
166 


25111.135
167 


25111.136
168 


25111.137
169 


25111.138
170 


25111.139
171 


25111.140
172 


25111.141
173 


25111.142
174 


25111.143
175 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much. 

I just want to say, on behalf of all of us, to all three of you that 

we are so appreciative of your testimony today. Very clear, I 

thought, and thought provoking. 

So, we are going to start a series of questions, and then I am 

going to keep the record open for a couple of days. Would you all 

be willing to answer questions in writing? Because I know I have 

so many I will not have time to ask them. 

Senator INHOFE. Me, too. 

Senator BOXER. And so does Senator Inhofe as well as others. 

OK, so we will do that. 

Mr. Christy, your written testimony cites a study by Anthony 

Watts that claims to find bias in thermometer stations’ readings. 

Has this study been submitted to a journal for publication or been 

through a peer review process? 

Mr. CHRISTY. Not to a journal yet. 

Senator BOXER. OK. So, there has been a study, and you cite it, 

that there is a bias in thermometer station readings. Do you think 

people are lying about what they read, or are they not presenting 

it right? That there is a bias in thermometer station readings? 

Mr. CHRISTY. Right. The study simply put the category of stations that have a lot of stuff around them in one category, and a 

second category of uncluttered stations, they are rural, and there 

is a significant difference between them. 

Senator BOXER. OK. 

Mr. CHRISTY. There are other things that need to be done yet. 

Senator BOXER. So, who is guilty of this bias? Who is doing this? 

Who is making a decision that leads to a bias? 

Mr. CHRISTY. I am sorry, of what? 

Senator BOXER. You say that there is a bias in thermometer stations’ readings. 

Mr. CHRISTY. Oh. 

Senator BOXER. Who is guilty of the bias? Who has the bias? 

Mr. CHRISTY. If the readings of the thermometers do not take 

into account that clutter around the station, then there is a bias 

in those—— 

Senator BOXER. By whom? 

Mr. CHRISTY. Thermometer readings are taken by the traditional 

surface measurements up here. 

Senator BOXER. Right. 

Mr. CHRISTY. Because those classification schemes have not been 

applied to those—— 

Senator BOXER. How would you fix this problem? 

Mr. CHRISTY. Well, we are working on that right now. 

Senator BOXER. OK. 

Do you agree with that, Dr. Field, that there is a bias here? 

Mr. FIELD. NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, has a number of published studies on the question of 

whether there any problems in the temperature record from the 

U.S. weather stations and their studies have consistently not been 

able to find any problem and consistently indicate that the stations 

are accurately reflecting both the underlying temperatures and the 

underlying temperature trends. 

Senator BOXER. And has that been peer reviewed? 

176 

Mr. FIELD. Those are in the peer reviewed—— 

Senator BOXER. OK, so I think enough on that. 

Mr. CHRISTY. OK, there are no—— 

Senator BOXER. If I could just finish, then you can respond. 

When a study is not peer reviewed, you can understand why 

some of us might be skeptical. Now, Dr. Christy, have you seen 

this, Our Changing Climate 2012, Vulnerability and Adaptation to 

the Increasing Risks from Climate Change in California? It just 

came out. Are you familiar with it? 

Mr. CHRISTY. I am familiar with previous reports. I believe I 

might have seen a draft of that. 

Senator BOXER. This just came out yesterday. So, we will make 

sure you see it. I am not going to ask you specifically about what 

is in it. But I am going to tell you what it found. What they say 

is the latest science on climate changes impacts of California, dozens of scientists in over 30 peer reviewed papers. It describes various climate change impacts including increased temperatures, sea 

level rises, wildfire risk, and air pollution levels. 

Now, you live in California, in my State. Is that correct? 

Mr. CHRISTY. I am a native Californian. 

Senator BOXER. All right. Where do you live now? 

Mr. CHRISTY. Alabama. I am the State Climatologist. 

Senator BOXER. Oh, OK. So, you are there now. Well, I want to 

tell you things are changing in our State if you do not know that. 

Just your own eyes would tell you, the type of droughts, the type 

of bark beetles, the types of problems that we are having. And I 

am asking you, do you believe—— 

Mr. CHRISTY. May I respond, Madam Chairman? 

Senator BOXER. Do you believe that State and local governments 

should ignore these overwhelming scientific findings and stand idly 

by as the health and well-being of their citizens are harmed when 

such a report comes out that is peer reviewed? 

And I will say to you, technical staff from all of the agencies, outside scientific experts, 26 research teams and other research groups 

produced 30 peer reviewed papers, and they are warning the people 

of California what is going to happen. And they are warning the 

agricultural industry and the tourist industry. Do you think we 

should just say let us just wait and see? 

Mr. CHRISTY. I suspect they did not include my peer reviewed papers in there that do not show the changes in snowfall and Central 

California temperatures and so on—— 

Senator BOXER. So you—— 

Mr. CHRISTY [continuing]. Show the contamination in those peer 

reviewed papers. I bet they did not use those. 

Senator BOXER. Well, let me just say this. You stand with about 

2 or 3 percent of scientists, is that right, in your conclusions? 

Mr. CHRISTY. The question, that comes from a study of 77 people. 

And I suspect, if I were asked the question, I would have been on 

the majority because the question was very milquetoast. It was, do 

you think climate change is occurring? Do you think the world is 

warming? Well, virtually everyone agrees with that, that climate 

change is always occurring. 

177 

Senator BOXER. So you think it is. You think it is. So, do you 

think that we should take action since you do not doubt that the 

planet is warming? 

Mr. CHRISTY. Well, as a scientist I would ask the question what 

action do you want to take? I will test it to see if it will make a 

difference. And as I have done throughout all of my career—— 

Senator BOXER. OK, well that is a step forward that you say—— 

Mr. CHRISTY. Those changes will not make a difference. 

Senator BOXER [continuing]. That global warming is occurring. I 

think that is a very important point. 

So, I really do want to be a little California-centric here. We do 

represent 38 million people in our State. 

My last question is to Dr. Field. In California in 2010, agri- culture had revenues of $37.5 billion, and tourism supported nearly 

900,000 jobs and $90 billion in direct spending. That is why this 

type of peer reviewed report is so critical to our people. 

So, I am asking you if you believe, unless we can turn things 

around, should we expect more frequent and intensive extreme 

weather that could impact these types of key economic sectors? 

Mr. FIELD. Thank you, Senator Boxer. As I said in my testimony, 

the conclusion from the latest IPCC report is really clear. A change 

in climate leads to change in the risks of extremes. We are already 

seeing increases in extremes, and we are seeing increasing risks of 

the kind of extremes that can lead to weather and climate disasters, the kinds of weather and climate disasters that can have profound effects on agriculture, on industry and on infrastructure. 

Senator BOXER. So, in just concluding my discussion with you, 

Doctor, I thought your testimony was clear. You said you are sure 

about three things. You were not sure about everything. But the 

three things, and I can to remember them, was higher temperatures and higher sea level, and the third one? 

Mr. FIELD. We are seeing increases in the record so far of increases in extremes related to high temperatures, increases in the 

fraction of rainfall that is falling in the heaviest precipitation 

events, and increases in extreme events that are connected to high 

sea level, basically storm surge. 

Senator BOXER. OK. Thank you very much. 

Senator Inhofe. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

178 


25111.144
179 


25111.145
180 


25111.146
181 


25111.147
182 


25111.148
183 


25111.149
184 


25111.150
185 


25111.151
186 


25111.152
187 


25111.153
188 


25111.154
189 


25111.155
190 


25111.156
191 


25111.157
192 


25111.158
193 


25111.159
194 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Let me, first of all, ask unanimous consent to place into the 

record an article that completely discredits the Perkins Institute 

article that was referred to. It is from the New York Times, entitled Number of Green Jobs Fails to Live up to Promises. Part of 

the record, please. 

Senator BOXER. It was the Brookings Institute, not the Perkins 

Institute, but I will put it into the record. 

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

Senator INHOFE. The second thing I want to do, I think everyone 

on the other side of the aisle referred to Richard Muller, and I 

think it is important that we realize that perhaps he has been 

somewhat discredited. Roger Pelkey, Sr., said it certainly appears 

that Richard Muller is an attention getter which he has succeeded 

at, unfortunately he has demonstrated a remarkable lack of knowledge concerning the uncertainties in qualifying the actual longterm surface temperature trend, as well as a serious incomplete 

knowledge of the climate facts. The bigger issue is how the New 

York Times let itself be conned into running Muller’s op-ed. 

Second, the one who is the darling of everybody to the left of me 

right now, Michael Mann, he said it seems in the end quite sadly 

that it is all really about Richard Muller’s self-aggrandizement. 

Senator BOXER. We will put that into the record. 

Senator INHOFE. Very good, very good. 

Now, let me just briefly, because there is not going to be enough 

time to get to everything I would like to, but as I mentioned early 

in my opening statement there is a confidence problem, crisis, in 

the U.N. IPCC. A lot of people are not even using that anymore. 

Yet it is important because, if you remember, as the Obama administration said, the IPCC is the gold standard. So, we need to 

recognize what has happened, and I would only ask, I think everyone on this panel has said some things that it needs reform, and 

a lot of reform efforts have taken place. 

In my opening statement, we talk about the discrediting of the 

IPCC which I have been talking about, quite frankly, for 10 years. 

So I would ask you, Dr. Christy, do you think now that the changes 

that you are have seen, that are in the process of being made, are 

going to clean up the credibility of the IPCC? 

Mr. CHRISTY. Well, I have not seen the 2013 report yet. But I do 

not suspect much will change. When you collect a bunch of people 

who have the same, pretty much the same view, about climate 

change and exclude those who have different views, you will get 

the answer you want. 

Senator INHOFE. Yes. And I think you have probably looked on 

my Web site and some of the talks that I have made on the floor 

where we have actually had scientists calling in and saying how 

they were rejected from the process because of their views. So, I 

think it has been biased all along from the very beginning. 

A lot of people believe that today’s hearing is an effort to capitalize on the recent weather events of the summer in an attempt 

to reignite the global warming hysteria. And I would note that 

when I—put the igloo up. Now, to the right of the igloo is a beautiful family. Those are six of my—I have 20 kids and grandkids, 

those are six of them. They were up here stranded in Washington 

195 

a couple of years ago because of extreme weather, and all of the 

airports were closed. 

But at that time I never said or implied anything, just because 

it was a very cold winter, that that had anything to do with discrediting global warming. And so, I think it is important that if one 

scientist who was interviewed in response to the igloo my family 

built called attempts to link single weather events to longer term 

climate patterns complete, ignorant nonsense. Nevertheless, there 

have been those on the outside who have tried to say this is the 

pattern. 

I do not think that there is, I have said this on the Senate floor, 

I believe I would say to my good friend, Senator Sanders, that one 

area where all scientists should agree, that one pattern, or a cluster pattern, is not indicative of anthropogenic gas, global warming. 

And I believe that to be true. 

So, Dr. Christy, do you have anything to say about this? Because 

this is what is going on right now. As a matter of fact, in an interview in my State of Oklahoma, they are saying, we are having very 

hot weather. My wife even called in a comment on that when I was 

on the floor with Senator Sanders. So I would like to have you kind 

of explain what your feeling is concerning weather versus climate. 

Mr. CHRISTY. I think the clearest way to answer that is to look 

at a lot of stations and see when their record highs occur. And if 

you look again at my written testimony, Figure 1.3, it is very clear 

that our record extreme high temperatures are not increasing, that 

decades in the past had many more when the stations are consistently used. Not just stations with 30 years of record, stations with 

100 years of record that picked up those heat waves of the 1920s 

and 1930s. 

Senator INHOFE. Well, let me just ask you another question. On 

the floor of the Senate on Monday I was doing this, and I have 

done it so much I can do it from memory, but going through the 

last hundred or so years, from 1895 to 1925 we had a period of 

about 30 years where it was— people were saying another ice age 

is coming; we are all going to die. And that when hysteria set in. 

Then from 1925 to 1945 we went through a warming period, and 

that is when the phrase global warming was actually coined, at 

that time. Then from 1945 to 1975 we went into another ice age, 

so-called. That is when the National Academy of Sciences said. 

No, you went an extra minute and a half so I am doing the same 

thing. 

Senator BOXER. I know, you are asking a question—— 

Senator INHOFE. I am asking a question. I will get an answer in 

a minute. 

And the interesting thing about all of these things, of going 

through this, is that no one disagrees with the fact that the greatest surge in the release of CO2 occurred after World War II, around 

1945. Why did that precipitate a 30-year ice age as opposed to a 

warming period? 

Mr. CHRISTY. Well, about that I will say this. Our ignorance of 

the climate system is enormous. And I think you all need to understand that. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you very much. 

Mr. CHRISTY. We cannot predict much at all. 

196 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. I just want you to know I do remember when you 

did that, and you invited Al Gore to come and live in that house. 

Senator INHOFE. It actually slept four people. 

Senator BOXER. I remember it very clearly because the headline 

the next day, ABC News, was Inhofe Uses Blizzard to Refute Global Warming. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. February 11, 2010. But that was a headline. And 

I think it is important for us to realize that it is absolutely true, 

it is not the weather; it is the climate. 

Senator INHOFE. I do not think anyone at this table is going to 

have a problem with a headline that some biased reporter might 

use. 

Senator SANDERS. Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. Just a moment. OK? Just relax, Senator. 

Senator SANDERS. I am relaxed. 

Senator BOXER. Well, you are not. You keep telling me this one, 

that one. We will continue this in a civil way, and we will not descend into saying one thing and then have the facts disprove it, because you have to make a point if the facts disprove what you say. 

Senator SANDERS. Thank you. 

I wanted to, because I believe that my good friend, and he is a 

good friend, and he is honest and he is sincere, Jim Inhofe, is in 

a sense the ideological leader of the Republicans on this issue, I am 

going to do my best to quote Senator Inhofe on his views of this 

issue. And Jim, if I am misquoting you, I want you to tell me. I 

am going to do my best to get you as accurate as I can, and I want 

the members of the panel to tell me whether Senator Inhofe is 

right or whether or not the scientific community disagrees with 

him. 

Now, Senator Inhofe has said repeatedly, recently just the other 

day on the floor of the Senate and in his book, which I am reading, 

I am reading it, he gave it to me very kindly, and I am going to 

read every word of it, he said that in his view global warming is 

the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people. 

Now, my understanding is that NOAA says that global average 

surface temperatures have increased 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit since 

1900. NASA says the global average surface temperatures of this 

planet have increased by 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit since 1880. Dr. 

Richard Muller recently wrote an article in which he said that the 

planet has warmed 2.5 degrees Fahrenheit over the last 250 years. 

So either NASA, NOAA and many other scientists are correct in 

stating that the planet is warming, or perhaps Senator Inhofe is 

correct that global warming is a hoax. 

Senator INHOFE. Just for a moment here. Stop the clock because 

I do not want to use—— 

Senator BOXER. Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. 

Senator INHOFE. Well, he asked me the question, Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. Would you like the Senator to yield for a question? 

Senator INHOFE. Yes. 

197 

Senator SANDERS. I would ask unanimous consent, I am going to 

yield. But I ask that it not be taken out of my time. 

Senator BOXER. Absolutely. 

Senator INHOFE. The original statement was that the notion that 

anthropogenic gases are causing catastrophic global warming is the 

greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people. 

Senator SANDERS. OK. 

Senator INHOFE. So, it was, that is a little addition to the definition. 

Senator SANDERS. OK, thank you. 

OK, so here is my question, very briefly because we do not have 

a lot of time, to the three scientists in front of us. Is the scientific 

community correct in believing that global warming is real? Or is 

Senator Inhofe correct in believing that global warming is a hoax? 

Dr. Field. 

Mr. FIELD. The scientific community is as close to unified as it 

is on anything ever in that global warming is unequivocal. 

Senator SANDERS. Dr. Christy, is global warming real or is it a 

hoax? 

Mr. CHRISTY. In the political context in which that was stated, 

I think I understand that it is overstated as a political issue. 

Senator SANDERS. Is global warming real or is it a hoax? 

Mr. CHRISTY. The world has warmed in the past 120 years. 

Senator SANDERS. Pardon me? 

Mr. CHRISTY. The world has warmed in the past 120 years. 

Senator SANDERS. It has warmed in the last 120 years? 

Mr. CHRISTY. Yes. 

Senator SANDERS. So, those of us who believe in global warming, 

are we perpetrating a hoax? 

Mr. CHRISTY. I think the question is how much is due to human 

effects, and can you do anything about it. That is the question. 

Senator SANDERS. OK. 

Dr. McCarthy, is global warming a hoax? 

Mr. MCCARTHY. It is unequivocal the earth is warming, and I 

think the evidence that humans are contributing to it is also unequivocal. 

Senator SANDERS. OK, next question. And again, I do not want 

to misquote my good friend. I would never do that. Senator Inhofe, 

he is very sincere about this. But we cannot have a debate unless 

we are being honest with each other. 

Senator Inhofe said to NBC News in an interview in July 2010, 

‘‘We are in a cycle now that all the scientists agree is going into 

a cooling period.’’ Then, on the Senate floor on July 11th, Senator 

Inhofe said, ‘‘We went into a warming period that went up to the 

turn of the century. Now it is actually going down into a cooling 

period again.’’ 

I believe Senator Inhofe just referred a few moments ago to a recent period where we were going into an ice age. Question to the 

members of the panel. Senator Inhofe has suggested that we are 

in a cooling period since the year 2001. Others have testified that 

we are seeing a significant increase in temperature. Is Senator 

Inhofe right that we are in a cooling period over the last 10 or 11 

years? 

Dr. Field. 

198 

Mr. FIELD. There is no indication of any change in the rate of 

warming of the earth system over the last 10 years. 

Senator SANDERS. Are we getting warmer, or are we going into 

a cooling period? 

Mr. FIELD. Dr. McCarthy shared the conclusive evidence about 

the increased heat that is being accumulated in the oceans. 

Senator SANDERS. OK. 

Dr. Christy. 

Mr. CHRISTY. It depends on what year you start and what year 

you end, but basically—— 

Senator SANDERS. Since 2001. 

Mr. CHRISTY. That has been pretty flat in terms of temperature. 

Senator SANDERS. You do not—OK. 

Dr. McCarthy. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. This last decade is the warmest on record. And 

if you look at the ocean cycles, particularly El Nin ̃ o, you can understand that indeed this decade is also warming at about the same 

rate as earlier decades. 

Senator SANDERS. Dr. Christy, you disagree with Dr. McCarthy? 

Mr. CHRISTY. Oh, yes. In fact, I showed it in the chart. 

Senator SANDERS. OK, thank you. 

All right, next question. Getting back to the point that Senator 

Inhofe just made—— 

Senator INHOFE. Could I just interrupt and ask you a question 

at this point? 

Senator SANDERS. Could you let me—I would appreciate it if you 

would let me ask my questions, then I would be happy to take any 

questions—— 

Senator BOXER. Well, if I could just say, we still have colleagues 

that have questions. We are not going to have any more interruptions. 

Senator SANDERS. OK. Senator Inhofe says global warming is the 

greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people, and he had 

some ideas about who the perpetrators are. In an interview with 

this book, about his recent book, which was done with Craig Bannister, this is what he says. 

Mr. Bannister says, now why do you call the global warming 

hoax a conspiracy? Senator Inhofe says, well, it is a hoax and a 

conspiracy, Craig, because they try to make it appear that we are 

all going to die if we do not line up and do what they want, what 

they tell us to do, in terms of anthropogenic gases, when in fact you 

have a bunch of people, you have the Al Gores, the George Soros, 

the MoveOn.org, the whole Hollywood elite group and all of them 

trying to run everyone else’s lives. 

And this is what their motivation is. To make people, for the 

kids, for example, make little kids and school kids believe that the 

world is coming to an end, and it is all man’s fault, and it is all 

the fault primarily of the wealthier nations, and this is part of the 

hoax. 

Question: Do you believe that global warming is a hoax being 

pushed by the United Nations, Al Gore, George Soros, the whole 

Hollywood elite and MoveOn.org? 

Dr. Field. 

Mr. FIELD. Global warming is certainly not a hoax. 

199 

Senator SANDERS. Dr. Christy. 

Mr. CHRISTY. That question, I do not know how to answer. I 

would just say the global warming issue is highly overblown from 

what you look at real, hard core—— 

Senator SANDERS. Do you think the U.N. is engaging, and the 

Hollywood elite and Al Gore and all of these guys are pushing—— 

Mr. CHRISTY. I am not going to go to the motives of these people. 

Senator SANDERS. OK. Fine. 

Dr. McCarthy. 

Mr. MCCARTHY. There is no hoax. There is no conspiracy. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Madam Chair, point of order. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. Yes. 

Senator BOOZMAN. I was under the impression that if a member 

in questioning mentions another member’s name that he does have 

the right to respond. Is that correct or not? 

Senator BOXER. Well, we do not have any such stated rules. But 

as you know, I did allow a couple of interruptions here. And if Senator Inhofe wants to take another round, we can all have another 

round. 

Senator BOOZMAN. But I do think that is fair, I mean, in the 

sense that—— 

Senator BOXER. I will call on Senator Inhofe, but I would like to 

say we do not have any rules. We try to do this in a collegial way. 

Senator Inhofe, I will give you 2 minutes. 

Senator INHOFE. I do not need 2 minutes. I would only say this. 

The key to the question which was corrected by Senator Sanders 

is that anthropogenic gases is causing this. I would hope that when 

you get to the chapter on the United Nations that you read it very 

carefully, and then you and I can visit about that. 

I ask unanimous consent that we include in the record at this 

point a statement that is by someone on your side of this issue, Jim 

Lovelock, who made the statement that the world has not warmed 

up very much in the millennium, 12 years is a reasonable time. 

And he goes on to say yes, it has leveled off now. So, there are 

other scientific opinions which are expressed in this document. 

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

Senator BOXER. Thank you. Thank you very much. We are going 

to try to get through this a little bit faster here if we can. So we 

are going to turn now to Senator Sessions. 

Senator SESSIONS. Let us go over this chart because we have a 

desperate, an aggressive, let me say, attempt to take weather difficulties and extreme events to paint a picture of climate change occurring in an unprecedented degree. 

Dr. Christy, if we are having extreme weather events, it would 

seem to me that record lows and record highs would indicate that. 

Is that correct? One of the implications? 

Mr. CHRISTY. Yes. If someone claims that, it is a claim that can 

be tested. I have heard the claim. 

Senator SESSIONS. Now, this chart that indicates clearly, if you 

can see it, the blue represents record low temperatures; the red 

represents record high temperatures since the 1890s. And you have 

200 

taken—you have looked at stations that have been in existence for 

at least 80 years. Is that correct? 

Mr. CHRISTY. Yes. 

Senator SESSIONS. Is it not true that if you take a station that 

has been in existence for 25 years you could have a high but it 

would be only within that, at that station, over a 25-year period? 

Mr. CHRISTY. That was the fallacy of all of these reports this 

year, that they used stations with only 30, 35, 40 years of data that 

did not include the 1930s and 1920s. And so you had all of these 

record highs. 

Senator SESSIONS. So, in the 1930s, we did not have nearly as 

much CO2 in the atmosphere as we have today? 

Mr. CHRISTY. That is right. 

Senator SESSIONS. Would you just explain to me, this is rather 

dramatic, since 1960 through today according to your data which 

takes NOAA’s temperature records State by State, every single decade, this is not 1 year but every decade, there have been more cold 

lows than there have been warm highs. Is that correct? 

Mr. CHRISTY. That is not consistent with what someone would 

want if warming were to occur. But as I say, and we talked earlier, 

extremes are pretty poor metric to use to claim something about 

climate change. 

Senator SESSIONS. I would just want to say that that is a cause 

of concern as we as policymakers are asked to invest trillions of 

dollars of taxpayers’ money. We need to consider whether or not 

this event is actually occurring and whether we just have more TV 

and weather channels that give more attention to these storms. We 

see the forest fires on the television. It does not mean we did not 

have forest fires previously. A forest fire is no proof of global warming. Give me a break. 

But this is more troubling. Senator Inhofe has been attacked 

here. He said years ago—as a lone voice, frankly, I remember him 

speaking out—that he had doubts about these projections. And you 

expressed doubts about these projections—climate computer models—in your testimony before the Committee when I was on it 

years ago. 

Would you explain what is happening in that chart and why that 

is an important chart? 

Mr. CHRISTY. OK, this is about as simple as you can get. The 

black line is the average of the 34 latest IPCC climate models. The 

blue and red lines are two independent satellite temperature data 

sets. So, we are comparing apples to apples by starting in the same 

period and going forward in time. And you see that the temperatures have leveled off in the past 12 or 13 years when you look at 

this average, significantly different from what models say. 

Senator SESSIONS. So the policy we have been asked to set over 

the last 15 years in the Congress have been based on the computer 

models, I would say. I mean, we have been told by the IPCC and 

other climate experts that these computers were predicting a dramatic increase in temperature. I would just say that the dramatic 

increase in temperature has not occurred, it seems to me, and I believe it calls on us all to be a bit cautious. 

Can CO2 increase temperature? I would think there is some logic 

to that theory. It could be a blanketing greenhouse gas. But how 

201 

much can we hammer working Americans with extreme electric 

bills and other costs for gasoline to try to confront the issue? This 

is a question that all of us have to wrestle with. And I believe Dr. 

Christy’s testimony is accurate. I believe Senator Inhofe, whose 

skepticism has been courageously stated for a long time, has been 

proven more accurate than a lot of the scientists who have produced these models to date. 

Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. I will call on Senator Cardin. 

He is not here, so I will call on Senator Lautenberg. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thanks, Madam Chairman. 

We are getting a semantic debate going here, as well as a review 

of science. And I wonder, there is quite a difference between a projection and a hoax. Projection is done in honest form by reading 

from whatever instruments or data one receives. But a hoax is a 

produced action to deceive people. None of you teach English but 

I know that you speak it very well. 

And so what happened around here is there has been an attempt 

to discredit science, and it goes on continually to try and make a 

case for disbelieving what is in front of you. 

Dr. McCarthy, in 2009 a hacker stole a number of e-mails from 

the climate change scientists. Conservatives, Republican news 

media have seized upon these e-mails to attack efforts to address 

climate change. Are you aware that anything was uncovered in 

those e-mails that undermined the scientific consensus on climate 

change? 

Mr. MCCARTHY. Thank you, Senator. Indeed, there was a lot of 

press as you described, and it prompted a number of investigations. 

There were investigations conducted by Parliament in the U.K. 

since that is where the server was based, and that is where the 

theft presumably occurred. 

There were investigations conducted by our National Science 

Foundation in this country because the National Science Foundation supported much of this work, through investigations conducted 

by all the universities in which the scientists who were involved in 

these exchanges of e-mail resigned. And none of those investigations found that there was any reason to question the science that 

was in play and discussed in these various matters. 

There were questions about access to the data, the scientists 

were being harassed by people wanting their data, wanting their 

code, and there were questions about some really lousy papers that 

had been published and through the peer review process would not 

have to be dealt with in a very, very protracted way. But the 

science stands unaffected by any of the investigations. No fault was 

found. The scientists were guilty of bad manners. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you. 

Dr. Christy, your research on satellite temperature has often 

been used to challenge the reliability of climate change models. 

However, your research was shown to be wrong. Specifically, you 

failed to make the right adjustments for satellite orbit and other 

factors when analyzing the temperature data. 

Once those errors were corrected, the satellite data confirmed the 

warming trend. Did your personal views regarding climate change 

affect your views of the research? 

202 

Mr. CHRISTY. No. First of all, I disagree with his view of 

Climategate, but we will go on to your question. Science is the 

process of getting to the best answer through time. Our data set 

changed by less than the error margin we had published already. 

And so even today our data set has a more warming trend than 

one of the other satellite data sets. So, that did not change because 

the errors were relatively small. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Relatively small. Well, they seemed to 

raise quite a degree of doubt in the scientific community that your 

analysis that the changes were relatively small; I do not think it 

is the popular view. So, you are entitled to your own bias, if you 

will. 

Dr. McCarthy, you do a lot with the ocean, obviously, and its 

ability to encapsulate the information of change that we are seeing. 

What has happened up in the Arctic and the Antarctic? And has 

there been any effect of climate change in these regions? 

Mr. MCCARTHY. The Arctic has changed profoundly. I show 

graphs in my written testimony of the loss of sea ice in the Arctic. 

The data is only really precise since 1980, but we are setting new 

records already in June and July of this year for a low sea ice extent in the Arctic. 

Also, you would expect this warming to affect ice on Greenland, 

and it certainly is, not only by warming the atmosphere but also 

warming of the ocean. The Petermann Glacier slide that Senator 

Boxer showed, this is a tidewater glacier. The glacial tongue sticks 

out into the ocean. And these are the glaciers that are retreating 

most rapidly because the ocean is warming. 

So, yes, Greenland and Antarctica are both losing ice. The warming ocean is eating away at the tidewater glaciers so they are retreating very quickly, and sea ice is being lost in the central Arctic 

because of a warmer atmosphere. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. In a trip that I made with some of my colleagues here to Greenland, and ultimately I went down to the 

South Pole, and species mammals had radical changes in their population over this period of time. And they are ocean dependent. Are 

those real changes or are we imagining these? 

Mr. MCCARTHY. The first slide I showed had 10 physical indicators. We could have a whole other chart that showed biological indicators. On every planet right now, every planet, excuse me, every 

continent on this planet, we have one planet, unfortunately, only 

one, every continent on this planet you are seeing changes in the 

distribution of organisms which are indicative of a change in climate. And the direction they are changing, whether it is their 

range or their time of migration or flowering, are consistent with 

the local changes which in many cases are warmer, wetter, or 

drier. And we are seeing similar trends in the ocean. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Madam Chairman, I did not mean to run 

over, but I thought since the disputation that was going on here 

took some time that I would have some license to do it. 

Senator BOXER. You have your license, Senator. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. One license more, and that is, how come 

the things we are seeing are not really there? This is the mystery 

that we are facing here. 

Thank you very much. 

203 

Senator BOXER. Yes. That is interesting. 

[Laugher.] 

Senator BOXER. Senator Boozman, you have the last questions. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Again, Senator Lautenberg suggested that what we are seeing is 

not really there. As scientists, you do not really think in those 

terms, do you? In the sense of trying to correlate what is going on 

this summer with a pattern? Is that correct? 

Senator BOXER. Who are you asking it to? 

Senator BOOZMAN. Just whoever wants to jump in. 

Mr. FIELD. The scientific method is a spectacularly powerful tool 

for extracting inference, and on top of that the process of doing 

these assessments is a wonderful way to sort through all of the 

published literature. What we do is make observations, interpret, 

sort through, and present through the peer view process. 

Senator BOOZMAN. I guess my point is that is a lot hotter in Arkansas this summer than it was last summer. Many centuries ago 

it was a lot colder, during the ice age, whatever caused that, than 

it is now. I guess what I am saying is that it is dangerous to really 

infer, and you can correct me from just what is going on this summer as compared to the whole deal. 

One thing that bothers me a little bit is that there is really a 

tendency, I am hearing, and we are not going to be able to decide 

whether exactly what is going on today or who is causing it or this 

or that, but I am bothered when I hear scientists say it is this way 

or that way. OK? In the sense that we can recount throughout history, and throughout recent history, all kinds of times when the 

scientific community was completely in agreement that this or that 

was that way and it was not that way. So, I do think as scientists 

we really do need to continually, the statements, it is this way or 

that way, are not really helpful. 

When I was in high school I was told that we would be out of 

our natural gas in 20 years. We have got more natural gas now 

than ever. OK? Y2K. I am sure that all of you adjusted your computers, and the scientific community agreed completely that if we 

did not adjust our computers at the time it was true that we going 

to have all of this stuff gone. But the reality is no computer any 

place caused any problem. 

So I do think that as we discuss these things, it is dangerous, 

it is this way, period. And I am really hearing some of that from 

some of you all. 

My question is, the dilemma that we have is if this is manmade, 

how do we respond to that? In Arkansas, electricity would rise by, 

if we went to cap and trade, which was suggested by some here, 

electricity would rise $1,358 a year and $1.27 per gallon increase 

in gasoline prices. The question is, what does that do to our single 

moms? What does it do to our people on fixed incomes? What does 

it do to our economy? 

And so what we are grasping with, and you all can be helpful, 

even if it were true, that we are in a global warming situation because of CO2, what could possibly be done that would counter that 

in a sense especially with China, India, places like that not going 

along with it, which they have said they will not. 

Yes, sir. 

204 

Mr. CHRISTY. I would just say on the other side of that is, would 

that have any effect on the climate anyway? 

Senator BOOZMAN. Yes, that is my point. 

Mr. CHRISTY. The answer is no, that is so minuscule as to be so 

undetectable and unpredictable and unattributable. 

Senator BOOZMAN. And have you two, go ahead, sir, have you 

done any research that says if we do this or that that this or that 

is going to happen, and it is worth the $1,300 a year and $1.27 in 

gasoline—— 

Senator SANDERS. Would the gentleman yield? And contribute 

time to him. Just for one question. Where do you get that, where 

do those numbers come from? Those are not numbers that I am familiar with nor do I agree with. 

Senator BOOZMAN. It is a study from David Kreutzer, Ph.D., Senior Policy Analyst in Energy, Economics and Climate Change, and 

Karen Campbell, Ph.D., William W. Beach, Director of the Center 

for Data Analysis Energy and Environment and Nicolas Loris. 

Senator SANDERS. You have one study then, Senator, that says 

that other studies would disagree? 

Senator BOOZMAN. But I have no reason to, I think everyone during the discussion of cap and trade, energy trade would go up significantly and that was the mechanism of controlling the use of energy. 

Senator INHOFE. And that is what the President said. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

205 


25111.160
206 


25111.161
207 


25111.162
208 


25111.163
209 


25111.164
210 


25111.165
211 


25111.166
212 

Mr. FIELD. Senator, thank you for the question. And it is a great 

question. What is important to recognize is that what we are trying 

to do is provide sufficient information for policymakers to make 

good decisions, to try to figure out ways to avoid the damages that 

come from the climate change without providing unacceptable costs 

to the rest of society. 

And we are really trying to find smart ways to move forward, 

recognizing what is happening, recognizing what the risks are, and 

that there are consequences of using the atmosphere as a dump for 

greenhouse gases, just the same way there are consequences of 

making changes in the economy that are intended to alleviate those 

damages. 

The estimates from the IPCC indicate that the cost of stabilizing 

atmospheric CO2 at something like 550 ppm could be anywhere 

from a net benefit to the economy to resulting in something like in 

2050 that we would reach a level of wealth 1 year later than we 

would otherwise do it. 

Senator BOXER. OK. Wow. Very intense conversation. And I want 

to thank colleagues. 

I am going to ask unanimous consent to place in the record a 

chart based on NOAA temperatures that directly refutes Senator 

Sessions’ chart. So then we will have two charts, one that shows 

that since 1950, well, since 1990, there have been more record 

highs than record lows, all the way to the present. So, we will put 

that in and we can look at both of those and see which one we 

agree with. 

Senator SANDERS. Madam Chairman, a unanimous consent—— 

Senator BOXER. Yes, go ahead. 

Senator SANDERS [continuing]. To place into the record, just in 

response to my friend Senator Boozman, a study done by McKinsey 

Consultants which says U.S. can meet entire 2020 emissions target 

with efficiency in cogeneration while lowering the nation’s energy 

bill $700 billion. 

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

Senator BOXER. OK. Well, I think what is important—— 

Senator SESSIONS. Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. Yes, sir. 

Senator SESSIONS. I was just going to offer for the record—— 

Senator BOXER. Yes, please go ahead. 

Senator SESSIONS [continuing]. The recent Wall Street Journal 

article by a number of respected scientists who say that we should 

not be panicking about global warming and point out many of the 

problems with the theory. 

[The referenced information follows:] 

213 


25111.167
214 


25111.168
215 


25111.169
216 

Senator BOXER. OK. And I would just clarify for the record, I am 

not panicked about global warming. I just feel that Congress is the 

only place that seems to just shrug its shoulders, and even though 

admitting that it is occurring, does not really want to do much 

about it. 

I will also place in the record several studies that confirm that, 

in essence, at the end of the day our consumers will save a lot of 

money once they have energy efficiency put into place and we have, 

we are energy independent, independent of the nations that do not 

like us very much. Once that happens, we will see a reduction in 

costs for the individual. 

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

Senator BOXER. I want to thank all of you scientists for being 

here. We greatly appreciate this. And we will call you back because 

we are going to keep on this as long as it takes to get some action 

here in the U.S. Senate. 

And Senator Inhofe has something for the record. 

Senator INHOFE. For the record, I would like to have the report 

that shows, it came from a number of universities, that if we were 

to do the cap and trade as has been described in several pieces of 

legislation, the cost to the American people would be between $300 

billion and $400 billion a year, which is 10 times greater than the 

tax increase of 1993. 

Senator BOXER. OK. And I would put into the record a direct refutation of that. 

So, we start off, unfortunately, where we left off, which is the Republican side denying and saying even if they agree, let us not 

doing anything about this—— 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, we could agree on something, Madam 

Chair—— 

Senator BOXER. Yes, go ahead, tell me. 

Senator SESSIONS [continuing]. And that is I have, and I think 

most Republicans, have voted for mileage improvements and efficiencies. Many of us have supported, at times, ethanol expansion 

and those kinds of things because we can do those scientifically, 

and it makes sense for everybody. So, here is an area that we can 

agree. And if CO2 is causing an increase in temperatures, all of 

these steps will help alleviate it. 

Senator BOXER. Absolutely. 

Senator SESSIONS. It is just a question of how much we can afford to spend, and that is where the dispute is. Thank you for letting me say that. 

Senator BOXER. Well, I like what you just said, and I think there 

is room for it. So, why do we not continue that conversation together, Senator Sessions. Are you willing to do that, sit down and 

talk about those various energy efficiencies, fuel efficiencies? All 

right, we will do it. Thank you very much. 

And thanks again to the panel. 

We will go to our next panel. We are going to have to do more 

about the gavel on this one. 

Secretary John Griffin, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Dr. Margo Thorning, Senior Vice President and Chief 

Economist, American Council for Capital Formation, Dr. Jonathan 

217 

Fielding, Director, Los Angeles County Department of Public 

Health, National Association of County and City Officials. 

We are going to have to move this quickly, so if our new witnesses could take their seats. I want to thank them for their patience. 

I know Senator Cardin wants to introduce his witness from his 

State, so why do you not go ahead, Senator Cardin. 

Senator CARDIN. Madam Chair, while they are getting situated, 

let me welcome Secretary John Griffin. He has had a long and distinguished career in our State. He has been one of the architects 

of the Chesapeake Bay Program that this Committee has heard me 

talk about on frequent occasions. Maryland has been one of the 

leaders in developing sensible plans to deal with our environment. 

I particularly want to acknowledge the leadership of the 

O’Malley administration. Secretary Griffin chairs the Adaptation 

and Response Working Group for the Maryland Commission on Climate Change. We believe that Maryland will give examples of what 

we can use as a national model to deal with the realities of the new 

norm on climate change and deal with changes we need to make 

for public safety and for our future. We are a coastal State, and we 

need to deal with the risks. And our nation needs to have good policies. 

I want to thank Secretary Griffin for being here. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much, sir. 

With that, we will open it up with Secretary Griffin. I am going 

to use this gavel a little stronger because we have got some meetings at 12:30. So, go ahead. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN B. GRIFFIN, SECRETARY, 

MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 

Mr. GRIFFIN. Chairman Boxer, Senator Cardin, thanks for that 

kind introduction, distinguished members of the Committee of Environment and Public Works, I am pleased to be here today to discuss with you the importance of taking precautionary, cos effective, 

and common sense actions now to reduce our vulnerability to the 

current and future impacts of climate change. 

I guess I should also say that I bring warm greetings from Governor Martin O’Malley. 

I was asked today to share with this Committee our efforts in 

Maryland to respond and adapt to the impacts of climate change. 

Before I do so, though, I wanted to highlight some of the impacts 

that we are observing and dealing with right now in our State. 

Sea level rise. We have documented a sea level rise of 1 foot over 

the last century due to the combination of land subsidence and 

global sea level rise, and an additional 3 to 4 feet is projected by 

the end of this century, increasing our vulnerabilities to strong 

events, causing more frequent and severe flooding, more shoreline 

erosion, saltwater intrusion into our drinking water aquifers, and 

higher water tables. 

A recent study you may have seen from the U.S. Geological Survey identified the stretch of coast running from Cape Hatteras to 

a little bit north of Boston as a hot spot for sea level rise caused 

by global warming. Since 1990 USGS found that sea levels along 

218 

this stretch, which includes, obviously, Maryland, are rising at an 

annual rate three or four times faster than the global average. 

Shoreline erosion. Maryland is currently losing approximately 

580 acres of land per year to shore erosion, and alarmingly 13 

Chesapeake Bay islands once mapped on nautical charts have already disappeared beneath the water’s surface. A 2008 report by 

the National Wildlife Federation calculated that an additional 

400,000 acres of land on Chesapeake’s Eastern Shore, that is basically Maryland and Virginia, could gradually be submerged. 

Waterfront property along our thousands of miles of tidal shoreline put billions of dollars of public and private investment at risk 

of loss. For example, approximately 450 State-owned facilities, and 

close to 400 miles of State highways, are located in areas that are 

most vulnerable to impacts from sea level rise. 

Water temperature increases. Since 1960 the Chesapeake Bay’s 

water temperature has increased 2.8 degrees Fahrenheit. One example of the impact of this change is a decline in eelgrass, an underwater grass that provides critical habitat for fish and juvenile 

crabs. Scientists expect that eelgrass will very likely be eliminated 

in the not too distant future from the Chesapeake and our seaside 

bays because of rising water temperatures. 

Impact on Chesapeake Bay restoration. We were also very concerned about the consequences of climate change impacts on the 

health of the Chesapeake Bay. As shorelines erode, marshes are 

lost, and forests are flooded, the amount of nutrients and sediments entering the Chesapeake Bay will increase and set us back 

on our efforts to restore the health of the bay and all the commendable work that Senator Cardin and this Committee have done to 

help us in the bay region restore the bay. 

What is Maryland doing to adapt? In 2007, shortly after he was 

elected in his first term, Governor O’Malley established the Maryland Commission on Climate Change. The commission about a year 

later did its original report laying out factions to address not only 

the drivers of climate change but also how we will adapt and respond to those impacts. Our department, as was mentioned by Senator Cardin, has been leading the adaptation work. 

Maryland enacted, in 2009, the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Act 

which commits the State to reducing greenhouse gas emissions 

over a baseline of 2006 by 25 percent by 2020. And the Climate Action Plan produced by the Commission also has identified, in two 

reports, a series of actions that ought to be taken by the State and 

its local governments to prepare for and adapt to climate change. 

Let me just share with you a few of the changes that we are 

doing at the moment—— 

Senator BOXER.Doctor, I am going to have to ask you to put those 

into the record, because we will get to you with the questions. 

Mr. GRIFFIN. That is fine. I would be happy to do so. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Griffin follows:] 

219 


25111.170
220 


25111.171
221 


25111.172
222 


25111.173
223 


25111.174
224 


25111.175
225 


25111.176
226 


25111.177
227 


25111.178
228 


25111.179
229 


25111.180
230 


25111.181
231 


25111.182
232 


25111.183
233 

Senator BOXER. Now, I am very proud to welcome Dr. Jonathan 

Fielding, Director, Los Angeles County Department of Public 

Health, National Association of County and City Health Officials. 

Thank you, sir. 

STATEMENT OF JONATHAN FIELDING, M.D., MPH, MBA, DIRECTOR, LOS ANGELES COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC 

HEALTH, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF COUNTY AND CITY 

HEALTH OFFICIALS 

Dr. FIELDING. Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member Inhofe, and 

members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak. 

I am Jonathan Fielding, Director of Public Health and Health Officer for L.A. County, a professor at UCLA Schools of Medicine and 

Public Health, and I am here also representing the National Association of County and City Health Officials, which is a membership 

organization comprised of the nation’s local health departments. 

We are the feet on the ground. 

Senator Boxer, NACCHO and local health departments across 

the country recognize and appreciate your leadership on the issue 

of climate change and its impacts on public health. The city, county, metropolitan, district, and tribal departments work every day to 

protect residents from all health threats. Some, of course, are very 

long standing: unsafe water, food. These threats multiply when we 

have disasters, hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, and wildfires. 

Local health departments also are responsible for protecting health 

and minimizing the health effects of many types of acts of terrorism, bio-terrorism, chemical terrorism, and dirty bombs. 

We are here because our No. 1 job is to protect the public’s 

health, and it is our responsibility to adhere to the precautionary 

principle. When we see threats, or threats are very likely, we have 

to be ready to respond quickly and effectively. 

We are currently witnessing the effects of severe storms, 

droughts, wildfires, and other extreme weather events that cause 

severe trauma, lead to increases in number of diseases like respiratory disease, to contaminated water and air, and also to mental 

health. This disproportionately affects the poor, the young, the elderly, and those with physical or mental disabilities. 

As you have heard, the past decade was the warmest on record. 

In 2011 the lower 48 States set temperature records for the warmest spring, the warmest year to date, and the warmest 12-month 

period since recordkeeping began in 1895. So, we cannot ignore the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change conclusion that climate change threatens to ‘‘increase the number of people suffering 

from death, disease, and injury from heat waves, flood, storms, 

fires, and droughts.’’ 

And we cannot ignore the likelihood that climate change will 

bring us serious vector-borne diseases, mosquitoes and others, that 

give us dengue fever, Chagas’ disease, and other diseases we have 

not seen before here. 

The Federal Government, States, and local health departments 

all need to adapt to the new and growing risk to critical infrastructure, precious resources, the natural environment, and human 

health. These affect not only our national health but our national 

productivity, our competitiveness, and our standard of living. 

234 

It has been estimated the costs from six climate-related events 

from 2006 to 2009 was more than $14 billion. And this figure is an 

understatement because many of the health effects continue to be 

felt years after the precipitating event, as many survivors of Hurricane Katrina can attest. 

Many health departments have already taken very specific steps. 

In Los Angeles County, we have enhanced emergency preparedness 

for increased frequent heat events, and we have conducted vulnerability assessments to identify the most vulnerable populations and 

are linking them to emergency resources. The Tulsa County Health 

Department is conducting focus groups after its hottest summer on 

record in 2011 to help identify vulnerable populations related to 

respiratory disease, vector-borne disease, and heat related illness, 

and to modify its Metropolitan Area Health Improvement Plan. 

Multnomah County in Portland, Oregon, has completed a vulnerability assessment and is working with a State authority to develop 

a heat vulnerability index and is testing a Heat Warning and 

Events Communication Plan. Health departments from all over, 

and we will put these in the record, East and West Coast, north 

and south, have all taken action adapting to changes. 

So, we cannot afford inaction. I think the threats to climate 

change effects are basic survival resources; food, water, shelter, 

and health; and we as local health departments, as your foot soldiers, have to be better prepared. 

But despite the threat, preparedness funding for local health departments has been declining. About 55 percent of local health departments saw a decline in their resources in the most recent survey. We need to expand the most recent investment made by the 

Centers for Disease Control in this area, not reduce it as has been 

proposed. 

And the climate change bill championed by you, Chairman 

Boxer, addresses the public health role in climate change and the 

need for a clear action plan at all levels of government. Action is 

needed now because inaction threatens our public and our national 

competitiveness. 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before you. 

I would be happy to answer questions. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Fielding follows:] 

235 


25111.184
236 


25111.185
237 


25111.186
238 


25111.187
239 


25111.188
240 


25111.189
241 


25111.190
242 


25111.191
243 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much, Doctor. 

And now we hear from our last witness today, and that is Dr. 

Margo Thorning, Senior Vice President and Chief Economist, the 

American Council for Capital Formation, as a minority witness. 

Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF MARGO THORNING, PH.D., SENIOR VICE 

PRESIDENT AND CHIEF ECONOMIST, AMERICAN COUNCIL 

FOR CAPITAL FORMATION 

Ms. THORNING. Thank you, Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member 

Inhofe. I appreciate the chance to appear before you today to discuss some of the challenges and some of the opportunities that the 

business community has in adapting to the potential climate variability or climate change. 

First, some of the challenges. The climate models that we have 

seen predicting change out over the next 50 to 100 years vary 

greatly, not only in terms of where the change in temperature or 

the change in precipitation may occur, but also when. So, the climate models are not sufficiently precise to allow business to make 

good plans for the future. 

Second challenge is that the business community tends not to 

plan more than 3 to 15 years in advance unless you are in a business like utilities where your capital stock may last 40, 50, 60 

years. So, the general business plans are not able to make—take 

account of the fact that climate change may occur but may not be 

significant for 50 or 100 years. So they will tend to adopt what we 

call no regret strategies which are changes that they would make 

in the normal course of doing business. 

A third barrier or a third challenge for the business community 

to adapting to climate variability is regulatory policy and permitting delays. For example, the regulations, the EPA’s regulation of 

greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act is estimated to slow investment spending in 2014 by $25 billion to $75 billion and reduce 

GDP significantly and also hinder job growth, perhaps 500,000 to 

1.4 million fewer jobs. That slows economic growth, makes it more 

difficult for the economy to provide the resources to provide for adaptation to climate change. 

Now, the opportunities for the business community to adjust to 

climate change are certainly there. Many companies are adopting 

no regrets strategies, as I mentioned, strategies that they would do 

anyway. For example, in agriculture, figuring out developing seeds 

that are more drought resistant or more resistant to increased 

weather variability. 

So, many industries are already adjusting suppliers and thinking 

about what the potential impact is. But these are changes they 

would do as a normal course of business. They are not responding 

to threats that may be out there 50 to 100 years. 

Other industries like utilities are beginning to do what we call 

hard adaptation. They are beginning to change the way they— 

change the installation of their transmission lines, their distribution lines. For example, Intergy, the big company, a big energy 

company on the Gulf Coast, is spending $75 million to harden its 

transmission and distribution lines to a major port because of expeVerDate Aug 31 2005 12:25 Aug 07, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00247 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\25111.TXT SONYA
244 

rience with extreme weather. So, they are actually going beyond no 

regrets strategies. 

But the main thing that probably would assist companies in 

adapting to the potential threat of climate change is making sure 

we maintain strong economic growth because with that we can afford to make the changes that may be necessary. One component 

of maintaining strong growth is making sure that our tax code continues to preserve strong capital formation initiatives. As we debate tax reform, we need to be sure that any reform that is put in 

place does not weaken the incentives for new investment. 

And even going beyond lowering corporate rates, as both the 

Simpson Plan and others have suggested, we ought to be thinking 

about switching to a consumed income tax. A joint tax committee 

research, as well as research by Allen Sinai of Decision Economics, 

shows that if the U.S. were operating under a system where all 

savings is deductible and all investment is expensed, we would 

have faster economic growth, more investment, faster job growth, 

and it would enhance our ability to adapt to climate change. 

The last point is the need to reform our regulatory process, to 

make sure regulations meet the cost-benefit test so that they do not 

unduly burden our ability to invest and to grow, and to reform the 

permitting process. 

I also want to add that when you think about small and mediumsized enterprises, if climate change does occur they will face even 

greater challenges than do large scale operations. So, we need to 

be very careful that we preserve the kind of incentives that enable 

the U.S. economy to grow and make the changes that might be necessary. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Thorning follows:] 

245 


25111.192
246 


25111.193
247 


25111.194
248 


25111.195
249 


25111.196
250 


25111.197
251 


25111.198
252 


25111.199
253 


25111.200
254 


25111.201
255 


25111.202
256 


25111.203
257 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

I am going to take some time to ask Dr. Thorning a set of questions. Then I am going to turn to Senator Inhofe. He can ask whoever he wants, and then I will get back to the rest. 

Dr. Thorning, I found your testimony really interesting since you 

are a minority witness, and I just—I guess I need to know what 

is your role in the American Council for Capital Formation? What 

is your responsibility in that organization? 

Ms. THORNING. Helping to guide the research that we undertake, 

helping to explain to media, to the public, to policymakers what the 

economic consequences of various policy shifts might be. 

Senator BOXER. And yet you said that—it seemed to me that you 

were sort of saying that companies are getting ready for the impacts of climate change already. Is that correct? 

Ms. THORNING. My understanding is companies are taking it into 

account. They are beginning to do no regrets strategies. 

Senator BOXER. What does that mean, no regrets? 

Ms. THORNING. That means, for example, if you are a seed producer you would be trying to develop seeds that could withstand 

drought or could withstand increased rainfall or increased—— 

Senator BOXER. So that you will not regret the lost opportunity 

to do this. 

Ms. THORNING. And presumably whether the climate shifts 

sharply or not, you still would be better off. 

Senator BOXER. Great point. Great point. 

Ms. THORNING. It is my understanding that they are undertaking 

policies that will enable them to sustain their business and also potentially be ready for what may come in terms of climate. 

Senator BOXER. Well, I am going to quote you from now on because I think we need to do a no regrets strategy here. This is a 

break through moment because what you basically said is that— 

see if I am interpreting it right—you are not positive when this 

happening, although I did read your testimony, it looks like you 

have embraced the fact that changes are coming and may not come 

for a few decades, but they are coming. But instead of wasting this 

time, you are going to take steps in case the worst happens. That 

is how I am looking at it. 

Ms. THORNING. I think most prudent businesses would be looking 

ahead. They try to anticipate the best they can what the future 

may hold. But the main point of my testimony is that most businesses do not really make hard investment decisions beyond a 3- 

to 15-year time horizon, and the long, long term projections for climate change are simply beyond what they normally can incorporate in their business plan. But they will, where they can, adopt 

no regrets strategies. 

Senator BOXER. OK. Now, does the American Council for Capital 

Formation have an opinion on climate change? 

Ms. THORNING. We stick pretty much to the economics. I defer 

to your expert panel on climate change. 

Senator BOXER. OK, because I know some of your sponsors are 

the Koch brothers, the ExxonMobil, other oil companies, the American Petroleum Institute. But they are part of a long list of businesses, is that correct? 

258 

Ms. THORNING. That is correct. We are supported by a wide 

range of industries in the financial sector, insurance sector, as you 

can see on our Web site. 

Senator BOXER. Well, I want to thank you for your testimony because to me, I think these businesses are being very prudent. They 

are embracing a no regrets strategy. They see that this could happen, it could accelerate, it may not, they say, but it could and they 

are doing things right now to prepare. 

And that is all I think we ought to do here as a nation, prepare. 

Because, as you pointed out in your testimony, I thought quite eloquently, Dr. Thorning, that the things that you are doing are good, 

good for the businesses. If they do, for example, create a seed that 

helps you get through a drought period, we all know there are 

going to be drought periods even if there is no intensification of 

that drought period. They are going to be prepared. 

So, I am going to take your lesson, this leadership in the private 

sector, to address this problem and bring it here to this Committee 

and see whether we cannot find some more support for moving forward to have a no regrets type of strategy. I really appreciate your 

bringing that terminology into this debate. 

Thank you. 

Senator INHOFE. Well, thank you. First of all, I will have to, I 

hate to do this but I will have to leave as soon as I ask my questions because I told the Chairman I have a serious problem outside. 

Let me ask you to put four things in the record that I think are 

important as a result from the testimony from the first panel. One 

is the—from the NASA report that says that in 2011 saw 9,000 

Manhattans of ice recovery, and we are talking here about the Arctic. The second one would be a peer reviewed paper, the American 

Geophysical Union found a doubling of snow accumulation in the 

western Antarctic peninsula since 1950. 

The third would be a reviewed article in the climate, the Journal 

of Climate, that examines the trend of sea ice extending the east 

Antarctic coast from 2000 to 2008 and finds a significant increase 

of 1.3 percent per year. And last, Greenland, since it was mentioned, even the IPCC recognized that the ice sheet is growing at 

2 inches a year. 

So these four things I would like to have made a part of the 

record. 

Senator BOXER. We will in fact do that. 

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

Senator INHOFE. I would only say the last conversation, and the 

questions that were asked of you, Dr. Thorning, that there is a big 

difference between could happen and will happen. I think a lot of 

companies—and I came from the private sector, we do things, we 

try to anticipate. If something could happen, we want to be ready 

for it. Not that it will happen. There is a big difference. 

Now, over the years you have testified that the costs of cap and 

trade, and I would suggest after perhaps one of the members to my 

left might want to introduce another cap and trade bill because I 

can assure you that it would not pass. In fact, less than one-third 

of the U.S. Senate would be voting for it. 

You have talked about the costs of cap and trade. I have talked 

about the costs of cap and trade. Now, a lot of us are anticipating 

259 

and suggesting a carbon tax. Tell me, economically, how that would 

affect our country, a carbon tax? 

Ms. THORNING. Well, putting a tax on a commodity like energy 

will certainly raise prices and probably negatively impact U.S. competitiveness. If we are going to do any kind of tax policy, as I said 

in my testimony, I think we should be looking at switching to a 

consumed income tax where all investment is deductible, and all 

saving is tax exempt, and what is the tax base is consumption. 

That would be consumption of everything, energy, food, high priced 

cars, et cetera. 

So, I would suggest the best approach to helping the U.S. economy grow, which will help it adapt to whatever comes down the 

path, is to switch to a broad based consumption tax. 

Senator INHOFE. All right. I can remember before this Committee 

when Director Lisa Jackson was making her testimony, and I 

asked the question, if we were to pass, at that time I believe we 

were talking about the Waxman-Markey bill—but it did not make 

any difference because cap and trade is cap and trade—would this 

reduce, if we passed it, worldwide CO2 emission, and she said, of 

course, no, it would not. And I appreciated her honesty. 

I also remember, I think it was either 2005 or 2006, is when a 

change took place. We used to be a larger emitter of CO2 than 

China. That all changed in, I think it was in 2006. Today, and we 

have a chart that shows this, China has gone up so that it now has 

doubled the CO2 emissions than that of the United States. 

So, I would like to ask you the question, economically, if this 

trend continues, what is going to happen, what is going to be—how 

does it affect us, our manufacturing base and our economy in this 

country? 

Ms. THORNING. Let me be sure I understand the question. What 

happens if China’s emissions continue to grow? Or what happens 

if we try to cap our own emissions? 

Senator INHOFE. Well, you would be capping our own emissions 

if we do because we are talking about doing that, either a carbon 

tax or something else. 

Ms. THORNING. Oh, I see. Well, because of the global trend, the 

rest of the world emissions growing so much faster, ours actually 

declined from 2006, I think capping emissions here will have virtually no impact on global concentrations. 

In fact, EPA released a figure back when they were debating the 

Waxman-Markey bill that showed that even if the U.S. met the targets in the Waxman-Markey bill by 2050, it would make almost no 

difference of GHGs. 

So, I think measures like cap and trade in the U.S. would be 

counter-productive, it would slow our growth, we would not be able 

to make the changes that might be needed to adapt because our 

growth would be so much slower. So it would be counter-productive. 

Senator INHOFE. And I appreciate that. That is essentially what 

the director of the EPA said in response to the question. 

The last question I have is, you mentioned that as a result of the 

uncertainty caused by the EPA’s greenhouse gas regulations, business investment is expected to decline by 5 to 15 percent, and directly impact industries, which could result in 476,000 jobs to 1.4 

260 

million fewer jobs in 2014. Is it fair to say that eliminating EPA’s 

authority to regulate greenhouse gases would save these jobs? 

Ms. THORNING. I think scaling those back would definitely reduce 

some of the uncertainty faced by the business community. The 

business community faces uncertainty from the healthcare bill, 

Dodd-Frank, debt ceiling, tax reform, as well as environmental regulations. So, anything we can do to reduce uncertainty would tend 

to encourage investment. And investment, non-residential investment, is still down about 6 percent compared to the fourth quarter 

of 2007. 

Senator INHOFE. Yes. And if you—I am sure that you have, but 

you might share with us your thoughts on this. When we had cap 

and trade legislation, they were talking about how much greenhouse gas should, could, under those be reduced. However, if you 

look at doing this through an endangerment finding and doing it 

through regulations, that amount would actually have to go down 

far below what was found in any of the cap and trade bills to be 

consistent with the Clean Air Act. And that would have been down 

to, I think, 25,000 as opposed to something, what, 250,000. 

How much greater effect would that have on our economy that 

just cap and trade? 

Ms. THORNING. Well, it would be significantly greater because almost all facilities of any size at all would have been impacted, and 

it would hinder investment and hinder even continued operation 

for many, many companies. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you very much. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

So, here is the situation. I need to go to a leadership meeting. 

I am going to put something in the record, I am going to thank everyone, I am going to hand the gavel to Senator Cardin, and he can 

call, after he is done, on Senator Sessions and then if Senator 

Cardin can close this down. 

I just want to put into the record late breaking news from CNN, 

more than half of U.S. counties now disaster zones due to drought. 

So, this no regrets strategy that Dr. Thorning has put forward 

should be embraced by everybody—business, the Federal Government, and I know, particularly, in States like Maryland that are 

already seeing an impact. 

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

Senator BOXER. So, I am going to turn the gavel over. I want to 

thank everyone from the bottom of my heart. 

Senator CARDIN [presiding]. Senator Boxer, thank you very 

much. 

I just really want to respond very briefly to Senator Inhofe. The 

efforts that we have engaged in Congress with Senator Lieberman 

and Senator John Warner, Senator Kerry and Senator Boxer, in 

order to take responsible steps to deal with climate change, was 

not aimed at what was happening in the United States alone, but 

was aimed at joining the international community so that the chart 

that we just saw in regards to China, you could also put one in regards to India, that it would be fair competition globally with internationally efforts. 

So I just really wanted to set the record straight as to the efforts. 

It was aimed, yes, at the United States, energizing our economy, 

261 

energizing our business leaders to come up with solutions to climate change, but also doing it in context of the international community. 

Secretary Griffin, I want to get to the issues of adaptation, and 

I really do applaud Governor O’Malley and the O’Malley administration for taking a real leadership position on realities of adaptation, on dealing with the new norm, and that is extreme weather. 

We cannot tolerate the type of disruptions we had just a few weeks 

ago with the storms and people being out of power for over a week 

in 100 degree weather. 

I know that Governor O’Malley has taken certain steps. The consumers have a right to better information than they had during 

this storm. It is not right to call a number and get a recording saying that your power is going to be back that evening and find out 

3 days later that you still do not have power. People needed to 

have good information. 

So, is the Governor, in part of his work, working with our utilities to establish a better service response to these types of, now I 

think more frequent, storms? 

Mr. GRIFFIN. Yes, Senator Cardin. This actually started a few 

years ago due to other weather related power outages around our 

State. And he has been working with the Public Service Commission. Just, I think last week, he issued another Executive Order 

forming a team of government, science, and utility experts to start 

to look at how we build more reliability into our distribution systems for electric power. 

So we are doing all that we can. It is not easy. Certain issues 

we are looking at, such as the pros and cons of burying utility 

lines, are fairly daunting and costly, but nonetheless the Governor 

seems very committed to gradually improving in a variety of ways 

the reliability of our distribution system. 

Senator CARDIN. And I would urge him also to get, to require our 

oversight for better information so people know what the likelihood 

is of restoring power. 

I want to get to some of the challenges we have at sea level, our 

State being a coastal State, and some of the action that we have 

already taken. I have visited Smith Island. I know what is happening at Smith Island and the loss of land and people trying to 

save their homes and their businesses. 

I was at the Naval Academy when we had the storm and the 

flooding, and I saw the damage that was done. And I see the projections if we go up sea level what is going to happen to that type 

of facility. And it is not easy to retro do the type of work that is 

necessary. 

I know that you have made certain commitments as it relates to 

the Tubman Park Visitor Center, to put it above the flood plain 

which I think is the right type of policies we need to have for adaptation. So we plan today, recognizing that sea level is changing, 

and that we take steps to protect the shorelines from that type of 

damage. We have done work in Ocean City in order to protect 

against the increased flooding. 

What do you see as coming out of the task force that you are 

working with to deal with the unique problems we have being a 

coastal State? 

262 

Mr. GRIFFIN. Those are all very legitimate points, Senator 

Cardin. I think I would view it in the largest sense as we are on 

a continuum of learning and taking, I think, prudent actions. An 

ounce of prevention now, certainly in my view, history, in our view, 

history teaches us is far superior than allowing these problems to 

build and build when the cost of remediation is far greater. 

I think we are doing, not only in Maryland but through RGGI, 

the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, with other States and also 

an effort regionally with States from New York down through Virginia called MARCA. The Governors of those States signed a series 

of MOUs back in 2009 to start looking at ocean policy, and one of 

the key issues there was climate change and our ability regionally 

to adapt to it. 

So, a number of things are unfolding. A number of our coastal 

counties we have been working with with Federal support, thankfully, are starting to do the sort of work we are going statewide. 

We are assisting them with the tools. As you alluded to, better 

building codes, identifying the most vulnerable areas to try to reduce from the land use standpoint, further major development and 

investments there. 

So, those sorts of things are going on across the State actually, 

particularly in our coastal areas which is where most of our people 

live, reside. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. 

Senator Sessions. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you. 

As we wrestle with these issues I think we have to be realistic 

or, I think, fair. With regard to drought and floods, this morning 

we have had advocates say that floods are caused by global warming gases and droughts are caused by global warming. Whatever 

happens, the advocates say it is caused by global warming. 

Well, maybe both can be. But the data I have seen so far does 

not indicate that. The chart I showed earlier indicates we are not 

having more extreme highs or lows in the last 60 years than we 

have had previous to that. 

Also looking at a chart on U.S. drought, since 1900 the patterns 

have not really changed. Last year was a pretty high drought year, 

but the year before that was a very low drought year, or 2 years 

before that, and it is pretty much the same pattern that we have 

had. 

Dr. Thorning, let me run a few things by you as an economist. 

It seems to me that, in an economic sense, passing a law that requires the business to community and private homeowners to 

spend large amounts of money to ‘‘go green’’ is no different than 

the Federal Government taxing the economy and the Federal Government paying to fix up people’s homes to make them more 

‘‘green.’’ Would you agree? 

Ms. THORNING. Yes. 

Senator SESSIONS. It may be slightly more efficient to let the individuals figure out how to do it themselves, but in an economic 

sense, we are burdening the economy when we ask people to do 

things that are not in their economic interest, correct? 

Ms. THORNING. Yes, I agree. I would like to add to that. In previous testimony, I noted that States that have renewable portfolio 

263 

standards, which I believe 30 States do have, tend to have household and industrial electricity prices that are about 30 percent 

higher than States without renewable portfolio standards. 

So, that is something to think about because that is a mandate 

that probably is not going to do much to slow global warming, but 

yet it imposes a very real cost, especially on low- and middle-income people. 

Senator SESSIONS. I remember a number of years ago we were 

losing our chemical industry in Alabama, and I know Ohio and 

other States were losing that industry, too, because of high natural 

gas prices. Natural gas prices have dropped dramatically, and I believe it is providing an incentive to the economy in creating jobs as 

a result of lower cost energy making us more competitive. Would 

you agree? 

Ms. THORNING. Yes. And in fact, if you look at the recent new 

plants being installed by our chemical industry, by the steel industry, and other industries that are dependent on either low feedstock prices or low electricity prices, you can see the positive impact that our increased production of natural gas in the U.S. has 

had on the overall economy. 

Senator SESSIONS. Now, we want to have higher wages, as high 

wages as we can possibly afford for our workers. But if we burden 

our workers with unnaturally high energy prices, it not only hurts 

the business, but it hurts the employees who are part and parcel 

of that commercial enterprise, correct? 

Ms. THORNING. Well, if you are spending more on electricity and 

energy you have less money to spend on other things, which means 

the economy, there is a contraction there. And productivity is not 

enhanced by raising energy prices. 

Senator SESSIONS. Now, Alabama has had some success in attracting investment: foreign investment, automobiles, steel, chemical, as examples. And when an industry looks at a State, is it not 

a fact that they consider energy prices very much in deciding 

where they might place a plant? 

Ms. THORNING. It certainly is an important factor. 

Senator SESSIONS. So, the extent to which we raise artificially 

energy costs, higher than they would be based on the normal market forces, we diminish the growth potential in our economy, do we 

not? 

Ms. THORNING. Yes. And in fact, studies that the ACCF has 

sponsored over the years on Waxman-Markey and the Kerry-Lieberman bills demonstrate a significant impact on job growth and 

competitiveness compared to the baseline forecast. 

Senator SESSIONS. I just have to say that I am excited about low 

cost natural gas. I think that has provided us an infusion of money 

to our manufacturing sector and is going to create jobs. And if we 

can keep prices down, we will be better off. And to mandate costs 

that are not justifiable can create financial impacts on the people 

that are subject to the mandates. And that does hurt us economically. There is just no doubt about that in my mind. 

So, we try to strike the right pattern, Mr. Chairman, in which 

some of the regulations can actually make us be leaner, more efficient, more productive, while some of them add costs and make us 

less efficient, less productive, and cost jobs. 

264 

Thank you. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you, Senator Sessions. And thank the 

second panel for your patience and your testimony. 

As was pointed out at the beginning of this hearing, this was 

going to be a lively discussion, and it was a lively discussion. And 

I agree with Senator Inhofe. I would hope that we would have more 

of these opportunities to debate these issues. 

So, I really want to thank you for adding to today’s record as we 

look at not just the science, but what steps are necessary for adaptation as we go through different weather patterns and climate patterns here in America. 

We can argue the cause, we can argue a lot of issues. But the 

facts are the facts, and we need to take the appropriate steps in 

order to protect the public safety and the economy of America. 

I want to acknowledge Mitch Hescox with the Evangelical Environmental Network and the Young Evangelicals for Climate Action 

who are also here with us today. We welcome you here. 

And with that, the hearing will be adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:45 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

Æ