U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

35–789PDF WASHINGTON : 2019

HOW CLIMATE CHANGE THREATENS 

U.S. NATIONAL SECURITY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

APRIL 2, 2019 

Serial No. 116–22 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs 

( 

Available: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/, http://docs.house.gov, 

or http://www.govinfo.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York, Chairman 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

AMI BERA, California 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York 

TED LIEU, California 

SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania 

DEAN PHILLIPS, Minnesota 

ILHAN OMAR, Minnesota 

COLIN ALLRED, Texas 

ANDY LEVIN, Michigan 

ABIGAIL SPANBERGER, Virginia 

CHRISSY HOULAHAN, Pennsylvania 

TOM MALINOWSKI, New Jersey 

DAVID TRONE, Maryland 

JIM COSTA, California 

JUAN VARGAS, California 

VICENTE GONZALEZ, Texas 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas, Ranking 

Member 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

LEE ZELDIN, New York 

JIM SENSENBRENNER, Wisconsin 

ANN WAGNER, Missouri 

BRIAN MAST, Florida 

FRANCIS ROONEY, Florida 

BRIAN FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania 

JOHN CURTIS, Utah 

KEN BUCK, Colorado 

RON WRIGHT, Texas 

GUY RESCHENTHALER, Pennsylvania 

TIM BURCHETT, Tennessee 

GREG PENCE, Indiana 

STEVE WATKINS, Kansas 

MIKE GUEST, Mississippi 

JASON STEINBAUM, Staff Director 

BRENDAN SHIELDS, Republican Staff Director 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

ASP LETTER 

ASP Letter submitted from Chairman Engel ........................................................ 3 

WITNESSES 

McGinn, Vice Admiral USN (Ret) Dennis V., Former Assistant Secretary 

of the Navy for Energy, Installations, and Environment ................................. 10 

Goodman, Hon. Sherri, Former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Environmental Security .............................................................................................. 18 

Weisenfeld, Paul, Executive Vice President, International Development, RTI 

International, Former Assistant to the Administrator for the Bureau of 

Food Security, U.S. Agency for International Development ............................. 34 

Worthington, Barry K., Executive Director, United States Energy Association 45 

ARTICLES SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

The Guardian article submitted for the Record from Representative Lieu ........ 71 

Climate Change article submitted for the Record from Representative Lieu .... 74 

The Military Paid article submitted for the Record from Representative Lieu . 80 

CNN article submitted for the Record from Representative Omar ..................... 94 

APPENDIX 

Hearing Notice ......................................................................................................... 102 

Hearing Minutes ...................................................................................................... 103 

Hearing Attendance ................................................................................................. 104 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

Information from Conservation International submitted for the Record from 

Chairman Engel ................................................................................................... 105 

Statement for the Record submitted from Representative Connolly ................... 110 

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

Responses to questions submitted from Representative Sires ............................. 112 

Responses to questions submitted from Representative Smith ........................... 120 

(1) 

HOW CLIMATE CHANGE THREATENS U.S. 

NATIONAL SECURITY 

Tuesday, April 2, 2019 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS

Washington, DC 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in Room 

2172 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. William Keating presiding. 

Mr. KEATING. The committee will come to order. 

Without objection, all members may have 5 days to submit statements, questions, and extraneous materials for the record, subject 

to the length limitation in the rules. 

This morning the committee will examine the national and international security implications of climate change. I would like to 

welcome our witnesses and welcome members of the public and the 

press as well. I will just give a brief opening remark I shared with 

the chairman of the committee, Mr. Engel, who will be here momentarily, but in convenience to the witnesses and members we 

will begin now. 

I will be doing this because our committee and our subcommittee 

deals with global environmental issues and foreign affairs. So let 

me begin with the shared remarks that I had with the chairman. 

Now, the national security concerns tied to climate change are 

nothing new to the U.S. Government. In fact, government researchers across disciplines and across administrations of both parties 

have been taking a hard look at this challenge for decades. It was 

all the way back in 1988 that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was established. In 2003, the Pentagon commissioned 

a report to examine how an abrupt change in climate would affect 

our defense capabilities. 

Its authors concluded that it should be evaluated beyond the scientific debate to a U.S. national security concern. It was uplifted 

to that level. 

More recently, in 2012 and 2014, the Department of Defense Climate Change Adaption Roadmap stated that climate, climate 

change can serve as ‘‘an accelerant of instability or conflict.’’ That 

could have a significant geopolitical impact and contribute to poverty, environmental degradation, the weakening of fragile governments, and food and water scarcity. 

In December 2017, the GOP-led Congress passed a defense bill 

that was signed into law with language stating that ‘‘climate 

change is a direct threat to our national security of the United 

States. 
2 

And just this past January, the National Intelligence Director delivered a worldwide threat assessment that ‘‘climate hazards’’ include extreme weather, wildfires, drought, acidification of the 

oceans, threatening infrastructure, health, water and food security. 

Now, what are the real world implications of all these assessments and warnings? What does our warming global—our warming 

globe actually look like? 

Intensifying food and water insecurity. 

Population flows related to migration. 

Displacement and planned relocation. 

The inability of fragile States to anticipate and mitigate the impacts of climate change. 

Increased need for disaster relief and humanitarian assistance. 

Great Power competition resulting from the diminishment of Arctic sea ice and heightened conflict with and among States. 

These are problems that would generally demand the full focus 

of American foreign policy. You would think that getting at the root 

cause of such an alarming list of issues would be a major priority. 

The rest of the world thinks so. Every other country on this planet 

is party or signatory to the Paris Agreement aimed at curbing the 

greenhouse gases that drive climate change. 

The only country to announce its intention to walk away from 

that deal is, of course, the United States. To justify this misguided 

decision, the White House recently allowed—announced plans to 

create an ad hoc group of select scientists to reassess the government’s analysis of climate science. After years and years of Federal 

research that makes clear, makes a clear and strong case that climate change is a serious threat, the Trump administration is now 

desperately seeking to undermine the conclusions that the continued burning of fossil fuels is harming the planet and putting our 

Nation’s security at risk. It is just astounding. It is bizarre. 

It is rare to see every country in the world rally around an issue, 

but there is one idea that just about everyone is aboard on: it is 

absolutely imperative that we grapple with the challenge of climate 

change. That the future or our very world, and American national 

security, depends on the actions that we take today, that we owe 

to future generations so that we do not turn our back on the tide, 

and we prevent that list of horrible consequences. 

Just about everyone, that is except certain members of one party 

in the United States, feels that way. And as a result of this small 

cabal with their heads planted firmly in the sand, the United 

States has rejected the clear science, ignored the growing threat, 

and walked away from its role as a global leader on this issue. I 

cannot help but wonder, 30, or 50, or 100 years down the road 

when people look back at this era what they will be saying about 

the way the United States dealt with this problem. I do not think 

it will be very kind. 

I am entering into the record a letter signed by 58 former senior 

military and intelligence officials to the president warning him that 

imposing a political test on reports issued by the science agencies 

and forcing a blind spot onto the national security assessments 

that depend on them will erode our national security. It is dangerous to have national security analysis conform to politics. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
3 

Match 5, 2019 

Dear :Mr. President: 

A(41 p IHI CENTER lOR 

[It) CLIMATE Atm 

'""'"'·"'""'"""'"'"' SECURITY 

\Ve write to you as fotmer US national security leaders to offer our support to our uniformed military, 

civilian national security professionals, and members of the scientific community, who across the past 

four Administrations have found that climate change is a threat to US national security. 

Climate change is real, it is happening now, it is driven by humans, and it is accelerating. The 

overwhelming majority of scientists agree: less than 0.2'/o of peer-reviewed climate science papers 

dispute these facts. In this context, we are deeply concerned by reports that National Security Council 

officials are considering fomung a committee to dispute and undermine military and intelligence 

judgments on the threat posed by climate change. This includes second-guessing the scientific sources 

used to assess the threat, such as the rigorously peer-reviewed National Climate Assessment, and 

applying that to national security policy. Imposing a political test on reports issued by the science 

agencies, and forcing a blind spot onto the national security assessments that depend on them, will erode 

our national security. 

It is dangerous to have national security analysis conform to politics, Our officials' job is to ensure that 

we are prepared for current threats and future contingencies. \Ve cannot do that if the scientific studies 

that inform our threat assessments are undemlined. Our national security community will not remain the 

best in the world if it cannot make decisions based on the best available evidence, 

\Vhen extreme weather hits the United States, it degrades the fighting force. Just last year, Hurricane 

Florence caused $3.6 billion in damages to Camp Lejeune, home of the ·Marines' expeditionary units on 

the East Coast. You called Florence "One of the biggest to ever hit our country." Stronger storms and 

storm surges have long featured in predictions about a changing climate. J\round the wotld, climate 

change is a ''tlu·cat n1ulriplier"- making other security threats \.vorsc. Its effects are even used by our 

adversaries as a weapon of war; ISIS used water shortages in Iraq, in part driven by a changing climate, 

to cement their hold on the population during their reign of terror from 2014 to 2017. 

\~·e support the science-driven patriots in our national security community who have rightly seen 

addressing climate change as a threat reduction issue, not a political one, since 1989. \Ve support the 

bipartisan finding of the US Congress, which you signed into law on December 2017, stating that '\iima/e 

than.ge iJ a dired threallo !be national semrity olthe United Stales," \Ve urge you to trust and heed the analysis 

of yout own national security agencies and the science agencies on which their assessments depend, 

including the 21 senior defcnse officials that have identified climate change as a security threat during 

your Administration. A committee designed to undermine the many yeats of work they have done will 

weaken our ability to respond to real threats, putting American lives at risk, 

Our climate will continue to change, and the threats will continue to grow. \Ve spent out careers pledged 

to protect the United States from all threats, including this one. Let's drop the politics, and ailow our 

national security and science agencies to do their jobs. 

Sincerely, 
4 

A[41p tHt CENTER tote ftJ CLIMATE MJD 

'"''''''""'"'I '" sEcuRITY 

Hon. John Kerry 

Former Secretary of State 

Hon. Ray Mabus 

Former Secretary of the Na\ry 

General Gordon R. Sullivan, US Army (Ret) 

Former Chief of Staff of the US Army 

Admiral Samuel]. Locklear III, USN (Ret) 

Pormcr Commander, lJS Pacific Command 

Admiral James Stavridis, USN (Ret) 

Former Supreme Allied Commander Europe 

N aney Soderberg 

to the President for National 

Hon. Sharon Burke 

Pormer Assistant Secretary of Defense for Operational 

Energy 

Hon. David Goldwyn 

Former Assistant Secretary of Energy and Special 

Envoy for International Energy Affairs 

Hon. Miranda AA Ballentine 

Former Assistant Secretary of the Air Force 

(Installations, Environment, and Energy) 

Leon Fuerth 

Former National Security Adviser to the Vice President 

Dr. Geoffrey Kemp 

Former Special Assistant to the President for National 

Security ;\ffairs 

General Paul Kem, USA (Ret.) 

Former Commanding General, US _Army i\fateriel 

Command 

lieutenant General John Castellaw, USMC (Ret) 

Former Chief of Staff, TJS Central Command 

Lieutenant General Arlen D. Jameson, USAF (Ret) 

former Deputy Commander, OS Strategic Command 

Lieutenant General Norm Seip, USAF (Ret) 

Former Commander, 12th Air Force 

Hon. Sherri Goodman 

Pormer Deputy Under Secretary of Defense 

(Environmental Security) 

Hon. Chuck Hagel 

Former Secretary of Defense 

Vice Admiral Richard Truly, USN (Ret) 

Former Administrator of NASA 

Admiral Paul Zukunft, USCG (Ret) 

G'ormer Commandant of the Coast Guard 

General Stanley McChrystal, USA (Ret) 

Former Commander, US and International Security 

Lieutenant General Donald Kerrick, USA (Ret) 

Former Deputy National Security Advisor to the 

President of the United States 

Tom Hicks 

Former Acting Under Secretary of the Navy and 

Deputy Under Secretary of the Na,~y for ?vfanagement 

Hon. John Conger 

Former Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense 

(Comptroller) and Assistant Secretary of Defense for 

Energy, Installations and Environment 

Eric Rosenbach 

Former Chief of Staff, Department of Defense, and 

Assistant Secretary of Defense for Global Security 

Vice Admiral Dennis McGinn, USN (Ret) 

Former Assistant Secretary of the Nav·y for Energy. 

J nstallations and Environment 

Hon.AliceHill 

Former Special.Assistant to the President and Senior 

Director for Resilience Policy, National Security Council 

Major General Randy Manner, USA (Ret) 

Former .Acting Vice Chief, National Guard Bureau 

General Ron Keys, USAF (Ret) 

Former Commander, Air Combat Command 

Vice Admiral Philip Cullom, USN (Ret) 

Former Deputy Chief of Naval Operations, Fleet 

Readiness and Logistics 

Lieutenant General Kenneth E. Eickmann, USAF 

(Ret) 

Former Commander, Aeronautical Systems Center, 

Headquarters Air Force Materiel Command 

Vice Admiral Robert C. Parker, USCG (Ret) 

Commander, Coast Guard Atlantic A rea 
5 

A[41p IHI CENTER '"" ltJ CLIMATE "'"' 

,,,.,,.,,,""'"''"'''" SECURITY 

Greg T reverton 

Former Chair, National Intelligence Council 

Major General Jerry Harrison, USA (Ret) 

Former Chief, Offtce of Legislative Liaison, Army Staff 

Rear Admiral Leendert R. Hering USN (Ret) 

Former Commander, Navy Region Soutl1\vest 

Major General Jeff Phillips, USA (Ret) 

Executive Director, ResetYe Officers Association 

Rear Admiral Michael Smith, USN (Ret) 

Fonner Commander, Carrier Strike Group 3 

Rear AdmiraiJonarhan White, USN (Ret) 

Former Oceanographer & Navigator, US Navy 

Captain James C. Goudreau, SC, USN (Ret) 

Pormer Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy 

(Energy) 

Brigadier General Steven Anderson, USA (Ret) 

rormcr Director, Operations and Logistics Readiness, 

I Ieadquartcrs, Department of the A1n1y 

Brigadier General Donald Bolduc, USA (Ret) 

Former Commander, Special Operations CommandAfrica 

Brigadier General Robert Felderman, USA (Ret) 

Former Deputy Director of Plans, Policy and Strategy, 

United States Northern Command and North American 

Aerospace Defense Command 

Brigadier General Carlos Martinez, USAF (Ret) 

Former Mobilization Assistant, Chief of\\1

arfighting 

Integration and Chief Information Officer, 

Office of the Secretary of the Air Force 

Joan VanDervort 

Former Deputy Director, Ranges, Sea, and Airspace, 

Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense 

(Readiness) 

Commander David Slayton, USN (Ret) 

Executive Director, the Arctic Security Initiative 

The Hoover Institution 

Hon. Richard Morningstar 

Pormer Ambassador to the European Union 

Major General Richard T. Devereaux, USAF (Ret) 

Former Director, Operational Planning, Policy and 

Strategy, Headquarters CS Air Force 

Rear Admiral Sinclair M. Harris, USN (Ret) 

Former Commander, Vnited States Fourth Fleet 

Rear Admiral Michael G. Mathis, USN (Ret) 

Chief Engineer to the c>so:m:mr c:>e,crcmry of the Navy 

(H .. esearch, DeYelopmcnt and tw~u101u•unJ 

Rear Admiral Fernandez L. Ponds,_ USN (Ret) 

Commander, Expeditionary Strike Group (ESG) 3 

Rear Admiral Kevin Slates, USN (Ret) 

Former Director of Energy and Environmental 

Readiness Division, US NaYy 

Rear Admiral David W. Titley, USN (Ret) 

F'ormcr Oceanographer & Navigator, US Navy 

Joe Bryan 

Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy 

(Energy) 

Brigadier General John Adams, USA (Ret) 

I 'ormer Deputy Unitt·d States J\.1ilitary ReprescntatiYe to 

the North Atlantic Treaty Organization 'Military 

Committee 

Brigadier General Joseph R. Barnes, USA (Ret) 

Former Assistant Judge Advocate General of the Army 

Brigadier General Stephen Cheney, USMC (Ret) 

Pormer Commanding General Marine Corps Rccruit 

Depot, Parris Island 

Brigadier General Gerald E. Galloway, USA (Ret) 

Former Dean of the Academic Board, US r-.1ilitary 

Academy, \\'est Point 

Brigadier General Stephen Xenakis, USA (Ret) 

f•'ormer Commanding General, Southeast Regional 

i\fcdical Command 

Colonel Lawrence B. Wilkerson, USA (Ret) 

l'ormcr Chief of Staff to the US Secretaq· of State 
6 

Mr. KEATING. Two of those officials, Admiral Dennis McGinn and 

Deputy Undersecretary Sherri Goodman, are here with us today, 

with Sherri having connections right to my district in Cape Cod. 

I look forward to their testimony and that of Mr. Weisenfeld and 

Mr. Worthington. I will soon introduce them. 

But we will first yield to our ranking member, Mr. McCaul of 

Texas, for any opening remarks that he might have. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Last year I was briefed by the head of sciences at NASA to discuss this important issue. And the national security assessments 

are clear, climate change poses risks to the security of the United 

States and the international community. The best way to address 

climate change, however, is less clear. 

President Obama’s approach was to set unrealistic greenhouse 

gas reduction targets within the framework of the Paris Agreement 

that would have cost our economy a fortune, hurting working people living paycheck to paycheck. When President Trump announced 

his intention to withdraw from the Paris Agreement he also expressed an openness to reentering or renegotiating the deal on 

terms more favorable to the United States. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about their recommendations for a way forward that appropriately balances the 

very real need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the United 

States and around the globe, especially in China, the world’s No. 

1 emitter, with the need for economic growth and a reliable affordable supply of energy. 

I come from one of the top energy-producing States in the largest 

oil and gas producing nation in the world. Our abundant national 

resources, including fossil fuels which product 80 percent of the 

world’s energy, not only support our economy and good-paying jobs, 

but they make us more secure as a Nation. 

Mr. Chairman, the committee is not in order. 

Mr. KEATING. The ranking member is correct. The committee 

members will withhold their conversations to the empty room if 

they would have them. 

The chair recognizes the ranking member. 

Mr. MCCAUL. And I thank the chairman for that. 

We are fortunate that we do not depend on an energy supplier 

like Russia that uses its dominance in European gas markets to coerce and intimidate its neighbors. We are no longer at the mercy 

of the OPEC cartel for the majority of our oil needs. Instead, 

thanks to innovation and technology we have become a net energy 

exporter that offers our partners and allies a stable, reliable supply 

of energy resources. 

We have also been able to hold down prices for consumers, which 

contributes to domestic and global economic growth and prosperity. 

Many energy companies are taking great steps to shift to cleaner 

sources to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This is taking place 

not necessarily because of government policy but despite it. 

From 2005 to 2017, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions declined by 

14 percent. In 2017, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions were the lowest 

since 1992. China and India accounted for nearly half of the increase in global carbon emissions in 2017. And developing country 

emissions will continue to rise to the point that all of the United 
7 

States and Europe’s emissions will soon be far surpassed by other 

economies. 

I have witnessed firsthand the devastation brought to families in 

my State and district from flooding and extreme weather events 

like Hurricane Harvey. The recovery efforts are ongoing, and the 

impact will last well into the future. As the world’s largest economy 

and preeminent power, the United States has a responsibility to 

help lead global efforts to address climate change based on realistic 

solutions as opposed to extreme unrealistic goals based on aspiration alone. 

With that, I look forward to the testimony of the witnesses and 

on how we can achieve that goal. 

And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. KEATING. The chair thanks the ranking member. 

Now I will have the opportunity to give a brief introduction to 

our witnesses who we are grateful for their presence here today. 

Thank you very much for taking the time to come. 

Vice Admiral Dennis McGinn served as Assistant Secretary of 

the Navy for Energy, Installations, and Environment from September 2013 until January 2017. Prior to that he served on active 

duty in the United States Navy for 35 years as a naval aviator, test 

pilot, aircraft carrier commanding officer, and national security 

strategist. 

As vice admiral he was Deputy Chief of Naval Operations and 

Commander of the United States Third Fleet. 

Admiral, thank you for being here and thank you for your service. 

Sherri Goodman is Senior Strategist at the Center for Climate 

Security, a member of its advisory board, and chair of the Board 

of the Council on Strategic Risks. She is also a Senior Fellow with 

the Woodrow Wilson Center. Prior to this, she was CEO and President of the Ocean Leadership Consortium, and Senior Vice President, General Counsel, and Corporate Secretary of CNA. 

From 1993 to 2001, Ms. Goodman served as Deputy Undersecretary of Defense and Environmental Security, the chief environmental, safety, and occupational health officer for the Department 

of Defense. 

Ms. Goodman, thank you for being here. 

Paul Weisenfield—Weisenfeld, I apologize, is Executive Vice 

President for International Development at RTI International, an 

independent, nonprofit research institution. He leads RTI’s international development practice which designs and implements programs across a wide range of sectors to help lower and middle-income countries and communities address complex problems and improve the lives of their citizens. 

He earlier served as a foreign officer at USAID, leading high profile initiatives across various international development sectors. 

Thank you very much for being here. I know that the chairman 

will be pleased. You have met him in the past, and I am sure he 

will mention that. 

Last but not least, Barry Worthington is an Executive Director 

of the United States Energy Association, a U.S. member committee 

of the World Energy Council, and an advisory organization that 

represents 150 members across the American energy sector. He 
8 

represents the broad interests of our country’s energy industry, 

working to develop energy infrastructure projects around the world. 

He chairs the Clean Energy Production Working Group within the 

United Nations’ Economic Commission for Europe, Committee on 

Sustainable Energy. 

Welcome again to all of you. Thank you for your time and expertise. And I will now recognize you for 5 minutes each to summarize 

your testimony. Let’s start with Admiral McGinn. 

STATEMENT OF VICE ADMIRAL DENNIS V. MCGINN, USN (RET), 

FORMER ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE NAVY FOR ENERGY, INSTALLATIONS, AND ENVIRONMENT 

Mr. MCGINN. Mr. Keating, Ranking Member McCaul, distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity 

to testify today on the critical impact of climate change on our national security. My views are based on over 35 years of military 

service to our Nation in the United States Navy, as a former Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Energy, Installations, and Environment and, presently, as a senior executive intimately familiar 

with the issues of energy, the economy and our environment. 

As we start the conversation today I want to note that there are 

many ways that climate change threatens U.S. national security 

that are not the primary focus of this hearing. Those are the direct 

impacts on military bases and military readiness from recurring 

flooding at Norfolk Naval Shipyard, to the impacts of record rainfall and flooding at Camp Lejeune, to the evacuation of Naval Air 

Station Point Mugu as the Hill Fire approached the base. 

Climate change is already impacting our military installation 

readiness right here at home, and will to an even greater extent 

in the future. Today, however, our focus is on global threats and 

how changes in the climate will drive instability and, increasingly, 

create adverse geopolitical outcomes around the world. 

To set the stage, it is helpful to view some of these threats the 

way our senior military leaders do. 

First, they see more sources of conflict to which our forces may 

have to respond. The conflict may involve internal strife due to 

mismanagement of increasingly limited natural resources, or economic displacement. Or it may be conflict between States competing for limited water or food resources. We are increasingly seeing the prospect of conflict driven by control of rivers and the possibility of one nation trying to limit water to another. 

Second, they see climate-driven unemployment, displacement, 

migration, and despair, creating a pool of prospective recruits for 

violent extremist organizations. When a young generation has few 

prospects and seemingly nothing left to lose, terrorist organizations 

claim to offer them a way out. 

Third, our senior military leaders see the prospect to increase 

tensions in the Arctic. As the ice melts, as trade routes open up, 

and as more resources become accessible, we see both Russia and 

China moving to exert military and economic control over the high 

north. 

Fourth, our military leaders see a greatly increased and more 

frequent need to respond to humanitarian crises and natural disasters, especially in the Pacific and the Caribbean. These storms are 
9 

devastating. They are deadly and they leave behind wreckage that 

can take years and, in some cases, generations to recover. 

So, clearly, the first step in combating the national security impacts of climate change are to recognize that we are already dealing with them. 

The next crucial step is to understand the serious implications 

for our future national security environment. We cannot now, nor 

as future challenges bear down on us, treat any of this as a surprise. We have a responsibility, therefore, to prepare for the 

changes we see coming, to lead and help shape the global environment to protect American interests in our national security. Current and future generations of our service members and, indeed, all 

Americans deserve our very best efforts. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit a more detailed 

statement for the record. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McGinn follows:] 
10 

VADM Dennis McGinn, USN, Retired 

Member, Advisory Board, The Center for Climate & Security 

Former Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Energy, Installations and Environment 

Statement to the United States House of Representatives 

Committee on Foreign Affairs 

"How Climate Change Threatens U.S. National Security" 

2 Apri12019 

Thank you, Chairman Engel, Ranking Member McCaul, and distinguished Members of 

the Committee, for the opportunity to testify today on the critical impact of climate 

change on national security. My views are based on over thirty-five years of uniformed 

service to our Nation in the United States Navy, as a former Assistant Secretary of the 

Navy for Energy, Installations and Environment, and as a senior executive deeply 

familiar with issues of energy, the environment and their impact on our economy. 

I understand that today the committee is focused on the threats posed by climate 

change, and I will, as well. But I also want to emphasize the criticality of American 

leadership on the global stage and the essential role our nation must play if the world is 

to meet this challenge. 

With respect to the current Administration, let me begin by citing a few of its highly 

respected national security officials and military officers: 

The Director of National Intelligence and former Republican Senator Dan Coats 

delivered a Worldwide Threats Assessment this year that asserted: "Global 

environmental and ecological degradation, as well as climate change, are likely to fuel 

competition for resources, economic distress, and social discontent through 2019 and 

beyond. Climate hazards such as extreme weather, higher temperatures, droughts, 

floods, wildfires, storms, sea level rise, soil degradation, and acidifying oceans are 

intensifying, threatening infrastructure, health, and water and food security. Irreversible 

damage to ecosystems and habitats will undermine the economic benefits they provide, 

worsened by air, soil, water, and marine pollution." 

The current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Dunford said recently, "When /look 

at climate change, it's in the category of sources of conflict around the world and things 

we have to respond to. So it can be great devastation requiring humanitarian 

assistance/ disaster relief, which the U.S. military certainly conducts routinely. In fact, I 

can't think of a year since I've been on active duty that we haven't conducted at least 

one operation in the Pacific along those lines due to extreme weather in the Pacific. And 

then, when you look at source of conflict- shortages of water, and those kind of things 

those are all sources of conflict. So, it is very much something that we take into 

account in our planning as we anticipate when, where and how we may be engaged in 

the future and what capabilities we should have." 
11 

Finally, former Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis stated that "the effects of a changing 

climate - such as increased maritime access to the Arctic, rising sea levels, 

desertification, among others- impact our security situation." He added, "Climate 

change can be a driver of instability and the Department of Defense must pay attention 

to potential adverse impacts generated by this phenomenon," adding that " ... climate 

change is impacting stability in areas of the world where our troops are operating 

today." 

In his mind, this is more than just a Department of Defense challenge. He noted that 

"climate change is a challenge that requires a broader, whole-of government response." 

I wholeheartedly agree and believe this committee has an important role to play in 

ensuring it gets the whole-of-government response it deserves. 

These distinguished leaders have taken a solemn oath to protect the nation. They are 

great and patriotic Americans providing their deeply experienced opinions on the 

implications of a serious global security issue. 

In that light, I was deeply concerned when media reports indicated that members of the 

National Security Council staff were seeking to establish a panel to conduct adversarial 

reviews of such military and intelligence professionals and their well-researched 

assessments that clearly point to the national security implications of climate change. 1 I 

was proud to join 57 colleagues- former military and national security professionals - in 

urging the President to reject this proposal. Our letter stated: 

" ... we are deeply concerned by reports that National Security Council officials are 

considering forming a committee to dispute and undermine military and intelligence 

judgments on the threat posed by climate change. This includes second-guessing the 

scientific sources used to assess the threat, such as the rigorously peer-reviewed 

National Climate Assessment, and applying that to national security policy. Imposing a 

political test on reports issued by the science agencies, and forcing a blind spot onto the 

national security assessments that depend on them, will erode our national security. •'2 

In the past year, military commanders have testified to Congress about the impacts of 

climate change. The Commander of EUCOM pointed to the High North as the Arctic ice 

recedes. 3 He has updated his plans as China moves to exert influence and Russia has 

begun to move weapons systems into the region to exert influence over the new 

Northern trade route. The Commander of INDOPACOM spoke about the demands on 

U.S. forces responding to extreme weather events in the Pacific. The Commander of 

1 Eilperin, Juliet and Missy Ryan. "White House readies panel to assess if climate change poses a national security 

threat." The Washington Post. February 20, 2019 2 "Letter to the President of the United States." The Center for Climate and Security and the American Security 

Project. March 5, 2019. Accessed at: www.climateandsecurity.org/letter-to-the-president-of-the-united-states-nscclimate-panel/ 

'General Curtis M. scaparrotti, USA. Oral Testimony on United States European Command in review of the 

Defense Authorization Request for Fiscal Year 2020 and the Future Years Defense Program. U.S. Senate Committee 

on Armed Services. March 5, 2019. 
12 

Africa Command noted the shrinking of the Sahel and his observation that we will see 

increased conflict over shrinking resources. 4 

As military professionals, we were trained to make decisions in situations sometimes 

defined by ambiguous information and little concrete knowledge of the enemy intent. 

We based our decisions on trends, experience, and judgment, because waiting for 

100% certainty during a crisis can be disastrous, especially one with the huge national 

security consequences of climate change. In this case, however, the information, 

analysis and trends about climate change are clear. Observable climate data and 

scientific metrics continue to show that the global environment is changing. Even for 

those few who still might find the science opaque or unconvincing, it doesn't take a 

science degree to see that the Arctic ice is melting rapidly or that the sea level is rising. 

As Assistant Secretary of the Navy, I oversaw all Navy and Marine Corps installations, 

and I can tell you that our base commanders know that we don't have the luxury of 

waiting to be inundated before shoring up our facilities. Our commanders are working 

to reduce the risk of current investments by incorporating resilience and placing new 

facilities away from risk. They know that what used to be considered once in a lifetime 

storms are now happening annually. Our planning is changing, and it makes more 

sense to invest in risk reduction and mitigation factors now than to wait for adverse 

mission impacts and to pay for enormously expensive repairs after the fact. 

The Department of Defense, across both Democratic and Republican Administrations, 

has made efforts to prepare for this risk as has Congress. In the last two years, the 

previous Congress passed a large number of measures in the National Defense 

Authorization Act focused on improving resilience to climate change and on planning for 

future challenges- particularly in the Arctic.5 In the military security space, Congress 

has, on a bipartisan basis, moved past old debates on whether there is a problem and 

has begun planning to ensure we are ready to meet the significant climate change 

challenge that is before us now and that we will continue to confront for the foreseeable 

future. 

While climate's role in conflict is complex and intertwined with the broader geopolitical 

considerations, it is nonetheless clear. I have studied this issue for years, both as a 

member of the Advisory Board of the Center for Climate and Security and previously as 

a member of the CNA Military Advisory Board. 

While serving as a member of the Military Advisory Board back in 2007, we concluded 

that climate change poses a "serious threat to America's national security", acting as a 

"threat multiplier for instability" in some of the world's most volatile regions, adding 

4 Werrell and Femia. "UPDATE: Chronology of U.S. Military Statements and Actions on Climate Change and 

Security: 2017-2019." The Center for Climate and Security. February 16, 2019. Accessed at: 

www.climateandsecurity.org/2019/02/16/update-chronology-of-u-s-military-statements-and-actions-on-climatechange-and-security-2017-2019/ 

5 Conger, John. "U.S. Congress Addresses Climate Change and Security in the Latest Defense Bill." The Center for 

Climate and Security. August 13, 2018. 
13 

tension to stable regions, worsening terrorism and likely dragging the United States into 

conflicts over water and other critical resource shortages.6 This echoes the same 

conclusions that have been consistently drawn by the US Defense and Intelligence 

Communities. On the most basic level, climate change has the potential to create and 

amplify sustained natural and humanitarian disasters on a scale and at a frequency far 

beyond those we see today. The consequences of these disasters will add additional 

stress to political stability where societal demands for the essentials of life exceed the 

capacity of governments to absorb these stresses. In too many cases and for the 

reasons noted below, fragile societies and governments will fail, creating chaotic 

security environments across the spectrum of conflict. 

Climate change is different from traditional military threats; it is not like having a specific 

enemy, a rapid and well-defined response timeline, or a clearly located crisis region to 

which we must take action. Rather, climate change has the potential to create more 

frequent, intense and widespread natural and humanitarian disasters due to extreme 

weather events like flooding, drought, sea level rise that can lead to the spread of 

diseases, crop failure and the consequent migration of large populations. These 

climate-driven severe weather events will magnify existing tensions in critical regions, 

overwhelm fragile political, economic and social structures, causing them to fracture and 

potentially fail. The predictable result: much greater frequency and intensity of regional 

conflict and direct threats to U.S. interests and national security. That's why in 2016, a 

number of senior military and national security leaders concluded that the effects of 

climate change presented a "strategically-significant risk to U.S. national security and 

international security." 

As one example, climate change didn't directly cause the Syrian civil war. But by 

causing prolonged and extreme drought conditions in a land whose reliance on rain-fed 

agriculture made it vulnerable, significant internal displacement ensued. Added to 

existing economic, religious and ethnic tensions, this drought-caused population 

displacement ultimately contributed to a violent and prolonged civil war that rapidly 

expanded to envelop the entire region. 7 

In the Lake Chad region of Africa, we see American troops deployed to counter the 

influence of Boko Haram. At the same time, however, the economic displacement that 

has resulted from the receding of Lake Chad and loss of surrounding vegetation, driven 

in large part by a changing climate, is creating a stressed population that is highly 

vulnerable to terrorist recruitment. This contributed to the inclusion of a climate and 

security provision in a UN Security Council resolution on Lake Chad in 2017. 8 

In Venezuela, where glaciers are receding at an alarming rate, one of the many causes 

of protest of the current Maduro government is the failure to manage water shortages 

6 National Security and the Threat of Climate Change. CNA. Report. 2007. 7 Femia, Francesco and Caitlin Werrell. "Syria: Climate Change, Drought and Social Unrest." The Center for Climate 

and Security." February 2012; and Kelley, Colin Petal. "Climate Change in the Fertile Crescent and implications of 

the recent Syrian drought." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 8 Un Security Council. Resolution 2349 (2017). March 31, 2017 
14 

with a resulting loss of hydro energy resources in the face of the worst drought in 40 

years.9 

In Pakistan, internal tensions over the allocation of water resources already exist. How 

are these going to be exacerbated if India, which already uses threats to block the flow 

of water, makes cross border incursions to secure water resources, and more conflict 

arises? What impact will loss of Himalayan glaciers and annual increases in drought 

have across the entire South Asian population of billions? Just as we have been 

concerned about the fate of chemical weapons in Syria when it devolved into chaos, 

what can be done to ensure Pakistan and its nuclear weapons don't follow a similar 

path if climate-exacerbated stresses make the country even more fragile? Instability in 

nuclear-armed nations and the potential for regional war is one of most serious climaterelated challenges facing the global community. 

More broadly and happening across the globe, consider the challenge of international 

migration -- already a daunting and complex issue in the Americas and in Europe. With 

the stressors of climate change things are not going to get better. The British. 

government's Foresight report on environmental threats makes plain what a warming 

world will deliver. "There will be different migration patterns in the future because of 

environmental change," it reads. And why should that surprise us? In the wake of 

Hurricane Katrina, 250,000 people shifted from New Orleans to Texas as a result of the 

floods. 

My intent today is not to tell you that we can stop climate stresses from impacting global 

events or stoking instability. That instability is already happening. However, if we're 

aware of these serious climate change factors, we can take prudent steps that reduce 

risk and put us in a much better position to protect American and allied interests. 

In the whole of government approach to address the problem that former Secretary 

Mattis described, scientists are studying climate models and working to more accurately 

project the future environment; the intelligence community is assessing the risks and 

implications of those changes; and the military is adapting to this new world and 

considering how to adjust our Services' defense capabilities and capacities to operate in 

the new environment. The State Department must increase U.S. leadership and 

undertake efforts to engage the international community to support frameworks that 

decrease tensions and promote stability, to build capacity and resilience, to address 

food and water insecurity through targeted assistance, to respond to international 

humanitarian disasters, to work closely with our partners to address this challenge. 

However, our future is yet to be written. The choices we make today will decide the 

security environment that comes decades hence, and that is why it is so important to 

embrace the challenge to reduce the intensity of climate risks by bringing down carbon 

emissions. The announcement that the United States will withdraw from the Paris 

Agreement is not only contrary to our historic ability to rise to meet any challenge, but it 

9 Chemnick, Jean. "Where Climate Change Fits into Venezuela's Ongoing Crisis." February 18, 2019. 
15 

also represents an abdication of American leadership on the world stage. Allies and 

alliances matter, and the withdrawal from this accord -one which carries paramount 

importance to us and to our partners- serves to greatly erode American credibility and 

to create distance between us. 

Moreover, our withdrawal creates an opening for other nations to marginalize the United 

States. China, in particular, is engaging fragile nations by validating their concerns and 

providing assistance. It is expanding its influence by promoting the Paris Agreement. 

For too long as a nation, we've ignored global climate change, a threat that is already 

happening -- one that is statistically more likely to happen and with more dire 

consequences-- than war with North Korea. For this and for the many other compelling 

reasons I have outlined, the importance of this Committee and the Congress opening a 

serious discussion on climate and national security and climate change cannot be 

overstated. These discussions must lead to effective and timely action. If we're serious 

about dealing with migration, containing instability and preventing conflict and 

humanitarian crises, responding to adverse Russian and Chinese influence, and 

maintaining healthy economic growth and trade, then we must lead and meet the 

challenge of global climate change. 

As in the many past serious challenges that the United States has successfully faced, 

the future is ours to make. We have the knowledge; we now need the will to act on it. 

Our future economy, national security and very quality of life as Americans await our 

decisions. 
16 

Mr. KEATING. Any objection? 

Thank you, you may submit that. 

Thank you for your testimony. 

Ms. Goodman. 

STATEMENT OF SHERRI GOODMAN, FORMER DEPUTY UNDERSECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY 

Ms. GOODMAN. Thank you, Mr. Keating, Ranking Member 

McCaul—— 

Mr. KEATING. Your microphone. 

Ms. GOODMAN. Thank you, Mr. Keating, Mr. McCaul, distinguished members of the committee, it is a pleasure to be with you 

today. Thank you for holding this important hearing. My views are 

shaped by my 30 years of experience as a national security professional. 

At the outset, I would like to acknowledge that while climate 

change discussions have been polarized, there has been one major 

exception, and that is security. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs 

of Staff, General Dunford, Supreme Allied Commander of Europe, 

General Scaparotti, former Secretary of Defense, Jim Mattis, and 

many other senior leaders of the Department of Defense have been 

clear-eyed about this issue and the threat multiplier effect on our 

national security. 

The intelligence community has identified climate change as a 

security risk in every worldwide threat assessment for more than 

a decade, including the 3-years of this administration. Congress 

has passed multiple important provisions in the last two defense 

authorization bills, including a declaration that climate change 

poses a direct threat to the national security of the United States. 

Both were signed into law. 

I want to thank the members of this committee for their bipartisan support for these measures. 

Recently, I, Admiral McGinn, and 56 other senior military, national security, and intelligence leaders, who served across Republican and Democratic administrations, sent a letter to the President 

affirming the consensus view in the national security community 

that climate change is a threat to U.S. national security. Building 

on this consensus, I would recommend the Committee adopt a 

pragmatic view of the security threat that climate change poses 

and respond in a way commensurate to that threat. 

We need to acknowledge that the newly navigable Arctic Ocean 

is emboldening our adversaries. As the ice melts, Russia and China 

are increasingly moving to exert control and influence over the region. For example, Russia is building up its military presence in 

the north, and is seeking to monetize the Northern Sea route by 

proposing a toll road for military escort through shallow waters 

close to the Russian coastline. 

We should incorporate the impacts of increasing water scarcity 

as a result of climate change and other factors into our risk calculations for international conflict, especially as nations may increasingly be compelled to use water resources as leverage. For example, in the most recent escalation of tensions between India and 

Pakistan, India used the diversion of rivers as a threat. China 
17 

holds similar leverage over India with the Indus River’s origin in 

China. 

China may also respond to climate stresses by asserting itself 

more aggressively over shared resources in its region, such as fish 

stocks in the South China Sea that are moving northward as the 

sea warms. 

Further, China sees an opportunity for strategic benefit vis-a-vis 

the United States by investing in the climate resilience of countries 

in the Asia Pacific region and beyond. We should take note and not 

let China out-maneuver us. 

Climate stresses across Africa and the Middle East are also increasing economic and food insecurity, driving migration and forced 

displacement, making it easier for violent extremist organizations 

to recruit members and increase the likelihood of conflict. 

The good news, however, is that despite these unprecedented 

threats, we have unprecedented foresight capability. Technological 

advancements and more sophisticated predictive tools in both the 

physical and social sciences, and in the research and development 

capacities inherent in our many national security and civilian 

agencies, mean we can see more of these threats coming with a 

greater degree of reliability than ever before. 

The bottom line is that we have a responsibility to look at climate change and its impacts pragmatically in terms of America’s 

national interests. We have a responsibility to account for the current and future climate change stresses in our security calculations, our planning, our foreign policy, and our investments overseas. And, we have a responsibility to prepare for the changes that 

we can see coming. 

That responsibility includes advancing a robust agenda for addressing security implications of climate change by reducing the 

scale and scope, investing in resilience of both energy and infrastructure, adapting to those effects that are already locked in, and 

supporting our partners and allies through American leadership in 

climate security. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I ask that my written statement be 

submitted for the record. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Goodman follows:] 
18 

Testimony of Sherri Goodman 

Former Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Environmental Security 

Board Chair, The Council on Strategic Risks 

Senior Strategist, The Center for Climate & Security 

Senior Fellow, Woodrow Wilson Center 

Founder, CNA Military Advisory Board 

Before the United States House of Representative 

Committee on Foreign Affairs 

Hearing: "How Climate Change Threatens U.S. National Security" 

April 2, 2019 

Chairman Engel, Ranking Member McCaul, and distinguished Members of the Committee, thank 

you for the opportunity to testify before you today. 

I have over 30 years of experience as a national security professional. I served as the first 

Deputy Undersecretary of Defense (Environmental Security). I currently serve as the Founding 

Board Chair of the Council on Strategic Risks (CSR) and as Senior Strategist at the Center for 

Climate and Security, an institute of the CSR. I also am the Founder and former Executive 

Director of CNA's Military Advisory Board, and Senior Fellow at the Woodrow Wilson 

International Center. The views I am presenting today are my own. 

I would like to thank the Committee for holding this important hearing today. 

In the last two sessions of Congress, the U.S. House of Representatives, on a bipartisan basis, 

included important provisions in the National Defense Authorization Acts (NOAA) of 2018 and 

2019 on climate change, including a recognition that "climate change poses a direct threat to 

the national security of the United States," and those provisions have since become law. 

However, as former Secretary of Defense James Mattis made clear, climate change requires a 

"broader, whole-of government" response. It is therefore essential that progress made 

regarding the defense implications of climate change are reflected in our conduct of foreign 

affairs as well. 

Let me start with a short history of how I came to determine that climate change is a national 

security threat, and why it is in America's national interest to understand the magnitude of this 

issue and the urgent need to address it. 

I am the first born child of Holocaust refugees who arrived in the US in the late 1930s, among 

the fortunate few Jews that were able to escape Nazi Germany. Most were not so lucky, and 

that awareness became part of the ethos that pushed me to focus on combatting the greatest 

security challenges of our time. Following World War II, America's next great security challenge 

was the Cold War. During that era, the most important national security threat we faced was of 

nuclear annihilation, a "bolt out of the blue" nuclear attack by the Soviet Union. We 
19 

characterized such an attack as a "low probability, high consequence event." Fortunately, we 

succeeded and celebrated the end of the Cold War more than 25 years ago, when the Berlin 

Wall fell. At around the same time that the threat of nuclear war seemed to be diminishing, 

President George H.W. Bush was the first American President to acknowledge the serious 

implications of a changing climate for the United States. 

When I served as the Deputy Undersecretary of Defense for Environmental Security in the 

1990s, we were primarily focused on cleaning up hazardous waste from Cold War-era military 

activities. Over time, environmental issues evolved and became part of our National Security 

Strategy, when we began to consider the fact that conflicts over access to, or control of, natural 

resources compromised U.S. national security interests. The focus then was on regional 

cooperation between countries to reduce nuclear risks, including from nuclear waste, prevent 

transnational environmental crime such as overfishing and illegal logging, to promote 

cooperation among various stakeholders both within and outside of government, and to better 

understand and address the consequences of environmental threats. DoD began integrating 

environmental concepts into planning under its Preventive Defense Strategy, and it took on the 

role of " ... [helping] deter or mitigate the impacts of adverse environmental actions leading to 

international instability.''1 

These developments at DoD, along with the implications of climate change coming into sharper 

focus, led to a marked increase in concerns about the security risks of climate change, from 

both the Department of Defense and the Intelligence Community,2 during the George W. Bush 

Administration. While at CNA during that time, I founded the CNA Military Advisory Board 

(MAB), comprised of senior retired generals and admirals, to assess the national security 

implications of climate change. In 2007, we identified climate change as a "threat multiplier," in 

a seminal report, recognizing that climate change can exacerbate political instability, where 

food, water, and resource shortages already exist- often in the world's most dangerous and 

fragile regions. The CNA MAB in this Report stated, "[t]he potential consequences of climate 

change are so significant that the prudent course of action is to begin now to assess how these 

changes may potentially affect our national security, and what courses of action our nation 

should take."3 We recommended that the national security implications of climate change be 

incorporated into the broad range of national security strategy and planning documents. 

Building from work of the CNA MAB, the Center for Climate and Security (CCS), where I am now 

Senior Strategist, assembled an Advisory Board of 30 senior retired military leaders and 

national security professionals, who have served across both Republican and Democratic 

Administrations, and in all branches of the U.S. military and the U.S. Coast Guard. Since 2011, 

CCS has produced a steady stream of reports and articles on the national security risks of 

climate change, including its "Military Expert Panel" series "Sea Level Rise and the U.S. 

1 Sherri Wasserman Goodman, Deputy Under Secretary of Defense, (Environmental Security), Statement Before 

the Subcommittee on Installation and Facilities, House Armed Services Committee, May 13, 1993. 2 The Center for Climate and Security Resource Hub, accessed at: https://climateandsecurity.org/resources/u-sgovernment 

3 CNA Military Advisory Board. "National Security and the Threat of Climate Change." Report. 2007. 
20 

Military's Mission", and was the first organization to highlight the climate change dimension in 

Syria's political instability.• CCS also hosts a climate and security "community of practice," the 

Climate and Security Advisory Group. that includes participation from over 300 military leaders 

and national security leaders in the field. CSS, in partnership with the American Security Project, 

organized the recent letter from 58 senior military and national security leaders calling on the 

National Security Council to resist attempts to force our national security analysis on climate 

change to conform to politics. Most recently, with our partners in Europe, CCS has established 

an "International Military Council on Climate and Security," to meet the growing concerns 

about climate change from our allied and partner nation militaries. 

This is all to affirm that my assessment of the security implications of climate change is neither 

an environmental one, nor a partisan one. It's about security. It comes from a clear-eyed 

consensus of our nation's leading military and national security thinkers and practitioners, and 

security communities worldwide, which has been built through careful analysis. My testimony 

today builds on this work with CCS and the CNA MAB, and the work of our national security, 

defense, foreign policy and intelligence agencies, who have been taking the threat of climate 

change seriously since 1989, across three Republican and two Democratic Administrations. 

But as my Navy colleagues like to say, "Give me the BLUF- Bottom Line Up Front." So, here are 

mine: 

1. Climate change presents an unprecedented threat to U.S. national security. 

2. We possess unprecedented foresight about this threat. 

3. Our foresight underlines a U.S. "Responsibility to Prepare" -essential to ensuring resilience 

for the future. 5 

1. Climate change presents an unprecedented threat to U.S. national security 

Since we first characterized climate change as a "threat multiplier" in the 2007, the national 

security community has concluded that climate change now contributes to unprecedented 

security threats for the United States- and the world. Growing evidence demonstrates that 

climate change is increasing the likelihood of conflict in key regions. 6 In 2016, the Climate 

Security Consensus Project stated that "the effects of climate change present a strategicallysignificant risk to U.S. national security." In 2018, the National Defense Authorization Act. 

signed into law by President Trump, asserted that "climate change presents a direct threat to 

national security." During this Administration alone, at least 23 senior military leaders, including 

most recently General Scaparotti, the Supreme Allied Commander Europe, have publicly 

expressed serious concerns about the security threats of a changing climate. Research 

4 "Military Expert Panel Report: Sea Level Rise and the U.S. Military's Mission." Eds 1 & 2. The Center for Climate 

and Security. September 2016 & February 2018 5 Werrell, Femia, Goodman, Fetzek. "A Responsibility to Prepare: Governing in an Age of Unprecedented Risk and 

Unprecedented Foresight." The Center for Climate and Security. August 2017 

6 Schleussner, Carl-Friedrich, Jonathan F. Donges, Reik V. Donner, and Hans Joachim Schellnhuber. "Armed-conflict 

Risks Enhanced by Climate-related Disasters in Ethnically Fractionalized Countries." PNAS. August 16, 2016. 
21 

supported by USAID, and published in September of last year, further demonstrates the effects 

of climate change on state fragility around the world. In written testimony on the Worldwide 

Threat Assessment in January 2019, the Director of National Intelligence, Daniel Coats, 

emphasized that the United States will have to manage the negative effects of a changing 

climate. The Director of National Intelligence has issued such concerns in 11 straight Worldwide 

Threat Assessments, across two Republican and one Democratic Administration. 

These unprecedented changes in the climate arrive during a time of other rapid and 

unprecedented changes in the geostrategic environment. Population growth, rising powers, an 

increase in the political fortunes of authoritarians, the proliferation of weapons of mass 

destruction, rapid and disruptive technological change, among other major risks, are combining 

to challenge us in dizzying ways. The impacts of rapid climate change arrive in this already 

unstable and volatile world, threatening to further destabilize the world order. These 

unprecedented climatic changes already threaten U.S. security in two major ways: 

Emboldening our adversaries; 

Threatening military readiness. 

Emboldening our adversaries 

Climate change is affecting the very geostrategic landscape in which we operate, which, in turn, 

is heightening tensions around the world and emboldening our adversaries to exert their 

influence, whether that is China, Russia, or other hostile political forces and terrorist networks. 

These increased geostrategic tensions are especially acute in the Asia-Pacific, the Arctic, the 

Middle East, and Africa. 

The Asia-Pacific: Increasing Risks in Disaster A/lev 

In a foreword to the Center for Climate and Security's 2015 report, The U.S. Asia-Pacific 

Rebalance, National Security and Climate Change, former U.S. Pacific Commander Admiral 

Samuel J. Locklear Ill, U.S. Navy (Ret) stated: "[a]s we seek to rebalance and reinvigorate our 

historic alliances, build new strategic and economic partnerships, and effectively posture our 

military in the Asia-Pacific for the 21st century, we must address the potentially catastrophic 

security implications of climate change in the Asia-Pacific and their likely impact on U.S. interest 

in the region," particularly given that this region is the "most disaster-prone area of the 

world.''7 

Climate change will significantly multiply this vulnerability to natural disasters in the AsiaPacific.8 From a security perspective, this has been confirmed by a series of regional reports 

7 Locklear, Admiral Samuel J., Ill, USN. "The U.S. Asia-Pacific Rebalance, National Security and Climate Change." The 

Center for Climate & Security. June 09, 2017. 8 Mahfuz Ahmed and Suphachol Suphachalasai, "Assessing the Costs of Climate Change and Adaptation in South 

Asia," Asia Development Bank, June 2014 
22 

commissioned by the National Intelligence Council, one of which demonstrated that South and 

Southeast Asia face a number of security challenges driven by climate change in the next few 

decades, including food shortages, water crises, catastrophic flooding, greater frequency and 

intensity of hydro-meteorological disasters, population displacement, and increased public 

health issues.9 

Nations of the region have already recognized the gravity of the threat. For example, The 

Council for Security Cooperation in the Asia Pacific has identified climate change as an everpresent existential threat to its members.10 The American Security Project's "Global Security 

and Defense Index for Climate Change" shows that Asia-Pacific nations overwhelmingly 

perceive climate change as a threat to their national security.U 

In the face of declining levels of U.S. engagement and investments that help address risks to our 

partners, allies and prospective allies in the Asia-Pacific, including a changing climate, nations in 

the region may ultimately find it more practical to accept the reality of a regionally dominant 

China, and the economic and political consequences of that reality. Indeed, many nations in the 

region, in the face of an uncertain level of U.S. engagement, have been slowly reorienting their 

foreign and domestic policies to accommodate an increasingly powerful Beijing, while others, 

such as Cambodia, seem to be hedging their betsY While a number of nations in the AsiaPacific are engaged in disputes with China over contested areas of the South China Sea, China is 

expanding its influence not just within the region, but beyond, to Latin America, Africa, the 

Arctic (as I will elaborate on in a moment), and elsewhere. China remains the largest trading 

partner for Southeast Asian nations, and is increasing its military force significantly in relation to 

other countries in its neighborhood, including through the deployment of a "blue-water navy" 

that has ventured as far from home as the Straits of Hormuz.B 

In this context, the United States will need to develop more expansive approaches to 

maintaining and enhancing its regional influence, and supporting the interests of its allies, 

partners and prospective partners in the Asia-Pacific, including through robustly supporting 

climate resilience efforts in the region. 

The Arctic: No Longer Onlv about Cooperation 

The Arctic has emerged as a region of potential geostrategic competition, primarily because 

rising temperatures, melting sea ice, and collapsing permafrost now grant access to this region 

9 Southeast Asia and Pacific Islands: The Impact of Climate Change to 2030, a Commissioned Research. National 

Intelligence Council. August 2009. 

10The Council for Security Cooperation in the Asia Pacific, "The Security Implications of Climate Change," June 2010 

11 Andrew Holland and Xander Vagg, "The Global Security Defense Index on Climate Change: Preliminary Results," 

American Security Project, March 21, 2013, 

12 Femia, Francesco, and Caitlin E. Werrell. "A Climate-Security Plan for the Asia-Pacific Rebalance: Lessons from 

the Marshall Plan" A Climate and Security Correlation Series, The Center for Climate and Security, November 2015. 

13 John Kemp, "In search for security, China's navy enters Strait of Hormuz," Reuters, September 22, 2014, 

available at http:/ jwww.reuters.com/ article/2014/09/22/china-navy-iran-kempidUSL6NORN2FK20140922 
23 

previously locked in ice most of year. While the Arctic has historically been a region 

characterized by cooperation and diplomacy, it has more recently become a zone of increased 

tensions over valuable energy and mineral resources, and access to shipping routes. The 

melting of the ice sheet has given rise to exponential growth in economic and military activities, 

including shipping, resource extraction, and other commerce. This rapid change in the Arctic is 

feeding into China's and Russia's strategic ambitions, both regionally and globally. 

China: As I stated in an article in Foreign Policy last year, "China has large ambitions throughout 

the Arctic." 14 This includes the advancement of both commercial and military objectives. For 

instance, China is aiming to use Russia's Northern Sea Route to gain access to European 

shipping opportunities. This will shorten travel times compared to traditional routes through 

the Straits of Malacca and Hormuz, which the U.S. controls, offering China a new strategic 

advantage in terms of global trade and freedom of navigation. In January 2018, this ambition 

was formalized in China's first public Arctic policy, wherein China declared itself to be a "near 

Arctic State," and articulated its intention to build a "Polar Silk Road" that will stretch from 

Shanghai to Hamburg, first across the Northern Sea Route, and potentially later, across the 

central Arctic Ocean.1s 

In the long term, China foresees using the even shorter Transpolar Sea Route across the very 

top of the Arctic, when that opens in several decades due to melting sea ice. This route, which 

might be available for several months each year, would save China from having to depend on 

Russian-controlled waters. As U Zhenfu, director of Dalian Maritime University's research 

Center for Polar Maritime studies, noted, "[w]hoever has control over the Arctic route will 

control the new passage of world economics and international strategies."16 China also is 

deepening its Arctic presence through foreign direct investment in several Northern European 

Arctic StatesY China is exploiting current circumstances in the region to assert itself as a key 

partner in economic development and scientific exploration. This presence could plausibly be 

leveraged to influence policy in the region to be more desirable for China's long-term strategic 

interests.18 

Russia: Russia also has been increasing its military presence and assertiveness in the Arctic. Its 

ambitions have political, military and commercial dimensions. 

14 Goodman, Sherri, and Elisabeth Freese. "China's Ready to Cash In on a Melting Arctic." Foreign Policy. May 01, 

2018. https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/05/01/chinas-ready-to-cash-in-on-a-melting-arctic/. 

15 State Council Information Office of the People's Republic of China. "Full Text: China's Arctic Policy." The State 

Council of the People's Republic of China. January 26, 2018. 

http:// english.gov.cn/archive/white _paper /2018/01/26/ content_ 2814 76026660336. htm. 16 Jakobson, Linda. "China Prepares for an Ice-Free Arctic." Insights on Peace and Security. March 2010. 

https://www.sipri.org/sites/defaultjfiles/files/insight/SIPRIInsight1002.pdf. 

17 Rosen, Mark E and Cara B. Thuringer, "Unconstrained Foreign Direct Investment An Emerging Challenge to 

Arctic Security." CNA. November 2017. 18 Goodman, Sherri and Marisol Maddox. "China's Growing Arctic Presence." China-US Focus. November 19, 2018. 

https://www.chinausfocus.com/finance-economy/chinas-growing-arctic-presence 
24 

On the political side, Russia has the longest Arctic coastline of any Arctic coastal state, and 

Russian identity has historically been tied to the Arctic. Expanding Arctic activities as ice and 

permafrost melts is therefore likely to enjoy broad public support. 

Commercially, approximately 20 percent of Russia's Gross Domestic Product (GOP) is derived 

from Arctic activities, primarily energy, industrials and mining.19 Russian President Vladimir 

Putin has set ambitious cargo shipping goals to monetize the Northern Sea Route by 

encouraging shipping from China to Europe along the Northern Sea Route, which, as the ice 

melts, will presumably be available for several months each year and could cut up to 15 days off 

the current route via the Suez Canal and the Strait of Malacca -and avoid the U.S. naval 

presence along those routes. It is noteworthy that President Putin recently stated that he sees 

the Northern Sea Route as a future "global, competitive transport artery" that is "the key to the 

development of the Russian Arctic and the regions of the Far East."20 

Militarily, Russia has been exerting increasingly aggressive behavior against our High North 

allies, in Norway, in particular, violating their airspace and expressing hostile intent at times, 

including the jamming of GPS systems during recent NATO exercise Trident Juncture, and in 

days since, as well. 21 Russia claims its military buildup is primarily for economic reasons, 

presenting the Northern Sea Route as a maritime toll road through the Arctic, and seeking to 

monetize the route by requiring transit vessels to pay a "toll" for military escort through the 

shallow waters close to the Russian coastline. However, it is clear that Russia would be able to 

use these forces and capabilities for other purposes as well. 

In short, China and Russia are expanding their power and influence in direct response to a 

melting Arctic, and this will have significant consequences for U.S. interests. 

The Middle East and A (rica: Water vulnerabilities multiply existing threats 

Most countries in the Middle East and northern Africa are already considered water scarce. To 

put this in perspective: the U.S. would have to suffer a decrease in water supply that produces 

an 80 percent decrease in per capita water consumption to reach the United Nations definition 

of "water scarce." These projections do not factor in climate change, which is expected to 

19 Devyatkin, Pavel. "Russia's Arctic Strategy: Aimed at Conflict or Cooperation? (Part 1)." The Arctic Institute. 

February 6, 2018. https://www.thearcticinstitute.org/russias-arctic-strategy-aimed-conflict-cooperation-part-one/. 20 Staalesen, Atle. "It's an Order from the Kremlin: Shipping on Northern Sea Route to Reach 80 Million Tons by 

2024." The Independent Barents Observer. May 15, 2018. Accessed March 25, 2019. 

https:/ /thebarentsobserver.com/en/arctic/2018/05/its-order-kremlin-shipping-northern-sea-route-increase-80-

million-tons-2024. 

21 Staalesen, A tie. "GPS Jamming on Agenda as Russian Defence Delegation Sat down for Talks in Oslo." The 

Independent Barents Observer. March 18, 2019. https:/ /thebarentsobserver.com/en/security/2019/03/gpsjamming-agenda-russian-defence-delegation-sits-down-talks-oslo. 
25 

exacerbate water problems in many areas, particularly by reducing winter precipitation across 

the region (winter is when the region gets most of its water). 22 

In the Middle East and North Africa a growing body of research indicates that although 

environmental stressors did not "cause" the Arab uprisings of 2011, the impacts of climate 

change may also have served to increase the likelihood of instability in the region. 23 For 

example, research by my colleagues at the Center for Climate and Security observed that 

drought conditions in Russia and China, and subsequent global wheat shortages, contributed to 

higher food prices in Northern Africa and may have helped catalyze and broaden the appeal of 

the Egyptian uprisings in 2011. A 2012 report by the Center for Climate and Security24 

highlighted that Syria's ongoing conflict was preceded by five years of devastating drought that 

has since been linked to climate change, coupled with unresponsive state institutions, 

mismanaged natural resources, and overgrazing that decimated livestock, devastated 75 

percent of crops in some regions, and forced millions to migrate to urban areas.25 In both rural 

areas affected by water and land insecurity, and urban areas burdened by inadequate support 

systems, political turmoil increased significantly. And as Caitlin Werrell and Francesco Femia 

noted in 2015, we may have missed Syria's political instability in part because we were not 

paying attention to the climatic and environmental security dynamics at play.26 

The last decade has also witnessed the steady rise of empowered non-state actors, from 

Violent Extremist Organizations (VEOs) to individual or state-sponsored hackers, and extremist 

political movements, powered by global communications networks. Fifty-eight military, 

national security, intelligence and foreign affairs leaders in a recent letter to President Trump 

reiterated this point, noting that water, for example, increasingly is being used as a weapon of 

war, "in part driven by a changing climate," by terrorist groups ranging from ISIS to Boko Haram 

and AI-Shabab to AI Qaeda. 

For example, the rise of AI Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) in Mali, which sparked 

significant instability across the country and region, contains a climate change signatureY 

More specifically, this situation was shaped in 2012-14 by an intersection of three salient 

trends: desertification and food insecurity, exacerbated by climate change; an ongoing rebellion 

by Tuareg nomadic herdsmen in northern Mali; and weak government institutions that could 

22 Zappa, Giuseppe, Matthew K. Hawcroft, len Shaffrey, Emily Black, and David J. Brayshaw. "Extratropical Cyclones 

and the Projected Decline of Winter Mediterranean Precipitation in the CMIPS Models." Springerlink. December 

02,2014. 

23 "The Arab Spring and Climate Change." The Center for Climate and Security. February 2013. 24 Femia, Francesco and Caitlin E. Werrell. "Syria: Climate Change, Drought and Social Unrest," The Center for 

Climate and Security. February 2012. 

25 Kelley, Colin. "Climate Change in the levant: Further Evidence Strengthens Case for Role in Syrian Instability." 

The Center for Climate & Security. March 03, 2016. 26 Werrell, Caitlin E., Francesco Femia, and Troy Sternberg. "Did We See It Coming?: State Fragility, Climate 

Vulnerability, and the Uprisings in Syria and Egypt." SAIS Review of International Affairs. May 27, 2015. 27 Femia, Francesco and Caitlin E. Werrell, "Mali: Migration, Militias, Coups and Climate Change," The Center for 

Climate and Security, April 2019; and The CNA Military Advisory Board, "National Security and the Accelerating 

Risks of Climate Change," CNA Corporation, May 2014 
26 

not address the marginalization of the Tuareg and their increasing clashes with sedentary 

agriculturalist tribes in the southern and central areas of the country.28 Overwhelmed by these 

challenges, the fragile government was overthrown by a coup in March 2012. Following the 

coup, the Malian political system was unable to maintain influence in northern Mali; AQIM and 

other groups moved in and took control. 29 

While climate change alone did not cause the conflict, it certainly was a factor in harming the 

once-coexistent relationship between the Arab Tuareg and non-Arab Muslim ethnic groups in 

central and southern Mali. In fact, the recent Malian conflict fits a pattern of other such 

conflicts in Africa's Sahel region, including Darfur, South Sudan, Niger, and Nigeria. Drought and 

desertification have impacted the region for hundreds of years; yet climate change now is 

worsening these conditions across Sub-Saharan Africa, and has contributed to movement 

within and across borders, which can further lead to conflict dynamics in these countries that 

lack adequate governance and sufficiently-robust institutions to settle conflicts over vital 

resources. Add to this the involvement of transnational terrorist groups and militias, such as 

AQIM and the Janjaweed (in Mali and Darfur, respectively), and these conflicts become more 

complex, transforming resource competition into ethnopolitical conflict. 

Another example of climate and resource scarcity contributing to conflict, is the conflict in 

Darfur between herders and farmers. Long periods of drought resulted in the loss of both 

farmland and grazing land to the desert. The failure of their grazing lands compelled the 

nomads to migrate southward in search of water and herding ground, and that, in turn, led to 

conflict with the farming tribes occupying those lands. Coupled with population growth, tribal, 

ethnic, and religious differences, the competition for land turned violent. Probably more than 

any other recent conflict, Darfur provides a case study of how existing marginal situations can 

be exacerbated beyond the tipping point by climate-related factors. It also shows how lack of 

essential resources threatens not only individuals and their communities but also the region 

and the international community at large. 

Threatening military readiness 

In 2017, Secretary of Defense James Mattis stated that the effects of a changing climate 

"impact our security situation," and that "we are prepared to address the effects of a changing 

climate on our threat assessments, resources, and readiness." He has been joined by 22 other 

senior military leaders since then in expressing such concerns. 

Climate change poses threats to our military readiness due to impacts from extreme weather 

events and sea level rise. This has implications for our ability to project power and influence 

around the world, and can constrain our capacity to effectively advance our interest abroad. 

28 Alexis Arieff, Crisis in Mali (Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, January 14, 2013), 

http://www.fas.org/ sgp/crs/row/R42664.pdf 29 Ibid 
27 

For instance, the losses at USMC Base Camp LeJeune and Tyndall AFB from Hurricanes Florence 

and Michael in 2018 are estimated by DOD itself to be over $3B for each base. In a January 

2019 report. the Department of Defense found that about 2/3 of the 79 military installations 

surveyed in its review of climate vulnerabilities are already facing climate change-related risks, 

including recurrent flooding at lS bases, drought exposure at 43 bases, and wildfire risk to 36 

bases. Second, extreme temperatures and weather events are causing military trainings to be 

delayed, moved, and otherwise complicated. Third, America's coastal regions, from the Arctic 

to the Gulf coast are rapidly changing, forcing communities in both Alaska and Louisiana to be 

among America's first communities facing relocation, due to changing climate conditions. 

Needing the National Guard to respond with humanitarian-type assistance in areas at home 

and around the world also is straining our military resources and readiness. 

A 2018 report from the Center for Climate and Security's Military Expert Panel, found that: 

" ... over the course of the remainder of the 21st century, the U.S. military's domestic and 

international coastal military installations face significant risks from climate-driven changes in 

the environment, namely sea level rise and its interaction with an increased frequency and 

intensity of extreme weather events." 30 

This report also concluded that policies and plans for addressing these risks will need to reach 

beyond infrastructure resilience. The effects of a changing climate present operational and 

strategic risks that have significant implications for foreign policy, and these broader 

implications require more analysis, planning, and prevention. 

For example, the report found that the Ronald Reagan Ballistic Missile Defense Test Site, based 

in the Kwajalein Atoll and extending into nearly 700,000 square miles of surrounding ocean, is 

significantly exposed to sea level rise, both in terms of inundation and the threat to freshwater 

resources. Given that the site is a key DoD asset for testing missile and missile defense systems 

and conducting work for U.S. Strategic Command, NASA, and other agencies, threats to the 

installation can have a significant impact on the U.S. ability to monitor and manage threats in 

the Asia-Pacific region, including North Korea, and projecting power and influence. Kwajalein 

also hosts the new billion dollar "Space Fence" radar system and operations center that 

contributes to space situational awareness for U.S. forces.l19 At Kwajalein, as described by The 

Washington Post, "the United States can practice launching or deflecting nuclear attacks, 

provide a territorial bulwark against China, immediately detect any launches out of Asia, and 

provide a rocket-launch apparatus to civilian companies such as SpaceX."31 

30 "Military Expert Panel Report. Sea level Rise and the U.S. Military's Mission." The Center for Climate and 

Security. February 2018. 31 Zak, Dan. "A Ground Zero Forgotten: Once a Nuclear Test Site, Islands Face Oblivion Again. (Marshall Islands)." 

The Washington Post. November 27,2015. https://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/national/2015/11/27/a-groundzero-forgotten/?utm _term= .4aed53c4bf21. 
28 

Direct threats to such assets via climate change-related events can hamper both our national 

security and foreign policy objectives. 

2. We possess unprecedented foresight about this threat 

The silver lining is that in the face of these unprecedented, high-consequence threats, we also 

have unprecedented knowledge, foresight, and predictive tools and capabilities across multiple 

fields from diplomacy to intelligence, defense, and beyond. This is reflected in Director of 

National Intelligence Coats' above-mentioned written statement on the WorldWide Threat 

Assessment, in which he states that "[g]lobal environmental and ecological degradation, as well 

as climate change, are likely to fuel competition for resources, economic distress, and social 

discontent through 2019 and beyond." 32 Indeed, the last eleven Worldwide Threat Assessments 

issued by the Director of National Intelligence have included climate change threats. This 

reflects a growing technological ability to identify both the physical and social changes being 

driven by a changing climate. 

Technological developments, including quantum computing, SG, artificial intelligence, data 

analytics, and more, are further increasing our capacity to forecast, predict, and plan for these 

risks, from food scarcity to water shortages and beyond. In the field of predicting state 

instability, for example, three different tools utilized by the U.S. government- Fuzzy Analysis of 

Statistical Evidence (FASE-US Army), Integrated Crisis Early Warning System (ICEWS-US 

Army) and the Political Instability Task Force (PITF-CIA) have by one measure been assigned a 

success rate of 80%. 33 

However, prediction is not the same as preparedness. To enhance preparedness, we also need 

committed, well-resourced institutions regularly delivering and translating climate information 

to decision-makers, and having such information better integrated into the tools for predicting 

state fragility or conflict. We also need entities dedicated to interpreting climate-related risks 

and issuing warnings to decision-makers in a systematic and compelling way, because, 

otherwise, governments and intergovernmental institutions will continue to be underprepared 

for these risks. To effectively address these threats, we must break down traditional agency and 

departmental siloes, as well. We must turn foresight into action. 

3. Our foresight underscores a U.S. "Responsibility to Prepare"- essential to ensuring 

resilience for the future 

Given the magnitude and scope of this threat, there is urgent need to act now, before we face 

even greater security-related threats from climate change. Thus, climate factors should be 

incorporated across the "3D's" of diplomacy, development, and defense and into securityrelated strategic planning efforts at the front end. As I and my colleagues stated in 2017, the 

32 Coats, Daniel R. Worldwide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community. Report. February 13, 2019. 

33 J. Eli Margolis, 'Estimating State Instability,' Studies in Intelligence, Volume 59, Number 1, March 2012, pp. 13-

24. 
29 

unprecedented threat of climate change, coupled with the unprecedented foresight we are 

able to marshal today, underscores a "Responsibility to Prepare" for climate change. We 

presented the "Responsibility to Prepare" Framework to the UN Security Council in late 2017, 

and many of its principles are beginning to be adopted. The complex, transnational, and crosssectoral nature of climate threats demand such a comprehensive approach. 

The essence of the Responsibility to Prepare is to ensure that the U.S., as well as its partners 

and allies, is able to withstand climatic stresses through a series of steps designed to enhance 

resilience: mainstreaming, integrating, institutionalizing, and elevating attention to climate and 

security issues across the government, as well as developing rapid response mechanisms for 

addressing the threat. 

Mainstreaming: Climate change is happening now, and affects nearly all aspects of society, yet 

that reality is not reflected in the day to day routine activities of government bodies responsible 

for foreign affairs and security. Mainstreaming attention to climate change across our foreign 

affairs and national security apparatus could range from providing regular intelligence briefings 

on the subject to key decision-makers in our government, to supporting regular dialogues and 

forums on the subject, in the U.S., and at the UN, particularly in the UN Security Council (UNSC). 

Institutionalization: How climate change impacts security is not deeply understood within and 

across governments. In this context, the issue requires institutional centers to conduct climate 

security analysis and inform decision-makers. Institutionalizing attention to the issue is also 

important for closely monitoring slow-onset stresses related to climate change that could 

gradually erode state stability and might be more difficult to detect than more dramatic or 

episodic changes. Establishing a "Climate Security Crisis Watch Center," for example, staffed by 

expert climate, national security, foreign affairs, and intelligence analysts, that could issue 

recommendations for action to the U.S. Government, could ensure that the United States is 

more prepared for both slow- and quick-onset climatic changes affecting security. 

Elevation: In some cases, warnings related to nontraditional security risks are delivered to 

governments by analysts, but not at a senior enough level within an agency or department that 

appropriately contextualizes the risks as they pertain to other strategic priorities. In this 

context, elevating such issues within the US government, for example, establishing a senior 

Climate Change and Security position, either within the State Department or another 

appropriate agency, would go a long way toward ensuring that these issues were received and 

addressed at the highest levels. Such an individual could be responsible for overseeing the 

work of the aforementioned Climate and Security Crisis Watch Center and delivering 

recommendations within and across the USG and beyond, as appropriate. 

Integration: The US government should integrate climate change trends into its analyses of 

other critical security and foreign policy priorities. This is the "just add climate" approach, 

justified by the nature of the threat and the fact that changes in the climate, acting as a threat 

multiplier, will affect the entire geostrategic landscape. For example, the questions of how 

climate change intersects with health security, conflict, international terrorism, nuclear 
30 

proliferation, and maritime security, are all critically important, but may be missed if such 

analysis is contained only within the specialized centers mentioned above. Practically, this could 

involve embedding climate and security analysts across issue siloes within the US government, 

or creating interagency structures to facilitate such integration. 

Rapid response: Though the approaches above are designed to facilitate preparedness and 

prevention, rapid response measures could help, particularly for anticipating low 

probability/high impact risks, and creating a governance capacity to prepare for "unknown 

unknowns" or "black swans."34 The aforementioned Climate Security Crisis Watch Center, for 

example, could employ such a rapid response system when communicating with leadership 

across the US Government. 

leadership on climate security is an essential element of advancing America's interests in the 

2151 centurv. 

The globally devastating Second World War precipitated the creation of an international 

system, led by the United States, designed to protect the sovereignty of states against external 

aggression and decrease the likelihood of conflict between nations. This is the world order we 

are trying to preserve today. However, the rapid rate of climatic change, combined with other 

global threats, and the increasing stress on security that follows means that this system must 

adapt, and adapt quickly. The U.S. should lead that effort, just as it led the effort to ensure 

global stability after the Second World War. 

Military leaders are trained to examine a range of risk estimates and to prepare plans to reduce 

that risk, in the first instance, or defend against it. The military "does not see the range of 

possibilities as justification for inaction." We need to apply these risk management concepts to 

climate change. As General Gordon Sullivan, USA (Ret.), former Army Chief of Staff, stated 

about responding to climate change, "[b]ack in the [Cold War], the challenge was to stop a 

particular action [(i.e., a nuclear attack)]. Now, the challenge is to inspire a particular action."35 

Fortunately, the difference between today and major global disruptions of the past is that we 

can spot impending disasters earlier and more easily. Though the risks are unprecedented, our 

foresight is unprecedented as well. Technological developments have given us predictive tools 

that enhance our ability to anticipate and mitigate threats. In short, we have the ability to make 

our communities, institutions and individuals more resilient to a broad range threats. This 

foresight underscores a responsibility to advance resilient solutions that are commensurate to 

the threat. I call that a "Responsibility to Prepare." leadership on incorporating climate threats 

across the "3D's" of diplomacy, development, and defense, and into security-related strategic 

planning efforts, is essential to protect America's 21''-century near- and long-term national 

34 Femia, Francesco, Christine Parthemore, Caitlin Werrell. "The inadequate US response to a major security threat: 

Climate change," The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, July 20, 2011 

35 CNA Military Advisory Board. "National Security and the Threat of Climate Change." Report. 2007. 
31 

security interests. If we don't, we'll either have to watch our adversaries take the lead, or failing 

that, bear witness to an increasingly unstable world. 
32 

Mr. KEATING. Thank you, Ms. Goodman. You were there right to 

the second. Unbelievable. 

Mr. Weisenfeld. 

STATEMENT OF PAUL WEISENFELD, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT, RTI INTERNATIONAL 

Mr. WEISENFELD. Mr. Keating, Ranking Member McCaul, distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity 

to testify today and for calling this hearing on such an important 

and timely topic. I have submitted my full written testimony for 

the record and will summarize it in my remarks this morning. 

Throughout my career in development at USAID and at RTI, 

International I have been honored to work on U.S.-supported programs related to agriculture, the environment, global health, democracy and governance, and more. The topic of today’s hearing 

brings to mind two important truths that I have learned during my 

career. First, development affects U.S. national security and, second, climate change affects development. 

Put simply, American national security interests benefit when 

countries are stable, secure, and able to meet the basic needs of 

their citizens. This is why development, along with defense and diplomacy, is one of the three D’s of U.S. national security. 

The best chance we have to promote resilience is to support development geared toward strengthening systems to withstand climate-related pressures. As USAID Administrator Green has said, 

the ultimate purpose of foreign assistance is to end its need to 

exist. 

Climate variability exacerbates the challenges facing developing 

countries and complicates local government’s capacity to enable 

food and water security. Rising temperatures not only threaten 

crops, livestock, and water supplies, but also allow for the spread 

of diseases by expanding the habitable range of mosquitoes and 

parasites. 

The United States has been a leader in responding to these 

trends and promoting resilience in developing countries. For example, the U.S. Government’s Feed the Future initiative—on which I 

had the privilege to work—has seen incredible success. This effort 

has helped more than 5 million families avoid hunger, and helped 

farmers generate $10 billion in new agricultural sales. I want to 

thank this committee for its steadfast support for this initiative. 

I have had the opportunity to speak with smallholder farmers 

and their families in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. When they 

talk about what most worries them, many say climate change. For 

these farmers and their families—and by extension their communities and countries—these changes can mean the difference between a life of dignity or one of desperation. 

Many organizations funded by the U.S. Government are working 

across the globe employing innovative and successful practices and 

technologies to promote resilience in the face of climate-related 

pressures. Introducing these innovations in impoverished areas 

helps farmers and herders adapt, and it can prevent communities 

from backsliding into hunger and conflict. Let me give a few examples. 
33 

As part of a USAID-funded program in the Philippines, our team 

developed water resource maps for the conflict-prone island of 

Mindanao. The program revealed that the region’s top agricultural 

exports—all of which are water intensive—were being planted in 

water-stressed areas. We provided suggestions for improving water 

management, thus protecting livelihoods in the face of climate-related risks. 

In Somalia, RTI, funded by USAID, implemented an innovative 

camel leasing model in response to recent droughts, helping herders protect their livestock and their incomes from climate-related 

threats. 

In Souther Senegal, a Feed the Future project implemented by 

RTI is working to strengthen food systems for staple crops. This 

project installs solar-powered rain gauges, allowing insurers to accurately determine when farmers may be at risk of failed production. Equipped with this tool, smallholder farmers are more likely 

to invest in quality inputs that yield more and product better-quality products demanded by buyers. 

Organizations like mine are also stepping up. Through an internal investment, RTI is working in Rwanda to develop a model 

using drones and artificial intelligence to identify with greater precision which crops will grow and when, such as whether maize will 

grow in a certain region by 2030. 

When the United States invests in development, we are investing 

in security. When we partner with countries to strengthen food security, better manage natural resources, eliminate diseases, or 

strengthen democratic practices, we are helping them take ownership of building a stable and more secure future. 

To conclude, there is no doubt that drought, famine, or a disease 

outbreak will again threaten vulnerable populations in fragile 

countries. But this is not a losing battle. The United States has a 

record to be proud of. We have effective approaches that promote 

stability in developing countries in the face of climate change and 

other threats. 

This cannot be done without the United States Congress’ continued support. I want to thank you again for your leadership and 

commitment on this issue. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Weisenfeld follows:] 
34 

Submitted Testimony by Paul Weisenfeld 

Executive Vice President, International Development 

RTI International 

House Committee on Foreign Affairs Hearing: "How Climate Change Threatens U.S. 

National Security" 

April2, 2019 

Chairman Engel, Ranking Member McCaul, and Members of the Committee, thank you for the 

opportunity to testify today and for calling this hearing on such an important and timely topic. 

Throughout my career in development, first at the U.S. Agency for International Development 

(USAID) and now at RT!International, I have been honored to work in several countries and 

regions, overseeing U.S.-supported programs related to agriculture, the environment, global 

health, and more. Some of the countries in which I have worked, such as Zimbabwe, experienced 

significant instability and conflict while I was there. The topic oftoday's hearing brings to mind 

two important truths that I have observed throughout my career: first, other countries' 

development affects U.S. national security; second, climate affects development. 

Put simply, American national security interests benefit when countries are stable and secure, 

and are able to meet the basic needs of their citizens. This is why development is rightly 

considered, along with defense and diplomacy, one of the "three Ds" of U.S. national security. 

Developing countries are particularly vulnerable to climate-related events and trends, including 

extreme weather and erratic weather patterns, because they can threaten basic needs for survival, 

such as food security and water security. This vulnerability has consequences for U.S. national 

security. When a country is unable to meet the basic needs of its citizens, including enabling 

reliable access to food, water, and economic opportunity, instability is very often not far behind. 

This is even more true for countries where govemments have weak capacity to respond to shocks 

and local institutions are fragile. 

USAID Administrator Mark Green has rightly raised the question of how U.S. foreign assistance 

can "foster resilience in people and communities so they can withstand future crisis, or better yet, 

lead normallivcs." 1 As climate change contributes to crises and instability in the developing 

world, holistically supporting the development of vulnerable countries and communities is the 

best way to strengthen their resilience, bolster self-reliance, and foster stability and security. 

' US AID, '·USAID Administrator Mark Green Delivers Remarks at the Opening Session of Global Innovation 

Week," September 28, 2017. https://~>;ww.usaid.gov/news-information/press-releases/sep-28-20 17-usaidadministrator·mark~green-delivers-remarks-opening-session 
35 

An increasingly vulnerable world 

Recent progress in strengthening global food security is now at risk. Global food prices spiked in 

2007-2008, then declined Jor nearly a decade. Since 2014, however, the prevalence of food 

insecurity and undernutrition2 has increased. The amount of undernourished people globally 

grew from around 804 million in 2016 to 821 million the following year. That is an increase of 

17 million people in just one year suffering real consequences from not having enough, and the 

right kinds, of food. 

Driven primarily by climate variability and conflict, famine threatened the lives of an estimated 

20 million people in Nigeria, Somalia, South Sudan, and Yemen in 2017.3 More broadly that 

year, nearly 124 million people in 51 countries and territories faced food crises, an increase from 

80 million people in 2015 and 108 million people in 2016.4 

Looking ahead, the global population is expected to reach 9.8 billion in 2050,5 increasing 

pressure on an already resource-scarce planet. Globally, we will need to produce 60 percent more 

food than we do now in order to feed this larger population. 6 At the same time, crop yields are 

expected to decrease for maize, rice, and wheat. three of the world's most important food crops. 7 

Demand for water is projected to increase between 30 and 50 percent by 2050. 8 Approximately 

2.4 billion people live in water-scarce regions, and more than one-half of the global population 

could be at risk of water stress by 2050.9 Water scarcity and insecurity are making it more 

difficult to meet the demand for water for agriculture, energy generation, and other needs. The 

2017 U.S. Government Global Water Strategy states that some regions could see a decline in 

economic growth due to decreasing water supplies and increasing demand, with major 

2 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), '"2018: The State of Food Security and Nutrition 

in the World." http://www.fao.org/state-of-food-security-nutrition/en/ 

'Jane Ferguson, "20 Million Starving to Death: Inside the Worst Famine Since World War II-A Report from 

South Sudan," Vox, June I, 2017. https://www.vox.comlwor1d/2017/6/l/156539701south-sudan-hunger-crisisfamine 

4 FAO, "2018: The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World." http://w'Ww.fao.org/statc-of-food-sccuritynutrition/en/ 

u;it~d Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, "World population projected to reach 9.8 billion in 

2050, and 11.2 billion in 2100," June 21, 2017. h!tps:l/www.un.org/development/desa/en/newslpopulation/worldpopulation-prosoects-20 17.html 6 Nikos Alexandratos and Jelle Bruinsma, World Agriculture Towards 2030.'2050: 1he 2012 Revision. Agricultural 

Development Economics Division, FAO. http://www.fao.org/3/ap106elap106e.pdf, p. 7. 7 Rosegrant et al. https:/lwww4.unfccc.intlsites/SubmissionsSta2ing/Documents/20 I 8 I I 071654---

CLI%20Submission%20IFPR1%20report%20full%20sizc.pdf, p. 57. 8 Chicago Council on Global Affairs, From Scarcity to Security: Managing Waterfor a Nutritious Food Future. 

March 2019. https:l/www.thechicagocouncil.org/sitesldcfaultlfi les/report from-scarcity-to-security 20 I 90321.pdf, 

p. 14. 9 Claudia Ringler et al., "Role of Water Security for Agricultural and Economic Development- Concepts and 

Global Scenarios," in Handbook on Water Security. ed. Claudia Pahl-Wostl, Anik Bhaduri, and Joyecta Gupta 

(Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, 2016), pp. 183-200. 

2 
36 

implications ior global food security and regional stability. 10 In the same report, the State 

Department noted that "[t]he Department views water security as an issue of national security." 11 

Agriculture is the backbone of the economy in many developing countries and is highly 

susceptible to water shortages, among other climate-related factors such as temperature, erratic 

rainfall patterns, and pests. The poorest, most vulnerable farmers typically depend on the rain not 

just for their livelihoods, but also to provide daily food for their families. Diminished 

opportunities in agriculture harm economic grO\vth, health, and employment, and drive migration 

both internally and externally in many developing countries. 

On the health front, rising temperatures arc affecting the transmission of diseases, particularly 

those that are transferred through water and insects. As average temperatures around the world 

rise, mosquitoes that transmit malaria, dengue, chikungunya, yellow fever, and Zika have 

become more widely distributed and more abundant. We have seen such phenomena even in the 

United States in the past decade with West Nile virus and Lyme disease, as the mosquitoes and 

ticks transmitting them have expanded their range. Increased burdens from these diseases place 

further stress on health systems that already struggle to respond to acute crises and outbreaks. As 

we witnessed during recent epidemics of Ebola and Zika, diseases respect no borders. Stronger 

health systems abroad make us safer at home. 

Developing countries arc especially vulnerable to these and other threats because they may 

already be struggling to meet the basic needs of their citizens related to food, nutrition, 

education, health, economic opportunity, good governance, and more. 

Among the most vulnerable are the approximately 500 million smallholder farmers 12 around the 

globe, many of whom are on the cusp of hunger and food insecurity. I have spoken with 

smallholder farmers in many geographically disparate countries, such as Kenya, Senegal, 

Uganda, Cambodia, and Peru. I've asked them about the biggest challenges they face. Many say 

climate change. They talk about changing weather patterns and how they no longer know when 

rain is coming. They say that pests that they never had to deal with before are damaging crops. 

They also talk about more droughts, floods, and other weather-related challenges. For these 

individual farmers and their families-and by extension their communities and countries-their 

ability to respond to these climate-related perils can mean the difference between a life of dignity 

and one of desperation. In countries where the government has limited capacity or sometimes 

unwillingness to support poor households in responding to these issues, the consequences are 

often more dire. 

Another particularly vulnerable group is youth. Young people from rural communities 

throughout the developing world are increasingly migrating to urban areas in search of better 

oppmiunities, placing them at risk of social marginalization, a loss of community and family 

10 US Government Global !'Vater Strategy 2017. 

https://www.usaid.£,Qv/sites/default/files/documents/l865/Giobal Water Strategy 20 l]_fj!!l\LiQ_lly2.pdf, p. 7. 11 U.S. Government Global Water Strategy 2017. 

https://www.usaid.gov/sites/default/files/documentsll865/Giobal Water Strategy 2017 final 508v2.pdf, p. 13. 12 Sarah K. Lowder, Jakob Skoct, and Terri Raney, ''The Number, Size, and Distribution ofFanns, Smallholder 

Farms, and Family Farms Worldwide," World Development, Volume 87. November 2016, pp. 16-29. 

https ://www .scienced i rect.com/sc ience/article/pii/S0305 7 SOX 15002703 

3 
37 

structure, and recruitment by gangs and extremist organizations. We can expect this trend to 

grow as rural areas struggle with the impacts of climate variability. 

A threat to security aud stability 

These trends are deeply concerning for global security. Whatever the drivers of a particular food, 

water, economic, or health crisis, one thing they all have in common is the potential to 

undermine and inflame fragile social, economic, and security situations. Water and food are the 

most basic of human needs. They are affected by many complex factors, including climate, 

demographics, global economic pressures, government policies, and private investment. It is 

clear, however, that when they are not available in sufficient supply, families and communities 

react, taking the actions they deem necessary to survive. 

The 2019 Worldwide Threat Assessment oft he U.S. Intelligence Community by the Director of 

National Intelligence addresses why these developments concern the U.S. national security 

community. According to the Assessment, "Global environmental and ecological degradation, as 

well as climate change, are likely to fuel competition for resources, economic distress, and social 

discontent through 2019 and beyond." The Assessment further notes that"[ c]hanges in the 

frequency and variability of heat waves, droughts, and floods-combined with poor governance 

practices-are increasing water and food insecurity around the world, increasing the risk of 

social unrest, migration, and interstate tension in countries such as Egypt, Ethiopia, Iraq, and 

Jordan.'' Ll 

Droughts that occurred in Syria between 2006 and 2011 caused 75 percent of crops to fail and an 

85 percent loss of livestock. This crisis fueled the migration of more than one million Syrians 

from rural to urban areas. Observers believe this displacement added to the domestic instability 

surrounding the country's civil war, 14 creating fertile ground for ISIS and forcing more than 5.6 

million Syrians to leave the country as refugees. 15 Globally, the International Organization for 

Migration found that between 2008 and 2017, an average of25.3 million people had been 

displaced annually, the vast majority due to disasters rather than violence. The organization 

further found that in 2016, 97 percent of people who fled their homes did so due to "disasters 

triggered by climate and weather-related hazards." 16 The World Bank has estimated that by 

2050, more than 140 million people in sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, and Latin America could 

be driven from their homes as "climate migrants." 17 

n Daniel R. Coats, Worldwide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community, delivered to the Senate Select 

Committee on Intelligence, January 29, 2019. https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/documents/20 19-ATA-SFR---

SSQ.J>.\!.f, p. 23. 14 Chicago Council on Global Affairs. https://www.thechicagocouncil.org/sites/default/files/report from-scarcity-tosecurity 2019032I.pdf, p. 22. 15 World Vision, "Syrian Refugee Crisis: Facts, FAQs, and How to Help." https://www.worldvision.org/refuoeesnews-stories/syrian-refugee-crisis-facts 

16 lntemational Organization for Migration, World Migration Report 2018. 

https://publications.iom.int/system/files/pdf/wmr 2018 en.pdf, p. 38. 17 The World Rank. "Climate Change Could Force Over 140 Million to Migrate Within Countries by 2050: World 

Bank Report," March 19, 2018. https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2018/03119/climate-changecould-force-over-l40-m ill ion-to-mi 2rate-with in-countries-by-2050-world-bank -report 

4 
38 

In Nigeria, as noted by Ambassador John Campbell before the House Committee on Science, 

Space, and Technology in 2017, agricultural and grazing land is claimed each year by the Sahara 

desert, leading to higher levels of impoverished herders and farmers. At the same time, Lake 

Chad is shrinking. As the Ambassador testified, "Less arable land, less water, and more people 

are a recipe for a cycle of violence." This truth applies to any country. As Campbell notes, in 

Nigeria it has encouraged the rise of 13oko Haram. 18 

Maintaining the momentum: Continuing America's smart investment in development 

Poverty is a driver of vulnerability, but it's clear that other factors, including climate, exacerbate 

poverty and compromise the progress we're making. The best chance we have to promote 

resilience to crises is to address the underlying causes of poverty and insecurity, and to 

strengthen systems to withstand climate-related pressures. Tackling these causes requires strong, 

consistent U.S. leadership to support multi sectoral, integrated approaches-for instance, those 

looking holistically at the complex interplay of food security, nutrition, water, energy, and 

governance. Equally important, it requires development programs that promote local ownership, 

sustainability, and self-reliance. 

As Administrator Green has said, the ultimate purpose of foreign assistance is to end its need to 

exist. 19 Development is hard work and not every program is successful. But resounding success 

stories arc all around us and illustrate the strong economic return on a relatively small investment 

in foreign assistance. Let me start with an example from the health sector that shows how we can 

achieve lasting solutions to very difficult problems. USATD's neglected tropical diseases (NTD) 

program20 has supported the elimination of certain insect-borne NTDs in Ghana, Togo, Laos, 

Cambodia, Vietnam, and Nepal. The program proves that fundamentally solving-not just 

reducing--complex development challenges is possible. Congress's investment in USAID NTD 

programs has resulted in more than 100 million people no longer at risk for trachoma, and more 

than 250 million no longer at risk for lymphatic filariasis. In other words, we are winning the 

global light against NTDs and moving ever closer to the day when the interventions that USAID 

supports to combat them will no longer be needed. Also in health, tremendous results have been 

achieved through the U.S. President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief and the U.S. President's 

Malaria Initiative. 

Over the course of my career, I've seen significant changes in the way international development 

programs are carried out. Across all sectors in development, programs have embraced the best 

lessons of modern management. They are harnessing new technologies to reach scale, and 

utilizing scientific techniques to improve program monitoring and evaluation. Just as important, 

18 John Campbell, "National Security Implications of Climate Change," delivered before the U.S. House Committee 

on Science, Space, and Technology, July 12,2017. https://-.;ww.cfr.org/blog/national-security-implications-climate91~ 19 Michaellgoe, "US AID Chief Mark Green's First Day at the Office," Devex, August 8, 2017. 

https://www.devex.com/news/usaid-chief-mark-green-s-first-day-at-the-office-90835 

20 RTl implements ENVISION, USA !D's flagship NTD program: "ENVISION: A World Free ofNeglected 

Tropical Diseases-Controlling and Eliminating Seven Neglected Tropical Diseases in Low-Income Countries 

Around the World," n.d. https://www.rti.org/impact/envision-world-frec-neglected-tropical-diseases 

5 
39 

they are using that information to course-correct and achieve better results. Many programs are 

working across multiple sectors to promote more holistic solutions and better outcomes, such as 

food security programs that are also improving child health and nutrition. Whatever their focus, 

programs are most effective when they are designed to strengthen local government systems in 

order to build countries' capacity to take ownership of their own development journey, to 

engender trust from their citizens by providing better public services, and ultimately to move 

from dependence on aid to self-reliance. 

Other specific opportunities exist to improve global food and water security. 

I appreciate how USAID is revamping its structure to better draw together its efforts in food, 

water, nutrition, and resilience, among other sectors. The challenges of climate-driven food and 

water insecurity are complex and interrelated. They must be tackled together, and this 

reorganization promises to strengthen the Agency's ability to develop and implement effective, 

integrated solutions to global food and water security challenges. 

Advances in technology and improved farming practices promise to help farmers increase 

production in an environmentally sustainable manner. Drought-resistant seeds, drip irrigation, 

precision application of fertilizers and agrochemicals, better pest management, improved 

livestock breeding, conservation farming, and improved watershed and soil management can all 

help increase production and enhance climate resilience. 21 Introducing these technologies in 

impoverished areas and getting farmers and herders to adopt them requires a sustained 

commitment, but it is money well spent to prevent a backslide into insecurity and conflict. 

Technology is also producing better awareness and foresight. Using internal funding, RTI is 

developing a model to help agricultural stakeholders in Rwanda more readily identify what crops 

will grow and when, such as whether maize will grow in a certain region by 2030.22 Helping 

farmers, the private sector, and governments identify areas more likely to experience changing 

agro-eeologieal conditions-and significant corresponding changes in the production processwill also help identify emerging threats to food security and ways to mitigate them. 

Similarly, as part of a USAID-funded program in the Philippines,23 RTI developed water 

resource maps for the conflict-prone island of Mindanao, which produces about 40 percent of the 

country's agricultural output. The study projects the water resource status of water-rich and 

water-stressed areas a decade into the future, based on assumptions on climate change and land 

use. This information revealed that the region's top four agricultural exports, which are all water 

21 Paul Wcisenfe1d and Anna Wetterberg, ''Technological Advances to Jmprove Food Security: Addressing 

Challenges to Adoption," Research Brief, RTI Press, October 2015. 

hltps://www.rti.org/sites/defaultlfi les/resources/rti-publication-file-7e 1980eb-b8d 1-42ffi-8db4-d58bb8bfa58c.pdf, p. 

2. 

22 RTI Grand Challenge project: "Using Satellite Images and Artificial Intelligence to Improve Agricultural 

Resilience: An RTI Grand Challenge," n.d. https:/iwww.rti.or£1l!..1Jllact/using-satellite-imaoes-and-artificialintelligence-improve-agrlcultural-resilience 

23 "B-LEADERS (Building Low Emission Alternatives to Develop Economic Resilience and Sustainability): 

Developing Renewable Energy Resources and Increasing the Resiliency of the Electrical Grid in the Philippines." 

n.d. https://www.rti.org/impact/b-Jeaders-building-low-emission-altematives-develop-economic-resilience-andstlstainability 

6 
40 

intensive, are being planted in water-stressed areas. The study offered suggestions for mitigating 

the risk and improving water management. 

Helping food producers adapt to climate variability can protect food security while saving their 

livelihoods. For instance, in Somalia, where the livestock sector is critically important to the 

economy, the RTI team implementing a USAID-funded program24 noticed that as the dry season 

began in 2016 and drought was imminent, the lucrative livestock milk supply was at risk. Herds 

were producing little or no milk due to limited access to water, reduced availability of affordable 

feed, and higher disease prevalence. The program introduced an innovative camel-leasing model 

through which privately owned dairy companies lease animals from pastoralists during a drought 

to ensure sufficient commercial milk supply, with profits shared between the pastoralists and 

dairy companies. In return, the companies provide the animals with veterinary services, water, 

and feed. This arrangement helps maintain the nutrition and health of the camels, provides 

predictable household income, and serves as a model that may be a win-win for the private 

sector and households. This program reminds us that innovative practices can improve resilience 

and stability in the face of drought in Somalia. 

In Senegal, a Feed the Future-funded project implemented by RTI25 is working to strengthen the 

entire food system for staple crops-from farms, to markets, to tables. This includes working 

with farmers, private sector processors and traders, the government, and the local financial sector 

to create a stronger system that is more resilient to shocks and stresses and helps vulnerable 

communities bounce back quicker and more easily when such events do occur. As one example, 

the project has worked with local insurers and others to help reduce the risk that farmers face if 

rainfall is insufficient, erratic, or excessive. This has led to the installation of 88 solar-powered, 

automated rain gauges throughout Senegal's southern zone, which allows insurers to quickly 

access rainfall data and accurately determine when farmers may be at risk of failed production, 

and to then compute rain-indexed insurance payouts. Through this risk-mitigation tool, 

smallholder farmers are more likely to invest in quality inputs that yield more and generate 

better-quality products demanded by buyers. 

Many other things can be done, and are already being done, to strengthen food security, water 

security, and broader development around the world. The United States has a long and 

distinguished record as a global leader of which it should be proud. The Food for Peace program, 

founded by President Eisenhower in 1954, is one of our most enduring success stories. The 

program has provided food to more than four billion people in need for more than six deeades.26 

More recently, the Initiative to End Hunger in Africa, started during the George W. Bush 

administration, evolved into the global Feed the Future initiative in the wake of the 2007-2008 

global food-price crisis. I want to thank this Committee for your role in strengthening and 

institutionalizing this effort with the bipartisan Global Food Security Act in 2016 and its 

reauthorization last Congress. Feed the Future helps lower-income countries to boost their food 

24 The USAID Somalia Growth, Enterprise, Employment, and Livelihoods (GEEL) program. 25 "Feed the Future Senegal Naatal Mbay: Facilitating Market Opportunities for Grain Producers in a Country 

Striving for Self-Sufficiency," n.d. https://www.rti.org/imoact!fecd-futurc-senegal-naatal-mbay 26 USAID Office of Food for Peace web pages. https://-www.usaid.gov/who-we-are/organization!bureauslbureaudemocracy·contlict~and-humanitarian-assistance/office-food 

7 
41 

security by reducing poverty and hunger and strengthening their resilience to shocks and stresses. 

I've already mentioned one example of a highly successful Feed the Future program. Overall, the 

initiative has helped an estimated 5.2 million families who are no longer suffering from hunger, 

and helped farmers generate $10.5 billion in new agricultural sales.27 During my time at Feed the 

Future, I met women in countries such as Cambodia, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, and Tanzania who 

tripled their harvests-and, therefore, their incomes-with the help of the initiative. 

Many other U.S. development programs, past and present, have achieved tremendous success in 

saving and improving the lives of the world's poor and vulnerable. 

Development strengthens U.S. national security 

President Reagan once said, "Our national interests are inextricably tied to the security and 

development of our friends and allies."28 

It's clear why this is true. When development fails, states fail. When development is 

threatened-by climate change or anything else-U.S. national security is threatened. 

When the United States invests in development, we're investing in security. Whether we are 

helping countries strengthen food security, better manage their scarce natural resources such as 

water, improve health, eliminate diseases, improve early grade education, bolster economic 

opportunity, or strengthen democracy, we are helping them take ownership of building a stable 

future. 

The impacts of climate change are intensifying the development challenges that vulnerable 

people, countries, and regions are already struggling with. They are another reason why U.S. 

foreign assistance, which promotes stability in some of the world's most fragile areas, is a vital 

tool for strengthening U.S. national security. 

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. I look forward to answering questions from the 

Committee. 

Paul Weisenfeld is executive vice presiden!for international developmenl at R11 International, 

an independent nonpn~fit research institute. In this posilion, he leads RTI's intemational 

development practice, which designs and implements programs across a wide range <Jf sectors to 

help lower- and middle-income countries and communities address complex problems and 

improve the lives of their citizens. 

Before joining RTI, Mr. WeiseiJfeld served as a foreign service officer for the United States 

Agencyfor International Development (USA! D), achieving the highest rank of career minister in 

21 Feed the Future web pages. https://www.feedthefuture.gov/ 28 U.S. Global Leadership Coalition, "President Reagan on Foreign Assistance." 

http://www.usglc.org/downloads/2015/09/Reagan-on-Forcign-Assistance.pdf 

8 
42 

the Senior Foreign Service, and led high-prr<file initiatives across various international 

development sectors. During this time, Mr. Weise11feld directed the Bureau for Food Security at 

USAID, which leads Feed the Future, the U.S. Government's global hunger andfood security 

initiative. He also led the Haiti Task Team, charged with coordinating relief and reconstruction 

planningfo!lowing the devastating earthquake in 2010, and served as USAID Mission Director 

in Peru and Zimbabwe. Mr. Weisef1fidd received the USAID Administrator's Distinguished 

Career SeFTice Award, the agency's highest award. He served in Africa. the M.iddle East, and 

Latin America. 

Mr. Weisenfidd holds an honorary Doctorate in Public Administration.fi·orn ,Uonmouth College. 

Illinois. He also holds a JD.from Harvard Law School and a B.A . .fi·om Queens College oft he 

City University (~fNnr York. He serves on the hoards oft he U.S. Global Leadership Coalition 

and the Societyfor International Development Washington Chapter. 

9 
43 

Mr. KEATING. Thank you, Mr. Weisenfeld. 

Mr. Worthington. 

STATEMENT OF BARRY K. WORTHINGTON, EXECUTIVE 

DIRECTOR, UNITED STATES ENERGY ASSOCIATION 

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Thank you, Mr. Keating. Good morning, 

Ranking Member McCaul, and other members of the Committee on 

Foreign Affairs. 

The U.S. Energy Association helps expand energy infrastructure 

in developing countries with the U.S. Agency for International Development, and we also contribute to policy and technical discussions with the U.S. Department of Energy to expand the use of 

clean energy technology around the world. 

Through our membership we represent over 100 companies and 

associations across the U.S. energy sector, from the largest Fortune 

500 companies to single-person consulting companies, and everything in between. Our membership is both energy production and 

energy efficiency companies, but also engineering, finance, legal, 

research, and consulting organizations. 

Our objective is to convey information about the realities of global energy issues in the 21st Century. We are an educational organization both by function and by tax status. 

And, again, thank you for inviting me to appear before you today. 

The risk of climate change is real, and industrial activity all 

around the world is impacting climate. Addressing climate change 

is a challenge for our country. It affects every citizen in the world. 

While our industry addresses the changing climate, it continues 

to ensure that American citizens have access to increasingly safe, 

affordable, reliable, and clean energy. 

We have more than a billion global citizens, a billion global citizens with no access to energy, and another billion-plus with inadequate access. Women in developing countries spend all day foraging for sticks and animal dung to generate energy for cooking, 

lighting, and heating. This is very dangerous. Burning firewood 

and animal dung indoors kills children, it causes asthma, and all 

kinds of other health problems. Access to energy provides improved 

health, education, and economic development. Considering a global 

population growth of another 2 billion people by mid-century, it 

leaves our energy industry globally to provide for 4 billion more energy consumers by 2050. 

Our industry’s challenge is to double the provision of energy 

services globally, while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. 

Many of these new energy consumers all around the world will 

utilize fossil fuels because they are domestically available, they are 

abundant, and they are affordable. We should all work harder toward helping them use high-efficiency, low emissions technology. 

USEA members have volunteered for over 25 years in 50 countries 

to do this. Lack of adequate energy poses national security concerns for all countries. 

Domestically, our industry has undertaken a wide range of initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. We are very proud of our 

progress. 

Electric power carbon dioxide emissions have declined 28 percent 

since 2005. Twenty-eight percent. We expect this trend to continue. 
44 

Methane emissions from natural gas have declined over 18 percent, even though we have increased natural gas production by 

over 50 percent in that same time period. 

We have invested over $120 billion in greenhouse gas emissionsreducing technologies. 

The solution to the dual challenges of climate change and global 

access to safe, reliable, affordable, and clean energy is technology. 

And an ‘‘all of the above’’ approach is necessary. Americans lead 

the world in innovation, and we can complete the energy revolution 

that began in earnest a decade ago. In the United States, increased 

U.S. domestic energy production has actually resulted in lower 

greenhouse gas emissions. 

And we can continue to do this without additional regulations. 

We do not need the Clean Power Plan. We do not need the Paris 

Accord. We would rather pay the engineers and technicians to reduce emissions than to pay the lawyers to prove that we are in 

compliance with a needless regulation. 

My written testimony cited the Chamber of Commerce’s numbers 

on what the cost of complying with the Paris Accord would be. 

Other countries are today expanding their consumption of fossil 

fuels. Coal mines are being build in Russia and China, and dozens 

of other countries. They are going to release greenhouse gas emissions for the next 50 to 60 years. 

If we implement the Paris Accord, our economic competitors will 

access cheap energy while we force American consumers and industries to utilize high-priced energy. 

I pose the question: do our competitors having access to cheap 

energy while we are paying more, is that a threat to our national 

security? 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Worthington follows:] 
45 

Testimony of 

Barry K. Worthington 

Executive Director, United States Energy Association 

To the U.S. House of Representatives' 

Committee on Foreign Affairs 

"How Climate Change Threatens US. National Security" 

April2, 2019 
46 

Chairman Engel, Ranking Member McCaul, and Members of the Committee on Foreign Affairs. 

My name is Barry Worthington. I am the Executive Director of the United States Energy Association. I 

have been in this role for 30 years. 

The U.S. Energy Association helps expand energy infrastructure in developing countries with the U.S. 

Agency for International Development (USAID) and contributes to policy and technical discussions with 

the U.S. Department of Energy to expand the use of clean energy technology around the world. 

Through our membership, USEA also represents more than I 00 companies and associations across the 

U.S. energy sector, from the largest Fortune 500 companies to small energy consulting firms. 

Our members include energy production companies and energy efficiency companies, but also 

engineering, finance, legal, research and consulting organizations. 

USEA 's objective is to convey information about the realities of global energy issues in the 21st Century. 

We are an educational association both by function and IRS tax status. 

Thank you for inviting me to appear before you today. 

My intent is to offer you information and observations and to convey an offer to be a resource for you and 

your staff as you begin to tackle the priorities of the 116'" Congress. 

The risks of climate change are real, and industrial activity around the globe impacts climate. 

Addressing climate change is a challenge for our country. It affects every world citizen. 

While our industry addresses the changing climate, it continues to ensure American citizens have access 

to increasingly safe, affordable, reliable, and clean energy. 

We have more than 1 billion global citizens with no access to commercial energy and another billion with 

inadequate access. Women in developing countries spend all day foraging for sticks and animal dung to 

generate energy for cooking, lighting, and heating. This is dangerous. Burning firewood and animal dung 

indoors kills children, causes asthma, and other health problems. Access to energy provides improved 

health, education, and economic development. Considering a global population growth of another two 

billion leaves the energy industry to provide 4 billion more energy consumers access by mid-century. 

Our industry's challenge is to double the provision of energy services globally, while reducing 

greenhouse gas emissions. 

Many of these new consumers will utilize fossil fuels because they are domestically available, abundant, 

and affordable. We should work harder toward helping them use high efficiency/low emissions 

technologies. USEA members have volunteered to do this for over 25 years in over 50 countries. Lack of 

adequate energy supplies poses national security concerns for all nations. 

Domestically our industry has undertaken a wide range of initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 

We are very proud of our progress. 

For example, electric power carbon dioxide emissions declined 28% from 2005 to 2017. We expect this 

trend to continue. 
47 

Methane emissions from the natural gas industry declined by 18.6% from 1990 to 2015 even though U.S. 

natural gas production increased by more than 50%. 

Since 2000, the energy industry has invested at least $120 billion in emissions-reducing technologies. 

We think that the solution to the dual challenges of global climate change and global access to safe, 

reliable, affordable and clean energy is through technology. 

An "all of the above" approach is essentiaL This means all the renewables such as solar, wind, hydro and 

geothermal, as well as traditional fuels and technology such as nuclear and all the fossil fuels. We need to 

work towards assuring that fossil fuel utilization uses high efficiency/low emissions technology including 

carbon capture and storage. 

Americans lead the world in innovation and we can complete the energy revolution that began in earnest a 

decade ago. Increased U.S. domestic energy production has actually resulted in lower emissions of carbon 

dioxide. 

And we can do this without additional regulation. We do not need the Clean Power Plan and we do not 

need the Paris Accord to achieve continued progress in our industry reducing greenhouse gas emissions. 

We would rather pay the engineers and technicians to reduce emissions then to pay the lawyers to prove 

that we are in compliance with a needless regulatory regime. 

And our citizens, society, and economy will pay. According to the US Chamber of Commerce Global 

Energy Institute, to meet the Paris Accord goals: 

U.S. GOP would plunge by $250 billion; 

the economy would shed 2.7 million jobs; 

the average household income would drop $160. 

And to meet mid-century goals: 

GOP would be cut by nearly $3 trillion; 

industrial employment would fall by 6.5 million jobs; 

and average household income would drop $7,000. 

We must continue to find ways to reduce emissions without suffering these hits to the economy. 

And other countries are today expanding their consumption of fossil fuels. Coal mines and plants are 

being built in Russia and China and dozens of other countries. These plants will be releasing greenhouse 

gas emissions for 50 to 60 years. 

If we implement the Paris Accord as it exists today, our economic competitors will be accessing cheap 

energy while we force American consumers and industries to utilize higher-priced energy. Does this 

threaten our national security? 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you for your kind attention. 
48 

Mr. KEATING. Thank you. I would like to thank all the witnesses. 

I will now recognize members for 5 minutes each to ask questions, starting with myself. All time yielded is only for the purpose 

of questioning the witnesses. 

I agree that there will be many new consumers, but I also know 

there will be many new industries to come out of the green and renewable energy sources where it would be great for the U.S. to 

have a competitive advantage in these new industries as others are 

no longer as cost competitive. 

But I would like to gear in on just the threats of specific countries perhaps with this important security issue. Climate change 

has been categorized as a threat multiplier which makes existing 

security risks even worse. Can you comment on how climate 

change impacts the challenges posed by Russia, China, Iran, and 

North Korea specifically? 

Any witness that—Admiral McGinn. 

Mr. MCGINN. It is a great expression, Mr. Chairman, to say that 

the effects of climate change act as a threat multiplier for instability. If you look especially around the world between the tropics, 

you will find many fragile societies, many fragile governments that 

pushed a little bit further by the effects of natural disasters or food 

shortages, water shortages, flooding, any of the disasters that we 

are seeing increasingly and more frequent will cause them to fail. 

And into that failed state or society will rush all manner of bad 

people and bad effects. So, ultimately we see our young men and 

women in uniform now and in the future increasingly having to respond to those to protect the national security of the United States 

and our allies. 

So, in all of the countries that you mentioned there are aspects 

of this that are—they are dealing with internally. But, importantly, 

on the international stage Russia and China will fill any gap in 

leadership that the United States leaves as it relates to climate 

change mitigation and climate change adaptation. 

So, in fragile countries, fragile societies where China is making 

investment and increasing their resilience, that is something that 

the United States is losing. 

Mr. KEATING. That has also been echoed by Secretary Hagel, Secretary Mattis. And do any other witnesses have any comments? 

Ms. Goodman. 

Ms. GOODMAN. Mr. Keating, members of the committee, I think 

the clearest example is the Arctic. Today we have a whole new 

Ocean that has become navigable because of sea ice retreating, permafrost collapsing, and temperatures rising. Russia is militarizing 

its portion of the Arctic in order to prepare for a future where it 

can control routes across the Arctic, as I mentioned, as a toll road 

and an economic highway to its economic and security advantages. 

China declared itself in 2018 to be a ‘‘near Arctic’’ stakeholder 

and has global ambitions in the region. It has declared that the sea 

routes across the Arctic are shorter than the current routes controlled by the United States through the Straits of Hormuz and the 

Straits of Malacca. And it will see advantage as those routes become increasingly navigable in the future. 

So I think this is a very clear example of an area in which we 

have seen increased geo strategic competition. 
49 

Mr. KEATING. Just quickly, you know 40 percent of the world’s 

population lives within 100 miles of our coasts. And that affects so 

many other issues as well. So, I know, Ms. Goodman, you have spoken to this, but could you speak to how climate change and ocean 

acidification could disrupt food stocks like fish stocks and fish migration, and what these risks would be imposed to coastal communities, and the implication it might have not on just food supply 

but on our national security? 

Ms. GOODMAN. Yes, absolutely. 

We are seeing changes in fish stock migration moving northward. 

Areas that were once very abundant becoming over-fished. Areas 

subject now to ocean acidification being less bountiful, but other 

areas further north and south in the poles becoming more abundant. That puts many of the communities in high intense urban 

areas in the mid latitudes at great risk, both across Asia and Africa, combined with extreme weather events from increased hurricanes, cyclones, and typhoons, which put many of these populations 

in increasingly fragile circumstances. 

Mr. KEATING. Well, thank you. 

I will now yield to the ranking member for questions. Mr. 

McCaul. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

As I mentioned in my opening statement, I met with NASA scientists on this issue. They said, we are not policymakers, but we 

do want to show you what the data is reflecting. 

And I think as, Ms. Goodman, you point out that Africa, where 

I am particularly concerned about extremism, will continue to get 

drier and increasingly lack water. Having said that, I want to focus 

on what is realistic, sensible, achievable, and pragmatic here. 

President Obama pledged to cut greenhouse gases by 26 to 28 

percent by 2025. Mr. Worthington, to your knowledge was the private sector, including the energy industry, consulted prior to this? 

Mr. WORTHINGTON. To my knowledge there was no consultation 

with the energy industry. 

Mr. MCCAUL. And do you know if the Administration released a 

cost-benefit analysis or any sort of economic analysis to justify the 

numbers? 

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I have not seen any economic analysis relative to this issue that was done by the previous Administration, 

sir. 

Mr. MCCAUL. Do you know how many countries’ legislatures ratified this agreement? 

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Many did. Not all, but many did. By far 

enough for the Paris Agreement to go into effect. 

Mr. MCCAUL. And I guess that is why we are having this discussion here. This, this Congress did not. 

Your organization did support President Trump’s pledge to renegotiate the terms of the Paris Agreement. Other than just withdrawing or adjusting President Obama’s terms, what terms of the 

agreement itself do you think could realistically in an achievable 

sense be renegotiated? 

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Well, I think the biggest concern that we 

have as an industry is the notion that we do not have a level playing field with our economic competitors. Our commitment to reduce 
50 

greenhouse gas emissions by 28 percent has been met by the electric power sector in the United States. We have done that already. 

The entire energy industry hasn’t, and other parts of the economy that contribute to climate change. Agriculture, steel, cements, 

and so forth have not made the gains that we made in electric 

power. 

But, you know, the Chinese commitment in the Paris Accord was 

basically that they would try. There was no percentage reduction 

insisted for China. They would, they would try. That was the best 

that they would commit to. So, in urging that the accord be renegotiated, we would like to see a level playing field where different 

countries around the world all had an opportunity to do the same 

type of emissions reduction that the United States was committed 

to. 

Mr. MCCAUL. I think, and I think that is a good point. I mean, 

Admiral McGinn, Ms. Goodman, it is only as good as—you know, 

it is a piece of paper signed but it is only as good as the enforcement mechanism. 

To Mr. Worthington’s point, China is continuing to fire up a coal 

plant every week. And I would argue it is one of the biggest 

emitters of greenhouse gas. 

Mr. MCGINN. Mr. McCaul, that fact, factoid of one power plant, 

coal fired power plant a week is, is old news. In fact, China has 

become one of the leadest—leading producers and exporters of 

green technology around the world. They did it for a variety of reasons. It could be argued whether or not tariffs was a factor there, 

but if you look at some of the major cities in China, and choking 

levels of air pollution, water pollution, land pollution, they see the 

imperative and they are living in many cases with the effects of climate change. And they recognize that they had to do something 

about it. And oh, by the way, that it was not a zero sum game. It 

was not, well, we can deal with climate change or we can have a 

strong economy. It is an ‘‘and’’ proposition. 

And the United States can do that as well. The creation of jobs 

over the last 10 years, if you do not compare us versus them, but 

if you compare the number of jobs created in green industries from 

energy efficiency, to solar, to wind, every aspect of it is multiple 

times more than the jobs created in the fossil fuel industry. 

Mr. MCCAUL. My time has run out. I know they have invested 

quite a bit in phototag technology and solar. 

And, Ms. Goodman, do you have any comment? 

Ms. GOODMAN. Thank you, Mr. McCaul. 

I would argue that combating the climate challenge is not only 

about American leadership in the advanced energy transition, 

which is indeed extremely important, but it is also about American 

leadership in climate resilience, predictive analytics, and a whole 

range of advanced technologies that will enable us to have resilient 

economies for the future. 

Energy is a piece of it, but there is quite a bit more in the built 

environment. And, as you have heard, I think also from scientists 

at NASA. 

Mr. MCCAUL. That is very good. 

I am going to close with—I had this discussion with Senator 

Lindsey Graham the other week. And he was talking about a Man-
51 

hattan Project for clean energy. I think that is something that as 

we look at being productive here, instead of sparring in a partisan 

way, if we are trying to find solutions I think we should be looking 

at ideas like that as well. 

With that, I yield back. 

Chairman ENGEL [presiding]. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. 

McCaul. 

Let me get right to the questions. Repeated national security 

strategies adopted during the Obama and Bush Administrations 

listed climate change as a key threat facing the United States. On 

December 18th, 2017, President Trump unveiled a national security strategy which omitted climate change as a threat. 

So, let me ask Ms. Goodman and then Admiral McGinn, what 

are the consequences of striking climate change from our national 

security documents? 

Why do not we start with Ms. Goodman. 

Ms. GOODMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The consequence is that it makes it more difficult for our national security professionals and our military leaders to openly address the risk today. Many have spoken about it directly. And, it 

also makes it more challenging for American climate leadership to 

measure up to the other global leadership we believe is so important. 

This is a fundamental security challenge of our era. And only by 

being present and exerting our leadership will we be able to recognize and address those threats in a commensurate manner. 

Chairman ENGEL. Thank you. 

Admiral McGinn, based on your time in uniform, how do you 

think the military as an institution sees climate change? 

Mr. MCGINN. I believe they see it, I know they see it as a tremendous challenge and a growing challenge, Mr. Chairman. And, 

ultimately, people in uniform are pragmatists. You cannot debate 

whether the intelligence about a mine field at sea or shore or whatever is supported by 75 percent of the intelligence, or 90 percent, 

or 10 percent, you act on what you know and what your best judgment tells you. 

And in our military, especially among our most senior military 

leaders who are on record talking about climate change as a significant growing national security challenge, they are saying we need 

to do something about it. We are doing something about it. And I 

think all the support that they can possibly get to do those things 

from the Congress is absolutely essential. 

Chairman ENGEL. Thank you. 

According to media reports, Cyclone Idai in Mozambique left 

nearly 2 million people in need of assistance. U.N. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres, with whom we met, called it ‘‘an uncommonly fierce and prolonged storm, and yet another alarm bell about 

the dangers of climate change.’’ 

Mr. Weisenfeld, how do increasing humanitarian emergencies 

caused by climate change affect how we provide development assistance to make communities more resilient? 

Mr. WEISENFELD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for the 

question. 
52 

I think the recent events in Mozambique highlight the impact of 

extreme weather events and climate change on communities and 

countries with limited resources to deal with these kinds of challenges, and countries that are often prone to conflict. And we have 

seen devastating results of the cyclone in Mozambique. As you 

have said, it has spilled over into neighboring countries, into 

Zimbabwe for instance, where I had the pleasure to serve. 

Throughout my career I have seen that where there are crises 

like the cyclone in Mozambique, where there are crises like the 

earthquake in Haiti, the American people are extraordinarily generous and want to reach out and support vulnerable communities 

and respond to suffering. And that is something that I know will 

continue. 

But it is always much better, much more cost effective to get 

ahead of these problems. My fellow panelist Ms. Goodman has 

talked about the predictive analytic capabilities that are available 

these days, and having a better understanding of what is likely to 

happen and what kinds of preventive measures in terms of better 

construction, in terms of understanding how to manage water flow 

better, to limit the kinds of impacts that we are seeing around the 

world is something that requires strong investment. It requires 

sustained investment and, importantly U.S. leadership. 

We do have the tools. And we have the ability to get ahead of 

some of these problems in a much more cost effective way. Foreign 

assistance has shown that it is good value for money in providing 

preventative care, as opposed to the large expense of responses that 

are necessitated by those kind of humanitarian tragedies. 

Chairman ENGEL. Thank you. 

China is leading a global shift toward renewable energy. And for 

the third year in a row China has ranked first in the EY’s renewable energy attractiveness ratings. It invested $126 billion in 2018, 

which is three times that of the United States. It plans to invest 

nearly $360 billion by 2020, and an estimated $6 trillion by 2030. 

China is not only increasing domestic renewable investments but 

also extending investments into foreign countries, helping stimulate the global economy, and spreading its global influence. 

And we see this all over the world. But it is particularly troubling to see what China is doing vis-a-vis what we are doing. 

So let me again ask Ms. Goodman, and also Admiral McGinn, 

can you elaborate on the response China has had to climate 

change? Admiral, why do not we start with you. 

Mr. MCGINN. In developing countries in Africa, Southeast Asia, 

China is there on the ground in many of them, obviously for their 

own strategic geopolitical purposes, but they are making investments in industries that relate to clean energy. They are making 

investments that increase resilience of those, those countries. 

And as was noted just a moment ago, a tremendous amount of 

the population of the Earth live very close to the oceans. And that 

makes them subject to sea level rise. But, importantly, it makes in 

the near term, it makes them subject to tidal surges, typhoons or 

hurricanes. And anything that can be done by a global leader like 

China, like the United States, that increases the resilience is an investment in the future. 

Chairman ENGEL. Thank you. Ms. Goodman. 
53 

Ms. GOODMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

China is on a global quest for resources to feed and power its domestic economy but also to expand its global influence. We see this 

across Africa, and throughout Asia and South America. We see this 

with increasing extraction of energy and mineral resources, and 

fish stocks, but also increasing foreign direct investment in countries from the Arctic to Africa and Asia that provide not only resources back home but leverage into economies of other countries 

for which American leadership needs to be present to counter that 

influence. 

Chairman ENGEL. Thank you very much. I appreciate your testimony. 

Mr. SMITH. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Weisenfeld, in your testimony you reference neglected tropical diseases, or NTDs, and you are focused on the need to have 

a holistic approach to development. Along with my colleagues Congresswoman Karen Bass and Congressman Greg Meeks of New 

York, I have introduced a bill, H.R. 826, that seeks to address 

NTDs. So I am particularly grateful for your and RTI’s commitment to fight NTDs. 

And respectfully would ask that the chairman, our good friend 

Eliot Engel, look to mark this bill up ASAP. It has passed in this 

committee in the past, but then ran into some snags along the way. 

But my hope is that we take another shot at it this year, and soon, 

and could make a huge difference. 

But I would like to ask with regards to this particular hearing, 

with respect to global health: can you describe how climate change 

affects diseases of poverty, such as NTDs, especially in fragile 

States? 

And, second, how do intestinal worms in particular heighten susceptibility to co-infection, particularly among food insecure or malnourished people? 

Mr. WEISENFELD. Thank you very much for that question, Congressman. And thank you for mentioning the Neglected Tropical 

Disease program, the NTD program. RTI is extraordinarily proud, 

of being one of the organizations helping to implement the programs to eliminate neglected tropical diseases worldwide. We are 

very grateful for your leadership and the committee’s leadership in 

supporting those efforts. 

As people may know, neglected tropical disease are diseases that 

blind, disfigure, and disable people around the world. The programs that this committee has supported have protected over a billion people worldwide from those diseases. 

They are also a great example of how strong U.S. leadership and 

focused programming could have a tremendous impact in moving 

countries toward resilience and self-reliance, as USAID Administrator Green says. 

The Neglected Tropical Disease programs are programs that 

have actually eliminated diseases as a public health threat from 

many countries in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. Those are the 

kinds of successes that you do not easily see every day in development. 
54 

So, again, we thank the committee for its leadership. And we are 

proud to be a part of it. 

Regarding your question, I think one of the worries that we see 

around the world is that, as you see increased temperatures and 

extreme weather events, we are seeing the spread of diseases, particularly around increased temperatures. Rising temperatures 

allow for the expansion of diseases because they expand the range 

of insect vectors of disease, the range for mosquitoes, the range for 

parasites. So, you are seeing increased vectors for malaria, for 

chikungunya, for dengue, diseases that are in some cases fatal diseases that can really harm individuals. They affect the livelihoods 

of communities and families. They have a negative impact on overall economies. These diseases also affect not only humans but 

plants and animals. So they affect the larger food supply as well. 

Regarding your question on worms. One of the series of neglected 

tropical diseases is soil-transmitted helminths. We see an increase 

in that when people’s immune systems are compromised, and in 

situations like the floods in Mozambique, or in the countries that 

are suffering from famine—in the last couple of years we have seen 

famine risks in Nigeria, South Sudan, Yemen, and Somalia. Where 

people do not have enough to eat, where they do not have enough 

to drink, where you see increased risk of cholera, it compromises 

the immune system and makes people much more susceptible to 

the potential for co-infections. 

Mr. SMITH. I appreciate that. Thank you very much. 

You know, I was the House sponsor of the Global Food Security 

Act. It passed the House three times. It did become law. And Betty 

McCollum was our chief co-sponsor, did a wonderful bipartisan effort on that. But I have always been concerned, I mean, I have 

seen the worms. As you know, since there are 1.4 billion people 

walking around with parasites and worms, seems to me that we 

need to do more on that. And our bill will certainly take us in that 

direction. 

But thank you for showing the correlation, if you will, between 

the two. 

Very little time left. But there is a great deal of support in this 

committee and in the Congress, bipartisan support, for Power Africa what are we doing to exacerbate or—is it neutral when it comes 

to concerns about climate change? How would you respond to it? 

Maybe, Admiral, you want to, or someone else. 

Mr. MCGINN. I think we can do more. We are doing a lot basically driven by global terrorism, if you will, which finds some of its 

origins in North Africa in particular. But I think that we can do 

more in terms of working with the militaries and the national security organizations of those countries and showing them ways that 

they can become more resilient. More resilient to food shortages, or 

water shortages, or sea level rise, or tidal surges. 

And that is a gift that lasts for literally generations and changes 

people’s lives. Clearly we are going to be there when there is a 

major humanitarian disaster. But being able to make those countries more resilient has a lasting effect. And our whole national security apparatus, not just the military but organizations like 

USAID can play a tremendous role in increasing the resilience of 

those countries. 
55 

Mr. SMITH. I am nearly out of time. But perhaps later on or for 

the record you can provide it, because I am talking about the electrical grid especially, to make sure that we are doing the right 

thing in terms of build-out. 

Chairman ENGEL. Thank you, Mr. Smith. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you. We have focused a lot on the physical 

effects of global warming and climate change. But there is also the 

reputational risk that we face being the one country that does not 

even pretend to be doing our share to try to stop it, at least not 

at the national level. Our hearing today is on national security. We 

can learn from the past. 

In World War I and World War II the winner was not necessarily 

the strongest country but rather the strongest alliance. For 70 

years the United States has been the unquestioned leader of the 

most powerful alliance or network of alliances the world has ever 

seen. Now we have renounced the Paris climate change talks. We 

have announced that we won’t do our agreed share. 

What effect does that have on our overall ability to hold together 

these alliances? Admiral? 

Mr. MCGINN. I think it is a question, Mr. Chairman, of leadership and leadership by example. We are judged by what we do, not 

just by what we say. And we need to continue to be that global 

force for good that you pointed out has existed for over 70 years 

since the devastation of World War 

And as you also pointed out, it is not just any one country or any 

one nation, it is an alliance of nations that come together around 

economic and democratic political values that are going to prevail 

against this newest challenge, this global existential challenge of 

climate change. 

Mr. SHERMAN. And I would point out our allies are democracies. 

So just having a few leaders at the top saying, ‘‘Well, we understand,’’ does not measure the effect that this has long term on populations that will be there long after this or that leader leaves. 

Ms. Goodman, do you have any comment on how this affects our 

ability to keep the Alliances that have underlied, that have girded 

our national security? 

Ms. GOODMAN. Thank you, Mr. Sherman. I would observe that 

this week we are observing the 70th anniversary of the NATO Alliance, which has been foundational to American security during 

that period. I grew up during the cold war and spent my early 

years working on NATO matters and nuclear security as the fundamental security challenges of our era. 

I believe that climate change poses an equally fundamental security challenge today, and that American leadership, in conjunction 

with our allies and partners, is as fundamental to this challenge 

as it has been within NATO and to fighting the challenge that we 

face. 

Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you. I want to move on to one other issue, 

and that is China. They are subsidizing the export of panels, but 

they subsidize any manufactured good that they think is going to 

be relevant to the future, and they do that for their own economic 

interests, sometimes driving down industries in places like the 

United States. 
56 

When it comes to climate change, they seem to be much less interested than in smog and particulate matter. And, of course, climate change, the effect of whatever you do is worldwide. They 

seem to focus on the very severe problems that they have breathing 

the air in their own cities. Now, China emits twice as much greenhouse gases as the United States. Of course, they have four times 

the population. 

They announced with pageantry that they are going to keep increasing their greenhouse gases right up until 2033—2030, and 

then we will see what happens after that. 

Other than reaffirm our own commitments in Paris, what can we 

do to get China to do more? I believe we have decreased our greenhouse gas emissions; they are increasing theirs. 

Mr. Weisenfeld, do you have a—which on the panel has a response? Looks like the admiral has a response. 

Mr. MCGINN. I believe that we can compete so much more competitive—we can be so much more competitive in this energy transition from primary dependence on fossil fuel which, oh by the way, 

has been very, very good to the United States for over 100 years. 

But now is the time to change. 

And the opportunity to change exists in our great technology, in 

our universities, in our business models. There is tremendous 

amount of capital that is waiting to be invested in this energy transition. And I think that that is one of the best ways that we can 

influence the behavior of China, by us producing ways in which 

they can maintain their quality of life, their economic growth, and 

in fact everybody can, but doing it with good technology and business models. 

Mr. SHERMAN. I will point out that I look forward to the day 

when there are more than a couple of vehicle recharging stations 

in the Rayburn garage. And I yield back. 

Chairman ENGEL. Thank you, Mr. Sherman. 

Mr. PERRY. Mr. PERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ladies and gentlemen, 

thank you for being here. 

Mr. Weisenfeld, just curious, talking about natural disasters with 

some component of climate change in the mix there, are you familiar with the numbers over the last decade of deaths per 100,000 

based on natural disasters? Is it going up generally or going down? 

Mr. WEISENFELD. I am not familiar with that data at the moment. 

Mr. PERRY. OK. 

Mr. WEISENFELD. But I can look into it and get back to the Congress. 

Mr. PERRY. I am a little familiar. And so I just want to, because 

all the stuff that is important to us is policy measures, trying to 

get the policies right. But it has gone down dramatically, dramatically per 100,000 over the last, over the last 100 years. And just 

in case you are interested or the audience is interested, most of the 

deaths occur from earthquake as opposed to flood, or drought, or 

hurricane, or something like that. 

So, when we talk about getting this policy right, all that stuff 

has to be considered. We do not want to just assume that natural 

disaster is occurring as a component of climate change and causing 
57 

more deaths than they have in the past because that in fact is not 

the case. 

Mr. Worthington, the United States, as you know, has a vast 

amount of traditional resources. And under this, under this president, an energy dominance strategy associated with that. And I 

just want to get your thoughts on the World Bank’s notable finding 

that China enjoys dominance in the arena of metal and rare earth 

metals in particular, which are required in many cases to supply 

the technologies for a carbon-restrained or constrained future. 

From a national security standpoint, I mean, are we, are we 

playing right into China’s hands by eschewing what we have in our 

country, literally hundreds of years of resources at our, at our 

availability, and into an economy based on what they have essentially, they dominated, dominating and continue to seek to be dominant in? 

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Thank you for that question, sir. 

There is evidence that exists that would suggest that we have 

traded our reliance on Mideast oil to a reliance on rare earth elements in China. And there is plenty of evidence that that is actually what has happened and is continuing to happen. 

We do have abundant domestic resources. By increasing our domestic fossil energy production, that has actually allowed us to reduce our CO2 emissions in the United States. And the notion that 

we should become dependent on China, or any other country for 

that matter, on rare earth elements is just a road that we should 

not be going down. But, nevertheless, that is the road that we are 

going down right now. 

Mr. PERRY. So, as a general, if we recognize that and generally 

agree, what is the solution set for America? Does the solution set 

include more involvement in rare earth mineral rights and industries? Or is it, is it reliance more on what we currently have in our 

country? Or is it a combination of the two? What should our strategy be vis-a-vis our probably greatest geopolitical adversary? 

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Well, like so many other aspects of the economy, diversity is a key strength. And we need to develop rare earth 

elements here in the United States. There are abundant supplies 

of rare earth in coal, for example, and that can be byproducts of 

mining coal. 

We also need to work with other countries that have resources 

that are other than China to help them develop their rare earth 

element resources as well. 

Mr. PERRY. Is this something that we have constrained ourselves 

to, or is there something that stops us from developing the rare 

earth industry in the United States and abroad on behalf of the 

United States? 

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I do not think it was a deliberate policy decision. I think we kind of blundered down this path because, you 

know, China is cheap. And so we, instead of developing our own 

resources we kind of got seduced into a set of circumstances where 

we are buying on the cheap, and that means buying from China. 

Mr. PERRY. All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield. 

Chairman ENGEL. Thank you, Mr. Perry. 

Ms. TITUS. 
58 

Ms. TITUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding this 

hearing. I am most impressed by the witnesses. I really want to 

thank Ms. Goodman and the Admiral for signing onto the letter to 

the president on this topic. I share your concerns. I think he is 

moving us absolutely in the wrong direction, not only by pulling 

out of the Paris Climate Accords but by not recognizing climate 

change in the national security strategy. 

We have heard a lot this morning about how climate change is 

a threat multiplier, and it has been mostly in relation to China and 

Russia. But I would like to talk about those fragile States and how 

they become vulnerable to terrorist recruitment. We have seen a lot 

of evidence, and I will ask you to comment on some of this, where 

areas that are, their lives, people’s lives are upset by lack of water, 

lack of food, just general instability, people are ripe for recruitment. 

We have seen this in Iraq with ISIS. We have seen it in the Lake 

Chad area with Boko Haram. We have seen it across the Sahel in 

Mali, Islamic groups there have used that instability to provide resources and to encourage people to join their side because they can 

address these issues. Would you say that that is accurate? Do you 

have, have you seen other examples of this? 

And do we consider the impact of climate change enough as we 

try to develop a strategy to deal with terrorist recruitment around 

the world? I would ask the admiral and Ms. Goodman to start with 

that. 

Mr. MCGINN. Well, as you know, around the world there are 

many, many divisions along, that have been there for centuries in 

some cases: economic divisions, cultural, religious, political. And 

what the effects of climate change do is it puts a magnifying glass 

over some of those divisions so that when you have a societal crisis 

like food shortage or water shortage or a major natural disaster, 

that just exacerbates the situation and causes those divisions to escalate to the point of armed conflict in many cases, which can 

spread to even regional conflict. 

So, recognizing that this pressure on fragile societies and fragile 

governments will cause many of them to fail, are there some things 

that we can do to increase their resilience so that they are not as 

dependent on one aspect of coastal farming, for example, in Bangladesh. Or that if, not if but when the next typhoon strikes there 

is going to be an ability to evacuate people to higher ground so that 

you can avoid the kind of mass migration toward India that could 

cause a major regional problem. 

So there are—I would say the word that we need to focus on, 

how can we help nations help themselves to become more resilient 

and recognize that if they are only one drought away, or one flood 

away from a major immigration crisis, we need to figure out how 

can we prevent that from happening, or how can we mitigate its 

effects. 

Ms. TITUS. Ms. Goodman, would you talk about terrorist recruitment? 

Ms. GOODMAN. Yes. The violent extremist organizations like 

Boko Haram, ISIS, and others are essentially weaponizing water 

and food, holding vulnerable populations at risk, as hostages in certain circumstances, to their own advantage. And ,that is exacer-
59 

bated because of the increasing drought that is displacing people 

in some of these regions across the Sahel and parts of the Middle 

East. 

As a result, they can thrive on the additional insecurities created 

within communities when regions in, for example, the Lake Chad 

region, which has shrunk so much over the last decades, can no 

longer support the fishing, the farming, and the herding populations, because of the decline in available water and other resources in the region. 

So this is happening. There are opportunities I think through our 

own efforts, for example, through Power Africa, Feed the Future, 

our work with allies and partners across the region, to make these 

communities more resilient and to be able to withstand some of 

these shocks and effects. 

Ms. TITUS. Related to that, as you brought up, Admiral, you 

know, environmental changes cause ecological changes, cause demographic changes. And that often comes through migration. And 

you see that with the Rohingya. And it seems to me this just feeds 

into these problems. 

Mr. MCGINN. One of the most dramatic examples, and it is a 

present generation geopolitical challenge, is what happened and is 

happening in Syria. You can trace the roots of that back to all 

those cultural, economic, political, religious divides that I mentioned before. But when you have a long-term drought as Syria experienced over the past 5 to 10 years, that cause migration to cities 

because the ability to live on the land that they had previously 

been living on for decades and, in some cases, centuries was taken 

away. And it just put that magnifying glass on all of those divisions and it exploded into civil war. 

And I am not trying to make the case that climate change is the 

direct cause, but it certainly is a significant indirect cause for the 

kind of strife that we deal with the tremendous consequences of, 

including cross-border migration, terrorism, all of those violent organizations that Ms. Goodman mentioned. 

Ms. TITUS. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman ENGEL. Thank you, Ms. Titus. 

Mr. YOHO. Mr. YOHO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good to see you back. I appreciate the panelists here. 

And, you know, a discussion on climate change and national security I think is something that we need to have. But I think it 

is something we need to keep in perspective. If we look at all 

things that are affecting America or our security, where would you 

rank climate change when you rank it with debt, China, cyber security, theft of intellectual property? As Mr. Worthington pointed 

out, 100 percent of our rare earth metals we are dependent on 

China. 90 percent directly come from China, the other 10 percent 

come from countries that get it from China. And, you know, we can 

go on to polarization of politics. 

So, where does climate change fit in there? Where would you 

rank it? 

Mr. MCGINN. It is right near the top. I am not trying to make 

a case that it is the most compelling, but in terms of the broadness 

and the depth of its implications for us today and going forward, 
60 

it is a very, very serious challenge for our Nation economically, environmentally, and in terms of energy. 

In terms of the rare earth dependence, we have got an ability in 

this country with the kind of universities and business that we 

have, the technologies that we are developing, to make rare earth 

elements less of a challenge by developing other means of storing 

energy, et cetera. 

Mr. YOHO. I am going to cut you off there. 

Mr. MCGINN. Yes. 

Mr. YOHO. Because I agree with you. And we have got a bill that 

we are putting in, a rare earth and critical minerals bill that we 

have a national stockpile 2 to 3, or 3 to 5 years out there that we 

can readily access. I am not saying we have to extract it right now. 

But we need to know where it is, and we will go after it when we 

need it for national security reasons. 

I am going to ask the panel here because, Ms. Goodman, you 

brought up, you stated that climate change has led to the mass migrations. Is that correct? 

Ms. GOODMAN. Climate change is a factor in the mig—— 

Mr. YOHO. OK. 

Ms. GOODMAN. —in the vast migration flows that we have seen. 

Mr. YOHO. How many people, do you have any estimate of how 

many people have been displaced by climate change, out of the 70 

million from the Middle East, Asia Pacific region? What percent 

would you say is climate change related? 

Ms. GOODMAN. I think the way to think about it, Congressman, 

is that the factors we have discussed of extreme weather events, 

sea level rise, temperature rise, increased drought, and water scarcity are exacerbating the reasons that people move. 

Mr. YOHO. All right. When I look at the water map of Africa, 

there is plenty of groundwater there. What we see so often is the 

inability of governments to respond, or governments cause the 

problem. And as you pointed out, Boko Haram and these other terrorist organizations will use anything they can to leverage people. 

Ms. GOODMAN. Uh-huh. 

Mr. YOHO. And that they do that when we give U.S. aid relief, 

whether it is food, whatever it is, they hold that. And we see what 

is going on in Venezuela, that is not a climate change condition. 

That is bad politics. 

Ms. GOODMAN. Exactly. 

Mr. YOHO. And so to say that, you know, you know, I hear that 

we are not leading, I agree with Chairman McCaul stating that, 

you know, we pulled out of the Paris Climate Accord, and I am 

glad President Trump had the leadership to do that because it was 

a piece of paper that bound this Nation, whereas other nations like 

China or India says, well, we will try. You know, and that is at the 

expense of the American population. 

And if you look at from 2005 to 2017, the U.S. economy grew by 

20 percent while our energy consumption fell by 2 percent. Energyrelated CO2 emissions also decreased during that time period from 

2005 to 2017, it dropped 14 percent. That is leadership. If the rest 

of the world would follow what we do instead of us going after 

the—you know, and the politics that gets played over climate 

change I think is damaging this country. 
61 

I think we need to look at it. We need to look at all energy 

sources. You know, Chairman, Mr. Keating stated out that, you 

know, we pulled out of the Paris climate change and this was terrible, yet, in Cape Cod where I assume you are up in that area, 

too, Massachusetts, they cannot get to Cape Cod wind farm because it says year-round and summer residents expressed concerns 

over the location of the project. Some claimed that the project will 

ruin scenic views from people’s private property as well as the view 

of public property, and that it would interfere with yachting. 

So, if they are really serious about this, build the dang wind 

farms and do not, you know, do not say ‘‘not in my backyard.’’ 

So, I think we should look at it strategically. I think the warming 

of the Arctic is very serious because China is wanting to lay claim 

in there because they say, well, we are near territory. Those are 

the things that I see, and it is not following the international 

norms that we need to stand up against China and back them off 

now. If not, they are going to have bases up there. They are going 

to be extracting energy. And they are going—I mean, you look at 

what they did in the South China Sea and tore up 4,000 acres of 

coral rock, that has got to be bad for the climate, too. But nobody 

says a word to China. 

I am out of time. And I am sorry I did not get to ask much of 

a question. I am just angry. See ya. 

Chairman ENGEL. Thank you, Mr. Yoho. 

Ms. SPANBERGER. 

Ms. SPANBERGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very 

much to our witnesses for being here today. 

Ms. Goodman, I would like to ask a quick question just for some 

level setting for people here on this committee hearing. Related to 

the Paris Accord, it is my understanding that the Paris Accord did 

not bind our actions, the actions of the United States. Is that correct? 

Ms. GOODMAN. Yes, that is correct. Each country sets it own nationally determined commitments. 

Ms. SPANBERGER. So, to confirm, we, the United States of America, submitted the goals that we thought were appropriate for us 

and the goals that we wanted to, to achieve into the future. Is that 

correct? 

Ms. GOODMAN. Yes. 

Ms. SPANBERGER. Thank you, ma’am. 

So, to draw from that a little bit further, my question is how 

much benefit is the U.S. receiving from the continued dedication of 

our European allies and U.N. member States who still are committed to the Paris Accords and their climate change actions? 

And then, separately, what risks are we taking in your assessment by not being party to these agreements any longer? 

Ms. GOODMAN. Well, I think the risks that we are taking are the 

continued license for China, Russia, and other great powers of this 

age to meddle further in our own American interests and with our 

allies and partners. We see that particularly across Europe today. 

We see increasing leverage of both Chinese foreign direct investment and Russian energy across Europe. And, without a strong 

American presence and American leadership, both within the 
62 

NATO Alliance and on climate leadership, we put our own security 

at risk. 

Ms. SPANBERGER. Thank you. And would any of the other witnesses want to add anything to that question? 

Mr. MCGINN. I would just say the phrase ‘‘leadership by example.’’ The United States has been a force for good, and continues 

to be. And anything that we do that undermines our own credibility by not acting in a way that a global leader needs to act to 

be that continuing force for good is detrimental. 

Ms. SPANBERGER. Thank you very much. Mr. Worthington? 

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Yes. Let me just say that there is not a single European country who is on track to meet their commitments 

under the Paris Accord. 

Ms. SPANBERGER. So, given that they are not on track to meet 

their commitments, do you assess that that is a reason to abandon 

commitments and efforts to achieve them? 

Mr. WORTHINGTON. No. That is not what I said. I did mention 

in my testimony that our energy industry, particularly electric 

power, has achieved a 28 percent reduction in CO2 emissions. 

There is only one other country in the world that can claim that. 

Emissions in Germany are going up. The use of coal-fired power 

in Germany is increasing, not decreasing. 

Ms. SPANBERGER. So then what, in your assessment, sir, would 

be the fact that our European allies remain committed to the Paris 

Accord, what benefit then do we receive because of their continued 

commitment. 

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Their continued commitment of talking is not 

reaching their, their commitment. They are, they are not delivering 

on what they are talking about. They publicly, verbally, and in 

writing will make commitments to reduce emissions. Their reality 

is they are not reducing emissions, they are increasing emissions. 

Ms. SPANBERGER. Would any of the other witnesses care to comment on that? Thank you, Ms. Goodman. 

Ms. GOODMAN. I think the right analogy here is within the 

NATO Alliance for 70 years, that alliance has enabled Europe and 

America to be whole and free and to spread the values and norms 

in a globally constructive and productive manner for our economies 

and our people. We have at various times taken our European allies to account for not fully meeting their financial commitments 

within the Alliance. That is a continuing burden-sharing discussion. It does not mean we do not value the Alliance, and the commitment and the leadership. 

And, I would say here we are going to have, within the climate 

community there is going to continue to be, debates about the right 

levels of commitment and who is living up to their individual nationally-determined commitments. Those are reasonable to have at 

any given time. It does not obviate the need for the overall commitment to address the climate challenge. 

Ms. SPANBERGER. Thank you. And in some of the discussions 

here today when talking about the national security threats to 

global climate change and the fact that when there is a vacuum in 

times of extreme weather events we will see that vacuum filled by 

someone, if not good positive actors such as the United States or 

aid agencies. I think the same is relevant to what you were saying, 
63 

Ms. Goodman, that in the absence of U.S. leadership someone else 

will be stepping in. And I think that is to our future detriment. 

Thank you for your testimony. I yield back. 

Chairman ENGEL. Thank you, Ms. Spanberger. 

Mr. ZELDIN. Mr. ZELDIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Continuing the conversation on the Paris climate agreement, if, 

Mr. Worthington, if the United States was to remain in the Paris 

Agreement past 2020, can you speak to what role the executive 

branch should play in consulting with the private sector and Congress on responsible greenhouse gas reduction targets? And should 

it publicly produce its economic analysis and cost-benefit conclusions? 

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I think that is correct. I think that we have 

not been part of the discussions during the last administration as 

to what we should try to do relative to climate. 

As I mentioned, we have received or achieved remarkable reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in the energy industry. We were, 

we were not doing that because of the Paris Accord, we were doing 

it for whole variety of other, of other reasons, including our customers, our employees, our shareholders. Everyone wants us to reduce emissions, so we are reducing emissions. 

If the Paris Accord were to be renegotiated, we would very much 

like as an industry, to have a seat at the table to discuss how that 

might be best achieved. 

Mr. ZELDIN. Thank you to all the witnesses for being here. Do 

any of you believe that President Obama should not have submitted it to the Senate for ratification? Do any of the witnesses disagree with the statement that President Obama should have submitted it to the Senate for ratification? 

Mr. MCGINN. Military, not political. 

Mr. ZELDIN. Anybody else want to weigh in? OK. 

China is the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitter. What were 

China’s commitments under the Paris Agreement? And can you 

speak to Beijing, whether or not they are living up to their commitments? 

Mr. WORTHINGTON. The Chinese commitment was to try. That 

they would, they would basically try to reduce emissions. There 

was no commitment any further than that. 

And I will add that, you know, recognize that today China is 

building over half of the coal plants that are under construction in 

the world today, about half of them in China, and about half in 

other countries. And part of the reason for that, we have heard discussion where if the U.S. steps back from the leadership role someone else will step in. 

Well, the United States stepped back from a leadership role in 

terms of helping developing countries develop their fossil energy resources. The World Bank stepped back, largely at the urging of the 

prior U.S. administration. And as a consequence of that, all 

through Africa and parts of Asia you see the Chinese companies 

building coal-fired power plants only to the standards that they believe is relevant, which means essentially no standard at all. 

If we had endured in U.S. leadership instead of allowing that 

vacuum to occur, we could be seeing these facilities being built, but 
64 

built to standards that are modern, that are responsible environmentally, and responsible in a climate context. Instead, we stepped 

back and allowed that vacuum to be filled by the Chinese. 

Mr. ZELDIN. One of the debates that we will have in Congress on 

this topic and out of Congress is a regulatory approach versus a 

market-based approach. If any of the witnesses can speak to the 

role of technology and innovation in reducing greenhouse gas emissions? 

Mr. MCGINN. I served as a director on the Electric Power Research Institute. And the membership of EPRI is primarily utilities 

of all sorts, rural electric co-ops to investor-owned, to public utilities. And the private sector is significantly engaged in trying to 

produce ever cleaner, more reliable electricity, and to apply that 

electricity in places like transportation, for example, and commercial and industrial activities where we have not had the technology 

to be able to do that. 

So, in my experience the private sector in many cases, because 

of their customers or their work force, the motivation to not just 

have safe, reliable, affordable, but also clean electricity delivered is 

really, really driving the industry in a very, very positive direction. 

And I think that a lot of the greenhouse gas reductions that were 

cited earlier came about as a result of efforts in the, in the utility 

business. Some of them were self-motivated, many of them were 

because of regulation and policy that produced a positive effect. 

So it is a matter of achieving that, that good balance. 

Mr. ZELDIN. Thank you for your service, Admiral. I am out of 

time so I will have to yield back. 

Mr. COSTA. [presiding.} The gentleman’s time has expired. I will 

now recognize the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Ted Deutch. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Thanks to the really terrific panel for being here. Thanks for your service to our Nation. 

We are on the brink, as we have been discussing here this morning, of major global catastrophes caused by climate change. Sea levels are rising, threatening coastal communities; warmer bodies of 

water are feeding stronger storms, like Hurricane Michael that intensified rapidly into one of the strongest ones in our history; 

droughts are affecting crop production; shorter winters will displace 

wildlife and impact cold weather tourism. 

You said earlier, Admiral McGinn, you talked about Camp 

LeJeune and Norfolk, but these troubling signs are also impacting 

my community in South Florida. Rising sea levels threaten the 

Coast Guard facility at Port Everglades. In Miami the rate of rising 

sea levels is outpacing global rate by nearly tenfold. In Miami 

Beach the resiliency projects already underway cost over $500 million to raise roads and improve drainage systems. But worsening 

flooding during the annual king tides, the highest tides of the year, 

is threatening now even inland communities. 

Unfortunately, this Administration has shown little interest or 

willingness to take any action. I founded the bipartisan Climate Solutions Caucus in Congress to serve as the first form for rank and 

file Democrats and Republicans to sit together to discuss how these 

events will devaState our Nation. Last Congress we had 88 members, split evenly between the two parties. The size of the caucus 
65 

and the regional diversity of the members reflects the growing recognition of climate change affecting regions all across the country. 

I particularly would like to recognize my Republican colleagues 

on this committee, Representative Rooney, the co-chair of the Climate Solutions Caucus in this Congress, and Representatives 

Fitzpatrick, Kinzinger, Mast, and Zeldin for serving on the caucus. 

We hope that this Congress the caucus will play a more active role 

in actually getting things done. 

The caucus recognizes that climate change is not just a threat to 

the U.S. but a threat to the world. To prolong drought, food shortages, bigger and more devastating storms, the spread of diseases, 

can undermine stability, as we have heard this morning. 

The world needs to prepare for refugees fleeing from countries 

that will no longer be habitable due to the impacts of climate 

change. We watched as Cyclone Idai devastated Southeastern Africa, flooding hundreds of square miles, damaging Mozambique, 

Zimbabwe, and Malawi. Thousands could be dead, and cholera 

cases now exceed 1,000. 

And a drought in 2018 almost caused Cape Town, South Africa 

to literally run out of water. 

In the absence of Administration action, Congress must step up 

to act. Americans of all political stripes acknowledge climate 

change and expect their government to do something, something 

that will actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions, something that 

will seriously address climate change. And I hope that this Congress we will do that. 

Admiral McGinn, DoD and intelligence officials have explained 

how climate change forces our military to adjust strategy and policy. There have been references that a number of you have made 

to Russia and China. I would like to, I would to just spend a 

minute addressing whether China and Russia face these same challenges. You have spoken about the opportunities to them, particularly on the Arctic Circle, but how is climate change affecting our 

military’s security interests? 

Mr. MCGINN. China and Russia both face internal challenges of 

climate change. It is, as you know, it is a global, a global phenomenon, a global threat. 

Our military is being called upon more frequently because of the 

natural disasters that are caused by Mother Nature. But I think 

that our ability to operate out of our bases here in the United 

States, as well as overseas, is increasingly going to be impacted. 

You mentioned Hurricane Michael and what happened Tyndall 

Air Force Base, Hurricane Florence coming up the Eastern Seaboard and the devastation it wrought on Camp Lejeune, prior year 

hurricanes in South Carolina at Paris Island. And the list goes on. 

So, I think that our investment in resilience and recognizing that 

our military needs these platforms to launch American power down 

range, and to be able to be effective in all of the emissions is absolutely necessary for investment. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Thanks. 

Ms. Goodman, actually let me, let me ask you about something 

that we have talked about in this committee before and the research that environmental stresses did not cause the Arab uprising 

in 2011, but the impacts of climate change may have served to in-
66 

crease the likelihood of instability. Can you elaborate and provide 

an example of how climate change has undermined stability in the 

Middle East? 

Ms. GOODMAN. Well, in Syria in the years preceding the deadly 

conflict, there was a prolonged drought. And, that drought drove 

farmers and herders that had lived peaceably in the rural areas to 

abandon some of those rural areas and move, or migrate, toward 

cities. That created civil unrest as the cities were unable to accommodate those people, and that enabled extremist forces to move in. 

So, the drought is directly connected to the onset of the civil unrest and the increasing violence. It is not the only factor, but it is 

an exacerbating factor. 

And, if I might add in response to the last question, climate 

change is degrading military readiness in the United States today, 

as we see our bases and stagings increasingly at risk from extreme 

weather events—which cost over $5 billion now to rebuild both 

Tyndall and Camp LeJeune—and also the floods recently across 

the Midwest affecting StratCom and Omaha. And, not to mention 

the regular sunny day flooding that occurs in Norfolk as well as in 

your region in Miami. This is a very significant effect on our military. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Thank you. 

Mr. COSTA. We thank you for your response. And the gentleman’s 

time is expired. 

And the Chair will now recognize Susan Wild, the gentlewoman 

from Pennsylvania for 5 minutes. 

Ms. WILD. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

I am one of those people that believes that the American military 

is uniquely qualified and capable of working on real climate solutions. And I would just first like to know whether all of you agree 

with me on that or disagree? 

Mr. MCGINN. Agree. 

Ms. WILD. I guess, and I am seeing nodding of the head. So what 

I would really like to see is some sort of directive to our military 

operations that climate change is something that we need the military to proactively work on and to assist the rest of the world in 

coming to solutions. And I understand to some extent that is happening. 

Ms. Goodman, could you tell us something about what initiatives 

the U.S. military is engaging in now or planning to undertake in 

the future to combat climate change? 

Ms. GOODMAN. Thank you, Congresswoman. 

I would start from the assumption that the military’s mission is 

to provide the most effective and capable fighting force in the world 

and for the United States. So the things that the military can and 

should do in addressing the climate challenge is in support of that 

military mission. For example, when I observe that extreme weather events are causing damage to military bases, we need to be at 

the forefront of learning how to reset our base infrastructure to be 

resilient to those climate effects. 

And, that is part of the military’s mission. That will have other 

benefits to the local communities in which the bases are located—from Norfolk to Florida. 
67 

At the same time, the military is a large user of energy in the 

United States. And, what we have learned over the last several 

decades is that we can increase the performance and effectiveness 

of our propulsion systems, of much of our weapons systems, and at 

the same time we can be more efficient in our use of energy and 

we can take advantage of changes and technological progress in the 

advanced energy system. 

So, we have seen that, for example, when in Iraq and Afghanistan we were losing people, putting soldiers at risk when they were 

convoying fuel to the front, we learned how more efficiently to provide that fuel and water to our forces at the front. We also learned 

to provide different ways of powering our bases, or to use energyefficient insulating foam and other techniques. 

Those all support the military mission. That technological development, began through a variety of different research and development programs, both in the Department of Defense and in conjunction with the Department of Energy and others, provides valuable 

benefits for the military mission. And, at some time, just as it has 

done through other non-military technologies, has aided in the 

furtherdevelopment and commercialization of those technologies. 

Ms. WILD. So, I would like to see us be more proactive and a little less reactive to all kinds of problems in our country and in our 

world and, in the context of this hearing particularly, climate 

change. Do you believe, Ms. Goodman, that this Administration— 

actually, let me ask this of Admiral McGinn, if I may. 

Admiral, do you believe this Administration is taking climate 

change and the threats that it presents to U.S. national security 

and global conflicts as seriously as it should be? 

Mr. MCGINN. I think the rhetoric would appear that it is not. Although there are many, many people in the Administration, I am 

absolutely certain, understand the business case for doing something about this, this enormous problem. There are costs, there are 

benefits, and there are risks to any endeavor in the military 

sphere, in the national security sphere. And these pragmatic people, these patriots, get that. And they are taking appropriate actions. 

But those actions could be so much better supported and accelerated and magnified, and the effects so much better, the benefits so 

much sooner and broader, I think that that could be a major 

change. 

And I will just say I am so pleased as a citizen to hear both sides 

of the aisle talking about climate change as real. It is a problem. 

Lots of discussions about how best to deal with it and all of that, 

but recognizing the problem is 50 percent of its solution. 

Ms. WILD. Thank you. I am almost out of time here. But how 

might it be better supported? You mentioned that it could be better 

supported in this endeavor. 

Mr. MCGINN. I think encouraging the deployment of better forms 

of energy, microgrids, storage systems, working with the private 

sector in public/private ventures, working with communities as the 

Navy has up in New London, Connecticut, out in Hawaii and in 

California. And I just think that that could really, really accelerate 

the deployment of clean energy to the economic benefit of our private sector and our overall economy. 
68 

Ms. WILD. Thank you. 

Mr. VARGAS [presiding]. Thank you. The gentlelady’s time has 

expired. We are going to go to the next member. Going to go to the 

gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Chabot. You are next, sir. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And I spent 

the last almost 2 hours in the Judiciary Committee dealing with 

H.R. 5. Just got here. So rather than ask questions that probably 

some of my colleagues already asked and were answered, I would 

like to yield my time to the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Yoho. 

Mr. VARGAS. Mr. Yoho is recognized. 

Mr. YOHO. Thank you, Mr. Chabot. Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

And, again, thank you, guys. 

You know, and I have heard over and over again some things 

that I really like, it is the adaptability that we have to do. You 

know, we can argue the causes and all that, and we can get into 

that and it becomes political. But it is the adaptation of our military bases. 

I come from Florida and so we are well aware of the affects from 

that. We have had Hurricane Irma go through the whole State. 

And, you know, leadership, we have seen record amounts of coalfired power plants go out of, go out of business with this Administration, switching to either going out of business or switching to 

LNG. And I guess, Mr. Worthington, since you are from the energy 

realm, is that a good thing, switching to LNG from coal? 

Mr. WORTHINGTON. Well, it is a good thing when individual companies, corporations make decisions that are in their best interests 

based on the market. At the current moment you have our abundant, wonderful bonanza of shale gas development has provided the 

United States with a very unique opportunity. We are expanding 

our domestic energy production while we are reducing CO2 emissions. 

Mr. YOHO. OK. 

Mr. WORTHINGTON. It is really quite marvelous. 

Mr. YOHO. And we have run an energy summit in the last 2 

years. Jacksonville, I am sure you are aware of this, is the largest 

storage bunker in capacity in the United States of LNG. And we 

have had 20 different nations that have come there. They want 

LNG out of the U.S. 

And, you know, from a geopolitical standpoint they want something that is inexpensive, reliable, with a reliable partner. And so 

our goal is to do this. 

And yet, we talk about China and the, you know, the different 

accords that countries sign up to. And we heard that the EU is not 

adhering to it. China is trying. Yet they are building these dirty 

coal-powered fireplaces or power plants instead of using the new 

technology. And I think it just shows it is disingenuous of China. 

And I think it shows the leadership of America by putting in the 

regulations to allow us to export more LNG, having countries convert to LNG. 

Turkey was there, and they get about 98 percent of their energy 

from outside sources. And Mongolia gets 90 percent of their energy 

from Russia. And Russia uses that as a geopolitical tool 

So, as far as climate change, I will ask the panel what can we 

do to get countries to stop building the dirty coal plants, you know, 
69 

like China is doing without the advanced technology? Admiral, how 

do you put pressure on a country like China? 

Mr. MCGINN. I think competing economically and providing the 

kinds of solution you mentioned, LNG as a good interim substitute 

for coal. You get electrons out but you do not get—you get half of 

the greenhouse gas emissions that you would for a coal plant, to 

say nothing of the other, other emissions. 

I think that if we continue to invest in our technology, not just 

advanced technology but actually deploying things that work, better storage technology, better production of wind and solar electricity, better electrification of our transportation system, we can in 

fact motivate nations like Russia, or especially China to, to invest 

in those things as well even more, and to deploy them. 

And I would like to see ‘‘Made in the USA’’ on more and more 

green things across the world. 

Mr. YOHO. Oh, I sure would, too. 

And you know, and I look at energy. It is all of the above. We 

want the ones that make the most sense that, you know, benefit 

everybody and that is profitable. This committee and the President 

signed into law last year the BUILD Act, which is something to 

counter China’s BRI initiative. And this is something as we go to 

the developing countries that we can use that technol—or that, 

that vehicle and invest in the proper technology that will propel 

them into the 21st Century in a smart way. 

I am going to yield back to Mr. Chabot, if you have any other 

comments. And thank you. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you very much. And I will yield back, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. VARGAS. Thank you very much. The gentleman yields back. 

Go to the next member, the member from California, Ted Lieu, 

Mr. Ted Lieu. 

Mr. LIEU. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

I previously served on active duty. And I know that we have the 

best military in the world because we rely on data, on facts, and 

on science. We do not live in a fantasy world because if we did, 

U.S. troops will die. We live in reality and we understand, the military does, that climate change is real and it is harming national 

security. 

That is why I am so pleased that Republican Ranking Member 

McCaul today in his opening statement acknowledged that climate 

change is real and that it is threatening U.S. national security. We 

cannot solve a problem if people do not agree that there is a problem in the first place. So I am pleased that more and more Republicans no longer believe climate change is a hoax perpetrated by 

the Chinese. 

Now, Admiral, again, you have stated that in your own testimony, earlier to a question that climate change ranks right near 

the top in terms of threats to U.S. national security. I believe you 

are right. There was an article in The Guardian titled ‘‘Pentagon 

Report Finds that Climate Change Threatens Half of U.S. Bases 

Worldwide.’’ 

One of these bases is Joint Operating base in the small island 

of Diego Garcia. Can you explain to us how important that base is 

to U.S. national security and our ability to project power? 
70 

Mr. MCGINN. It is located in a very strategic area of the world 

in which—from which you can use it as a platform to send power 

down range to the Middle East, to the South Asian subcontinent. 

And to lose that, that base’s effectiveness at Diego Garcia because 

of sea level rise or other reasons would cause us to slow down the 

ability to flow in combat power logistics and all the things you need 

to respond to a regional crisis, or even a humanitarian assistance. 

Mr. LIEU. Thank you. And, in fact, in the first Iraq war air 

strikes were launched from that base; correct? 

Mr. MCGINN. That is right. 

Mr. LIEU. So, Mr. Chair, I would like to enter that article in for 

the record. 

I will catch him later. 

Mr. Chair, I would like to enter the article in for the record. 

Mr. VARGAS. Without objection. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
71 

G/6/2019 CiHn.ate change threatens half of US bases wor!dwKle, Pentagon report finds j US news 1 The Guardmn 

This article is more than 1 year old 

Reuters in New York 

Wed 31 Jan 201814.12 ES1 

Nearly half of US military sites are threatened by wild weather linked to climate 

to a new Pentagon study whose findings nm contrary to White House views 

according 

flooding that occurs due to reasons other than storms topped the list of 

nacw,,u"""''"""', that endanger 1,700 military sites worldwide, from large bases to outposts, said 

the US Department of Defense (DoD). 

"Changes in climate can poterrti<rlly shape the environment in which we operate and the missions 

are required to do;' a report accompanying the survey. 

h\tps:f!IN'INVII.theguardicm.corn/us-news/2018/Janf31/dunate-change-·threatens-us-mi!itary-bases-pentagon 1!3 
72 

616!2019 Cllmate change threatens half of US bases world\>1/ide, Pentagon report flnds I US news I The Guardian 

"If extreme weather makes our critical facilities unusable or necessitates costly or manpowerintensive workarounds, that is an unacceptable impact." 

The findings put the military at odds with Donald Trump, who has repeatedly cast doubt on 

mainstream scientific findings about climate change, including this week during an interview on 

British television. 

Trump has also pulled the United States out of the global 2015 Paris accord to fight climate 

change. 

The Pentagon survey investigated the effects of "a changing climate" on all US military 

installations worldwide, which it said numbered more than 3,500. 

Assets most often damaged include airfields, energy infrastructure and water systems, according 

to military personnel at each site, who responded to the DoD questionnaire. 

John Conger, a senior policy analyst at the Center for Climate and Security in Washington, said the 

report's commissioning by Congress showed a growing interest by lawmakers into the risks that 

climate change poses to national security. 

The study was published late last week and brought to public attention this week by the Center 

for Climate and Security. 

$79,052 

contributed 

$150,000 

our goal 

At this critical time ... .. .for our environment, The Guardian is deeply committed to covering the climate crisis, plastic 

pollution and other threats to our world as a matter of urgent priority, keeping these issues on our 

front pages daily. 

This month, we're asking readers to help us raise $150,000 for a new US environmental series that 

will explore the worrying health implications of living in a world that exposes us to chemical 

contamination on a daily basis. 

From pesticides in produce to microplastic in salt, and from lead in our drinking water to 

carcinogenic chemicals in our furniture- this series will explore the ways in which chemicals can 

impair growth, development and health. This toxic fallout includes: cognitive and behavioral 

difficulties, obesity, diabetes, infertility, birth defects and cancer. 

Your support will enable us to scrutinize $640bn chemical industry and drive public awareness 

about its influence. We will hold politicians, regulators and the Trump administration 

accountable for any regulatory failures- and report on solutions. 

Reader support protects The Guardian's independence and ensures our journalism remains open 

to all. Our editorial independence allows us to fight for transparency and accountability- and 

deliver the facts with clarity. 

Please help us reach our goal by contributing today. 

https:tlwww.theguardian.comlus-news/2018/jan/31/climate-change-threatens-us-mihtary-bases--pentagon 213 
73 

Mr. LIEU. All right. I have a second article now, ‘‘How Climate 

Change is Threatening the Navy’s Footprint in the Pacific.’’ And it 

talks about the island of Guam where I served on active duty. And 

the article says, ‘‘This tiny Western Pacific island is central to U.S. 

security interests in the region. It is home to two of the Nation’s 

most strategically important military bases, both threatened by climate change.’’ 

Can you explain to the committee how important the two bases 

on Guam are to our national security? 

Mr. MCGINN. Once again it is because of location to areas of potential conflict or actual unrest now that Guam and those far, far 

Western Pacific platforms, in this case a U.S. territory, are. We 

have got capabilities there for missile defense forward. We have got 

capabilities to launch and to maintain submarine presence, surface 

warfare. And, of course, with the Andersen Air Force Base, any 

kind of Navy, Air Force, or Marine Corps air power. 

Mr. LIEU. Thank you. And, Mr. Chair, I would like to enter that 

article in the record as well. 

Mr. VARGAS. Without objection. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
74 

61612019 Climate change is threatening the Navy's bases m the Pacific, Guam 

How climate change is threatening the Navy's footprint in 

the Pacific 

TAMUNING, Guam- Tile day before May's full moon, Vic Sahagon. a former Army mfantryman, was hanging 

out on one of Guam's postcard-perfect beaches under a raised blue tent, sucking down Budweisers and 

mustard-covered !1ot dogs alongside his fishing buddies 

They had been waiting hours in the intense heat to net schools of juvemle rabbitfish with the talaycru, a circular 

net nnged with weights unique to Guam's C!1amorro culture. The schools of the minnow-sized fish once were 

often the length and breadth of a bus but now, he lamented, 1ts lunar calendar-t1ed matmg and feeding cycles 

had shifted and the schools were barely as big as a picnic table 

On Guam, s1gns of c11mate \Jlange are everywhere: In f1shing cycles, rising sea levels, declining reservoirs of 

drinking water and telltale pieces of dead stag hom coral washing ashore, signahng the slow death of the island's protective coral barrier that prevents 

Th1s tiny Western Pacific island is 7,920 miles from Washington but centra! to U.S. security interests in the region. lt is home to two of the nation's most 

strategically important military bases- both threatened by chmate change 

Climate change has already begun to re-shape the island 

The Environmental Protection Agency warned 1n an August 2016 report that Guam's air and o\-ean are warming, the sea level is rising and the ocean IS 

becoming more acid!c. Combined, these changes stress and k11l the ring of coral that protects ag<'!inst storms and coastal erosion 

rurthermore, Guam i>i beginning to see a reduction in freshwater dunng the dry season mcreased damage from flooding and typhoons. and an 

increased average air temperature. which means days when the heat index is dangerously high w1!1 become more common and impede military 

operatiOns 

If the military is thmkmg about the security of their bases, they have to think about the security of the land they're inhabiting, !he security of the water they 

use," sa1d Robert A. Underwood. former prestdent of the Umversily of Guam and the onc-tlme Guam delegate to the U.S. House of Representatives 

Naval Base Guam boasts t.vo submanne support vessels and four nuclear fast-attack submannes, which have been used to gather intelligence along the 

Korean Peninsula and in the Soutt1 China Sea, where Chma !1as been bUilding man-made Islands to extend its reach 

Andersen Air Force Base, spread across Guam's northernmost tip, has served as a launching pad for 8·52 bomber runs over parts of Asia. Additionally 

at least one anti-missile defense system is permanently based at Andersen 

The U.S.-held terntory, with a population of about 167,000 ~including about 7.000 naval and Air Force personnel in addition to !heir families-is where 

/\menca pro;ccts her power westward towards Asia and the South China sea 

https 1/WWN. usatoday. com/story/news/po!itics/20 t 8106/28/climate-change-threa!en!ng-navys-bases-pacifi c-guam/71 09 79002/ 115 
75 

6/6/2019 in the Pac1flc, Guam 

The 1rump adrmntstrat1on has scrubbed mentions of climate change from governmental sites and documents, declining to formally recognize it as a 

nat1onal secunty threat. However, a 2012 report by the non-partisan American Security Project found Guam to be one of the five naval bases most 

threatened by climate change 

Global warming- the effect of man-made and natural emissions of heaHrapping gases- threatens not only a way of life on Guam, but freedom for the 

Umted States to act unimpeded by restnctiOns that might be Imposed by host countnes in the Pac1fic 

Although South Korea and Japan play host to U.S. naval bases. those countries· own po!ltlcaltnterests leave the U11ited States facing restnchons on tile 

number of troops stattoned there. and even the types of missions it can launch from those bases 

Indeed. over the past several years, the U.S. military has sought to relocate 5,000 Marines and their families from Okinawa to Guam to realign forces in 

the Pac1fic region and reduce political tension in Japan. Thai would nearly double the number of forces stat1oned on Guam and sigmficant!y mcrease 

naval water usage. 

htlps·f!W\N\N.usatoday.comtstory/newslpolitics/2018106/28/dimate~change-lhreatening-navys-bases-pacific-guamn10079002/ 215 
76 

infrastructure and installations, as well as on human popu!atJOns displaced by severe heat. rising seas and water shortages 

More than 500 species of coral make up Guam's reM, which is one of the most diverse in the world.(;'.~~!;) "" C""'''MCid/! A'ew<SeMce) 

Climate change a worldwide threat 

A 2010 report by the Department of Defense showed that more than 30 bases were at risk from rising seas; a 2016 survey by the Union of Concerned 

Sc1ent1sts ra1sed that number to 128m the United States alone. Additional bases face threats from severe storms. warm1ng oceans and the contamination 

of drinking water 

Guam is hugely Important from a logiStiCS standpoint in facilitating the flow of supplies to forces in the Pacific, said Retired Adm. Gary Roughead, a 

former chief of naval operations who created a Navy task force on the impact of chmate change on military operations in the Arctic. However, he said 

other Navy sites face even more d1re and immed1ate concerns, such as Naval Station Norfolk in Virginia 

Norfolk, the largest naval instaHation in the world. is smking into the ocean after decades of unsustainable groundwater use. Home to 75 ships and 134 

aircraft., as well as over 80,000 active duty sailors, Norfolk routinely suffers crippling floods of roads and parking structures 

A 2014 Department of Defense study found one and a half feet of sea level nse to be a 'tippmg point"" for Norfolk, at that point it will suffer significant 

infrastructure damage and losses 1n miss1on perform.1nce. Experts pred!r:t sea levels Will rise a minimum of three feel-three Inches W1th111 ttle next 100 

years 

All 1 know IS that the climate and the planet are changing markedly, and we need to do things to get ready for that' Roughcad said, skirting the political 

contention over the causes of g!oba! warming 

'"Unfortunately, tl•ere's still debates about climate science and policy.·· said Sllana Udvardy, climate preparedness specialist at the Union of Concerned 

Smmt1sls. "Last December. President Trump put out a nat1onat security strategy that wiped clean any mention of climate change. While this may be the 

case, the Navy understands climate change and they're workmg to address 11 ·• 

https·lfWNW.usatoday.com/story/newstpoliliCS/2018/06/28/climate-change-threatening-navys-bases-pacific-guamf710979002/ 315 
77 

6/6/201D 

Climate change affects every aspect of naval operations, from where sailors are based to how they arc tramed to when and where they are deployed 

Indeed. the Navy has shown sigmfiC<~nt mterest 111 climate change vulnerabilities over the past several decades. It has built mu!11-story piers, worked w1th 

local communities. revamped training syllabi and cut back on construction in flood plams. It even deployed the Great Green Fleet 1n 2016. a group of 

ships that runs on a mixture of regular fuel and biofuels. in order to cut down on carbon emissions that contribute to climate change 

8ut some SC1ent1sts say the U.S. military is still too slow to respond to a rapidly chang"1ng climate 

'Military planning hasn't adjusted to some of the new studieS at this point,'" said Marcus King, an associate professor at the Elliott School of lntemat1onal 

Affaws at George W8shington Un1vcrs1ty. Kmg formerly served as a research analyst at the Cer<ter for Naval Analyses and as a Pentagon fore1gn affa1rs 

specialist. "They're not really putting the worst-case scenarios into the planning process' 

An existential threat 

Climate change also has amplified threats to U.S. national security, by incrcasmg societal instability and fomenting terronsm in drought~sensitive regions 

while dnving up the number of requests for humanitanan a1d and disaster relief, analysts said 

Orought is a long-term H1rcat to Guam, with climate change refugees from surroundmg islands spurring that along 

Water contamination led to the closing of several wells in 2017, a small ghmpse of a future with an overdrawn aquifer- a lens of freshwater perched atop 

the seawater beneath the northern half of the ISland. The Navy and the local government nm the nsk of triggering tsland-w1dc shonages of drinkable 

water by overdrawing the aquifer. 

Navy and local officials have long managed their own water sources and rarely commun·lcate about the areas or depths at wh"1ch they draw water. Gut 

overdrawmg water can introduce salt water mto the freshwater, said Victona Keener, a research fellow at the East-West Center in Hawaii who studied 

Guam·s aquifer with the U.S. Geologtcal Society for a Department of Defense study 

The island is also beginning to see tess rmnfall. so the aquifer is being replenished at a slower rate than before, said Keener. She predicts this problem 

Will grow worse over the coming century. 

If mismanagement practices are not quickly corrected, Keener explained, those. m concert with slower replenishment would eventually spell disaster for 

Guam's freshwater sources 

'The Depa11ment of the Navy is commttled to transparent communication and partnership with commun1t1es, water authorities, elected officials. and state 

and federal agencies on water quality on and near our installations," pubhc affa1rs officer Lt. Ben Anderson responded, on behalf of the Navy 

https:II\WJW.usatoday.com/story/news!pohtics/2018106128/dimate-change-threatening-navys-bases-pacific-guaml710979002/ 415 
78 

chmate change on military installations. In 2016, long after the Air Force began buildmg a $1 bi!iion radar msta!lation, experts assessed the small coral 

atoll would be uninhabitable by humans Within 25 years from saltwater intrusion in its aquifer and sea level rise 

Guam may face similar problems in decades to come, given the thinning of its aquifer. Drought could eventually force the Navy to either relocate or fmd 

a!temate ways to hydrate its sailors and civilian contractors 

Although the Navy did not allow reporters for Medill News Service and USA Today onto its base in Guam, those familiar \Nith the outpost describe it as 

we!l~protected from the elements_ It is seated atop cliffS with low-slung. concrete bui!dmgs constructed to withstand typhoons. However. an overdrawn 

aquifer could spell the demise of the island 

At the same time drought begins to threaten Guam, the dying cora! reefs that ring other low-lying islanOs in the Pacific are giving up the ghost Soon they 

will no longer hold back tsunamis, or even strong waves that would eat away at an island's footprint. Many of those fleemg such climate change will he<'ld 

for Guam, known as the me.tropolis of tiKJ Pacific. The addition of refugees atop growmg numhers of tounsts and rmllta.y personnel will further stretch the 

island's finite resources 

'Those people have no place to go ' said Underwood. "The demise of the cora! reef and sea level rise mer:H1S they're facing an existential threat ., 

'We have a number of those people living within a couple hundred mites of here,' Underwood added. "The potential demographic impact of that on Guam 

is large" 

Without a consistent supply offreshwater, it will be difficult to sustain a base on Guam, leaving the Navy without local residents to work on the base. a 

community to employ their spouses or even educate their children 

Read or Share this story: https"//usaUy/2Kre70F 

nups :IIW'INVV. usawoayxorrvsmrymewslpouncs/ LU 1 tiiUOI Ltlfcmnare-c! mnge-tnreatenmn-navys-oases-pacmc-guarrv r r ut~;lo!UULI 
79 

Mr. LIEU. And then my final article today, ‘‘The Military Paid for 

a Study on Sea Level Rise. The Results Were Scary.’’ That is a 

Washington Post article dated April 25th, 2018. It talks about this 

small island of Roi-Namur which houses the massive Ronald 

Reagan Ballistic Missile Defense Test Site. It is now in routine 

threat of flooding because of climate change. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
80 

Climate and Environment 

The militat·y paid for a study on sea level rise. The results were 

seary. 

+ Addtolist 

By Chris Mooney and 

April 25, 2018 

This stm·y has been updated. 

More than a thousand low-lying tmpical islands risk becoming "uninhabitable" by the middle of the centuryor possibly sooner- because of rising sea levels, upending the populations of some island nations and 

endangering key U.S. military assets, according to new research published Wednesday. 

The threats to the islands are twofold. In the long term, the rising seas threaten to inundate the islands entirely. 

More immediately, as seas rise, the islands will more frequently deal with large waws that crash farther onto 

the shore, contaminating their drinkable water supplies with ocean saltwater, according to the research. 

The islands face dimate-change-drh·en threats to their water supplies "in the very near future," according to 

the study, published in the journal Science Advances. 

The study focused on a part of the Marshall Islands in the equatorial Pacific Ocean. Hilda Heine, president of 

the Marshall Islands, said in an interview that Wednesday's journal article "brings home the seriousness" of the 

predicament facing her island nation. 

"'It's a scary scenario for us;· she said. 

The research also has ramifications for the U.S. military, whose massive Ronald Reagan Ballistic Missile 

Defense Test Site sits, in part, on the atoll island of Roi-Namur- a part of the Marshall Islands and the focus 

of the research. 

The U.S. military supported the research in part to learn about the wlnembility ofits tropical-island 

installations. The Pentagon base on Roi-Namur and surrounding islands supports about 1,250 American 

civilians, contractors and military personnel. 

''This study provided a better understanding of how atoll islands may be affected by a changing climate," 

Defense Department spokeswoman Heather Babb said in a statement. "While no decisions haYe been made 

about Department of Defense actiYities on the islands based on the study, DOD continues to focus on ensuring 

its installations and infrastmcture are resilient to a wide range of threats. The department's understanding of 

https://ww.N.washingtonposl. com/news/energy-environmentlwpr20 18104/25/chmale-change-could-make-thousands-of-tropica!-islands-uninhabitable-in 1/6 
81 

levels will enable thc:Ti;;i\']~~t~P;~',~\~~~'~,;::J ~~~~~~~~~··;~~;[{~:~~:~,r:,;.~,:is t•i~~~~;~~~"j',~t~~~\ed, dc:cis•iorts 

how to continue to execute their missions." 

The low-lying island, which rises barely six feet abm·c the current sea lm·el, is part of the vast Kwajalein coral 

atoll, a structure that formed as coral reefs grew around a sinking Yokanic island long ago. That is the origin of 

more than a thousand other low-lying, ring,-shaped atoll islands or atoll island chains across the Pacific and 

Indian oceans. Most are not populated, but some, such as the Marshal! Islands and Maldives, are home to tens 

or eYen hundreds of thousands. 

\Vhilc seas are rising b~· :1.2 millimeters per year at the moment and expected to rise ev-en faster in years 

ahead, Roi-Namur has a good chance of aYoiding total inundation this century. 

l3utthe new research conducted by researchers from the U.S. Geological SmTey, the National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration and several other institutions in the United States, Monaco and the 

Netherlands- suggests that sail water contamination of the island's aquifers would probably occur at40 

centimeters (about 15 inches) of sea-level rise. A rise of five to six centimeters globally has already occurred 

since 2000, and the sea-le\'el rise is eYen fastPr at the K\rajalein alo]l. 

The danger comes because ofthe increasing ability oflargc waves to spill across the island and sink into its 

groundwater. 

"Historically, there would be an ovenmsh event due to a cydone or typhoon ev·ery 20 or 30 years," said Curt 

Storlazzi, a USGS researcher who led the stndy. "Eyery 20 or 30 years or more, communities can recover in 

that time. The concern is that with sea-level rise, those flooding events are going to happen more frequently." 

hltps:!/www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environmentfwp/2018/04/25/climate-change-coufd-make-thousands-of-tropica!-islands-unlnhabJtable-in 216 
82 

61612019 The rmbtary pa1d for a study on sea level nse. The results were seal)'. , The IJ\Iash!ngton Post 

Wave owrwash events already occur- a 20-foot-high wave swept across ROI-Namur in 2014- but the 

computer model used hy the study finds that they become more likely as seas rise, and once they occur two 

years in a ro\v, the groundwater could become undrinkable. 

The "tipping point" in the study varies depending upon the rate of climate change- and above all the stability 

of Antarctica. ln the worst case, the paper says, it could come "before 2030.'' Howen~r, a prominent expert in 

sea-level rise who was not involved in the study, Bob Kopp of Rutgers University, questioned that especially 

dire finding. 

"They're asking the right questions, they're doing the right sorts of analysis, hut I'm a little skeptical of some of 

thdr early-century dates for some things," Kopp said in an interview with The Washington Post. 

For less dire scenarios, the critic<~l moment is pushed further off to the decade between 2030 and 2040 for a 

high warming scenario without Antarctic collapse, or 2055 to 2065 for a middle-range warming scenario. Kopp 

said that middle scenario is consistent with what is known and provided an analysis suggesting that while there 

is indeed a major threat, it won't arrh'e as soon as 2030 hnt could by the 2050s. 

"Even if you take their most conservative scenario, the numbers are really disturbing," Kopp S<Jid. "And there's 

nothing wrong with tbeit· conservative scenario." 

Storlazzi said that, if anything, Roi-Namur is probably somewhat higher in elevation than many other coral 

atoll islands. Hence the conclusion that so many of them could be at risk - the study says that "most" are -

and that the occupied ones might also, in the relatively near future, have to worry about their drinking-water 

supplies. 

The research was commissioned by the Pentagon's Strategic Environmental Research and Development 

Program and published in a more lengthy form earlier this year, in a report that partly focused on helping the 

military identify sites where its assel> could be \'Uinerable. 

There, the researchers called the inquiry on Roi-Namur a precursor to a comprehensh·e examination of 

numerous atoll islands managed by the Defense Department "that arc most vulnerable to sea-level rise and 

associated imparts over the next 20 to 50 ye.ar.s.'' 

"If these impacts are not addressed or adequately planned for, as it becomes necessary to abandon or relocate 

island nations, significant geopolitical issues could arise," they wrote. 

The United States manages military installations or assets not only in the Marshal! Islands but also on Wake 

Island, another Pacific atoll, and the Diego Garcia atoll in the Indian Ocean. There are also decommissioned 

installations at the Midway and .Johnston atolls. 

John Conger, director of the Center for Climate and Security and former acting assistant secretary of defense 

for energy, installations and the em·ironment, said that the department "is increasingly cognizant of threat of 

sea-level rise on its installations:· https :1/w.Nw.washingtonpost. com/news/energy-environmentlwp/2018!04125/climate-change-coukl*make-thousands-of-tropical-islands-uninhabitable-in 3/6 
83 

Pa:~ ~f~he risk can be addressedlJ); ~driPtcti~?~ ;~;s~rS:;~~h~ ~i·J~i;~tu~th;i~~ ~c~~th;~HV:~~ty:f 'tf;~ new study "a 

little bit janing." 

"They are going to haw to make some operational decisions," Conger said. "This is sort of the front lines of sealevel rise and climate change. It's not that the entire island is going underwater- it's that you don't have 

drinking water. It's going to wreck the aquifer." 

Rising seas threaten cwm some projects that remain under construction. 

Case in point: the $1 billion "Space Fence," a radar installation on Kwajalein Atoll that is intended to track tens 

of thousands of pieces of space junk- some of them as small as a baseball- in an effort to keep orbiting 

satellites and astronauts safe. The state-of-the-art project is being constructed for the Air Force by Lockheed 

Martin and is supposed to be fully operational later this year. 

But its location on the tiny atoll already has raised concerns that the site could face routine flooding threats 

within a matter of decades and that saltwater could damage its expensive equipment. 

The study underscores why many small island nations clamored to ensure that the 2015 Paris dimate 

agreement induded language requiring the world lo strive to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 

dc'grees Fahrenheit) above preindustrial levels, an extremely stringent target. Atoll-dependent nations that 

hm'e been heavily involved in the push for climate action include the Marshall Islands, Maldives, Kiribati and 

Tm·alu. 

But \\ith the planet already 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer, holding warming to 1.5 Celsius 

seems unlikely, because it would require extremely rapid shifts away fwm the current energy system toward 

renewables, rather than the more gt·adual change now undcnvay. 

The new study did not address specific Paris climate targets, but Kopp's additional analysis found that even 

under a 2-degree or 1.5-degree Celsius climate scenario, by late in the century, more than 40 centimeters of 

sea-level rise will probably occur. Still, these scenarios would huy atoll islands some time. 

'The research is a reminder of the immediate threat of sea-level rise," said Simon Donner~ a professor at the 

University of British Columbia who studies coral reefs and climate change and wrote a comment by email from 

Kiribati. 

"It is also a reminder that the people in atoll countries, who are not responsible for climate change, are not 

receiving the necessary international support," he continued. "Despite the dire findings of this study, 

adaptation is not absolutely impossible: the construction by China on atoll islands in the South China Sea is 

evidence of that. Adaptation is, however, prohibitively expensh·c for developing countries like Kiribati (where I 

am cmTently)." 

Heine, the Marshall Islands president, said there is no ignoring the effects climate change already is ha\'ing. 

,Just last week, she said, waves washed over parts of the island nations, thanks to a combination of wind and https /twww.washmgtanpost"com/news/energy-en•Nonmentlwpt2018!04f2S/climate-change-could-make-thousands-of-trop!cal-tslands-unrnhabl!able-m 4/6 
84 

"It's more of a nuisance than an)1hing, but things like that arc coming every othe1· month or so," she said. "It 

makes people feel insecure in their own homes." 

Her govemment is doing what it can to protect its vulnerable shorelines, building new sea walls with the 

limited resources it has. But it's not nearly enough. And she has watched with exasperation as the United States 

has hacked away from the Paris climate accord under President Tmmp, whose administration has scarcely 

acknowledged the looming threats posed by climate change. 

"The leaders of the United States need to get on hoard .... We should stop denying what is happening and help 

n!lnerable countries like ours," Heine said. "It's important for people in the U.S. to realize that this is real, it's 

happenini\ to people. We arc not the ones creating this, hut we are the ones who have to live with it." 

A critical issue for the islands in question is the fate of the coral reefs from which they are made and that 

surround them. Reefs breal.:: waves, helping to prevent ovcrwash events, and they also grow to keep pace with 

sea-level rise - at least to an extent. 

But even as seas are rising, coral reefs around the world have been suffering from severe bleaching e\·ents and 

are weakened further by acidifying oceans. This SUi\f\csts that reefs could be hobbled and unable to protect 

their islands from waw~s. 

'The coral reefs these days ha\'C suffered not only of sea-level rise hut mostly in terms of acidification of the 

ocean and also increase of temperature," said Andre Droxler, a geoscientist at Rice University who has studied 

how corals succumbed to fast-rising seas at the end of the last ice age. "So climate change \\ill increase the rate 

of sea-level rise, but also it will decrease the possibility for these corals to keep up." 

The current study suggests that if reefs falter -as they are doing around the world - then the major wave risk 

to coral atoll islands could come still earlier. 

Droxlcr said the study reminded him of Maldives, where he has worked and which faces a situation similar to 

that of the Marshall Islands. 'The maximum elevation is 2-4 meters, and there are more than 140,000 people 

living in two square miles," he said of the capital island of Male. 

"It is kind of the ultimate example of the destiny of these tropical islands, which are so low in elevation," 

Droxler said. 

And each passing year, as seas continue to rise and the nations and the world wrestle with how to cut carbon 

dioxide emissions, thousands of islands grow closer to a reckoning. 

"The longer we talk about this," Conger said, "the more the distant future becomes the near future." 

Read more at Energy & Environment: 
85 

Scientists nearl~· double sea-leH~l rise projections for 2100. because of Antart'tica 

New York City's fate is closely tied to Antarctic ke, climate scientists warn 

Global warming has changed the Great Barrier Reef'forever,' scientists say 

For mm·c, you can sign up for our weekly newsletter here, andfollow us 011 Twitter here. 

Chris Mooney 

nec:m~<mons,me Northwest Passage;, and the· Greenland ice slleet, among o1her locations, and hds \Nrittr;n four books nbout 

sci•Jnce, r>nlilicson•:i clim:;te •Cl1angc. Follow.., 

Brady Dennis 
86 

Mr. LIEU. Can Admiral McGinn or Ms. Goodman, can you explain how important it is to have the Ronald Reagan Ballistic Missile Test Site not flood? 

Ms. GOODMAN. Yes. That is very important, Congressman. That 

is a space radar tracking station that was constructed for that island of Kwajalein at a cost of approximately one billion dollars and 

could be at risk of being overrun or having coastal erosion degrade 

that capability within the next decade or so. 

Mr. LIEU. Thank you. 

In my home State of California we went from the eighth largest 

economy in the world to the fifth largest economy in the world even 

though we had the strongest climate change laws in the Nation. 

And it is clear when you look at the data that when California did 

what it did all these people who want to work on clean energy, 

clean technology, solar, wind, all decided to come to California. 

So, I have introduced legislation, The Climate Solutions Act, that 

basically takes California’s laws and makes it national because we 

want the best and brightest in the world when they want to work 

on green technology and move our country forward to not go to 

China or Germany, we want them to come to the United States. 

And with that, I yield back. 

Mr. VARGAS. The gentleman yields back. The next member to 

speak is the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania, Member Houlahan is 

recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. HOULAHAN. Thank you. I really appreciate all of the time of 

the panel. I, similar to Rep. Lieu, I served in the military as well 

and I did my field training at Tyndall Air Force Base. So it is kind 

of a catastrophe to think about that base in its current State 

versus the way that it was when I served. 

And like many of my colleagues, I will probably follow Representative Lieu and Representative Spanberger’s lines of questioning, I 

am really concerned that we have left the Paris Accord for lots of 

different reasons. But one of them, Admiral, that has to do with 

one of your statements is that we have to lead by example. And we 

are no longer doing that and we are abdicating our leadership role. 

And so one of my questions to you, Admiral, first, is that you 

mentioned in your testimony, both live and in written form, the Administration officials that have stated the need for the government 

to address climate change. And my question to you is how can Congress, how can we help support the findings of the military and the 

intelligence communities in their efforts to mitigate climate change 

even though the White House currently seems unrecogniz—unwilling to recognize this growing threat? So, what can Congress do to 

be helpful? 

Mr. MCGINN. I think continuing the discussion, as a first step, 

a necessary step in a bipartisan way that this is a real problem. 

It is growing. Delay of implementing solutions to both increase our 

resilience as well as to mitigate the greenhouse gases that we are 

putting out there, it only gets more and more expensive and more 

risky as each year goes by. 

And I think that encouraging every department and agency in 

the Administration to do things that make sense from a business 

perspective, that the business case for creating win/wins, a win for 

the economy, a win for the private sector, a win for the mission of 
87 

whatever that department or agency is, especially the Department 

of Defense, just makes so much sense. 

And I think there are so many incentives. There are, obviously, 

investments. It takes money to an extent but it also takes guidance 

as well for us to assume and maintain that mantel of leadership. 

Ms. HOULAHAN. And I agree. I spent a lot of my time before 

doing or coming to Congress in corporate social responsibility. I 

think it is only in the best interests of many businesses to do the 

right thing for the planet. 

And, actually, I would like to present the same question to Mr. 

Worthington that I just presented to the admiral, which is, in your 

testimony you said we can do this without additional regulation, 

we do not need the Clean Power Plan, we do not need the Paris 

Accord to achieve continued progress. We would rather pay engineers and lawyers. And so my question to you is, is there nothing 

that Congress can be doing to be helpful to advance things like climate change, which you also agree is real? 

Mr. WORTHINGTON. I think that the most important thing that 

we need as a country that only Congress can do is to put additional 

resources into research and development. We have made great 

strides in deploying renewables. We have made great strides in improving the efficiencies of fossil units. We have a need to resurrect 

the domestic nuclear industry with small modular reactors. There 

is a whole variety of technologies that are just sitting on the cusp. 

We have a great opportunity to increase our uptake of renewables if we can get less expensive electricity storage in place. We 

have a great opportunity eventually to convert some of our energy 

consumption to hydrogen-based fuels. We have a great opportunity 

to reduce emissions further by deploying carbon capturing storage 

on fossil energy units, both coal and natural gas. All of this is critical but we need additional technology development, R&D. And 

that is where Congress can be very helpful. 

Ms. HOULAHAN. And we 100 percent agree on that. That is something that we definitely need to move forward on and support. 

And with the last few seconds of my time I would like to ask Ms. 

Goodman, Representative Lieu talked about some places that he 

had served, in Guam and some places specific to his service. My 

question has to do with something in Pennsylvania. We have a 

DLA depot in Susquehanna, Pennsylvania that has identified that 

they are, in fact, being affected by climate change. They maintain 

$13 billion in materiel. 

What kinds of things, what kinds of things will happen if that 

particular area is affected, as it anticipates being, by climate 

change in terms of the downstream effects of the supply chain? If 

you can comment on that. 

Ms. GOODMAN. Well, it will degrade the DLA’s ability to perform 

its mission at that location if it is increasingly subject to either extreme weather events, or seal level rise, or coastal erosion in that 

Susquehanna area. That is an important location for DLA, I know 

that. 

And, you know that they need to make those facilities resilient, 

so they can continue to operate—that is, a combination of working 

both in the built and the natural infrastructure, and then working 

on solutions in conjunction with the surrounding community. And, 
88 

using available technology like predictive analytics and other solutions that will enable us to better understand and anticipate those 

threats, basically prepare in advance to address those challenges. 

Ms. HOULAHAN. Thank you so much to everyone for your time. 

And I yield back. 

Chairman ENGEL [presiding]. Thank you very much. 

Mr. WATKINS. Mr. WATKINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks to the witnesses for being here. 

My question is for Ms. Goodman. In your testimony you noted 

that China published its first Public Arctic Policy in 2018 wherein 

it declared itself a near Arctic State, and articulated its intention 

to build a polar silk road. Could you elaborate on this? 

Ms. GOODMAN. Yes, Congressman. 

In 2018, China did release its first Arctic policy. It has been expanding its capabilities to operate throughout the Arctic; declaring 

itself a new Arctic stakeholder; looking to shorten its shipping 

times from China into Europe by transiting across the Northern 

Sea route; increasing its ice-capable vessels and ability to operate 

in the Arctic; increasing its extent of research and development 

across the region; and, also increasing its foreign direct investment 

with other Arctic nations, in particular, Greenland and Iceland. 

Mr. WATKINS. Thank you. And this question is for anybody who 

would like to address it. 

There are many countries around the world, of course, that are 

extremely underdeveloped. I spent a large part of my adult life 

working in a few of these countries. Does limiting the use of certain 

energy resources around the world make it harder for these underdeveloped countries to grow their economies and to play a role in 

their regions around the world? 

Mr. MCGINN. I would say any country that is developing and 

wants to increase their quality of life and economic viability needs 

the best form of energy that suits their location and their needs. 

Probably the most dramatic example I can think happens in subSaharan Africa where there have been companies and there have 

been private organizations that have brought solar power that has 

enabled cellular communication, satellite communication, access to 

the internet, and has empowered those communities to do things 

like extract water from solar-powered wells that have been able to 

transform their local economy at a very, very low cost, without having to build a central power plant and a transmission distribution 

network as we did. 

This is similar in many ways to what happened after the cold 

war when Eastern Europe did not have to create telephone poles 

and wires to have a modern telecommunications. They were able 

to go wireless because the technology was available, and it was affordable, and it was able to be deployed very rapidly. 

I think that same way of going about things is true for these developing countries. 

Mr. WATKINS. Leapfrogging technology, yes. 

Mr. MCGINN. Leapfrog. Leapfrog, exactly. Trying to maximize 

the benefits and minimize the costs, the economic costs and the environmental costs to deploying energy to developing countries. 

Mr. WATKINS. Great. Thank you, Admiral. 
89 

That is it, Mr. Chairman. I yield my time. Thank you. 

Chairman ENGEL. Thank you very much. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Mr. CONNOLLY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

My friend Mr. Espaillat has been waiting, and I am willing to 

yield to Mr. Espaillat and then take my turn after that. 

Mr. ESPAILLAT. Thank you, Mr. Connolly. This is the greatest 

form of collegiality I have ever seen while I have been in Congress. 

It must be that wonderful colored tie he is wearing today. 

Mr. Chairman, climate change is an existential threat. And just 

want to start this by laying out this fact. And if we do not act it 

will have massive harm on our children, our future, and our children’s children. And we are already seeing the effects today: increased heat, frequency and intensity of natural disasters, the lack 

of water. The effects of climate change can be seen around the 

world. And often it affects the already marginalized among us. It 

makes worse political conference and endangers all of us. 

Having said that, and being a member of the Western Hemisphere Subcommittee, I want to ask a couple of questions. The first 

one is, first of all I will start by saying that academic institutions 

such as Stanford, Columbia University, partner often with activists, not-for-profits, and venture capital firms to essentially reverse 

engineering solutions for communities suffering from devastating 

impact of climate change, including, as we have seen in the Caribbean and Latin America, there has been a, currently a horrible 

drought that is crippling the agriculture of many of those countries. 

We have seen the patterns of hurricanes and tropical storms devastating the Caribbean as well. 

From my understanding, in a short amount of time these initiatives have yielded substantive insights, these partnerships with 

academics, not-for-profits, and people on the ground. So I want to 

ask Mr. Weisenfeld, can you discuss the USAID investment in 

similar partnerships with academia or the private sector which 

seek to drive innovative solutions to build resiliencies and mitigate 

the effects of climate change? 

Mr. WEISENFELD. Thank you very much, Congressman, for that 

question. I would be happy to discuss that. Because you have described the impacts of extreme weather events, increasing temperatures have dramatically negative consequences for communities. 

They often force communities into situations of suffering from 

floods or droughts. We also have seen increased diseases for plants 

in Central America and we have seen increases in coffee rust. 

USAID is doing the Feed the Future initiative—which the U.S. 

Government’s global food security initiative, has invested in research, innovation, and new technologies through a range of universities that they call innovation labs. 

And we have seen that employing new technologies, new ways to 

improve water management, more drought-resistant crops, more efficient methods at utilizing fertilizer can be preventative ways to 

build resilience in those communities, and help them avoid the 

kinds of dramatic consequences that we see. 

Mr. ESPAILLAT. And what about the Caribbean? We saw what 

happened in Puerto Rico, the horrible storm that Puerto Rico is 

still reeling back from the impact of those storms. There is no guar-
90 

antee that that region will not be, unfortunately, hit again by either a hurricane or what they call vaguadas. That is, you know, 

you have maybe 12, 14 days of rain, torrential tropical rain. 

How could the Caribbean prepare, begin to prepare itself for this 

reality that is going to impact the lives of people there, and our 

own lives here, given that we have large populations of folks from 

those nations? Are there any best practices or ideas of what the 

road map should be short-term and long-term for the Caribbean to 

prepare itself? 

Anybody can answer that. Yes, Ms. Goodman? 

Ms. GOODMAN. You know, we have been working through the 

Center for Climate and Security, and with other U.S. Federal agencies, and private sector and nonprofit partners, to develop plans for 

increasing Caribbean resilience, because we are aware that the 

combination of extreme weather events, combined with prolonged 

droughts, is making the region more fragile. 

And the agencies in the Caribbean, like CDEMA, the Caribbean 

Disaster Emergency Management Agency, and others, are very attentive to that and really want the technologies, and the innovation 

and ingenuity, that can be provided across the range of American 

universities and private sector entities. 

So, I think this is a very fruitful area to continue to push and 

advance partnerships, as we develop the capability to move from 

reliable weather predictions of 7 days into the seasonal and subseasonal forecasting. It is going to be very important in the Caribbean and elsewhere. 

Mr. ESPAILLAT. Well, I would continue to hear from the rest of 

you but, of course, Mr. Connolly will not be very happy as he has 

already conceded his time. So, thank you. Perhaps I can hear from 

the rest of you in writing. Thank you so much. 

Chairman ENGEL. So, Mr. Espaillat, you are technically going to 

yield to Mr. Connolly or give Mr. Connolly his full 5 minutes. Mr. 

Connolly. 

Mr. ESPAILLAT. Well, I yield to my good friend and colleague Mr. 

Connolly. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank both the chair and my friend of New 

York. And thank you all so much for being here. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for having this hearing. I think it is 

a critical hearing. 

And, Admiral McGinn, I was particularly pleased to hear you say 

I think essentially, look, the military are pragmatists. We have not 

got time for theoretical debates. And the fact of the matter is we 

are seeing the consequences of something. Call it climate change, 

call it whatever you want, but we have got to prepare for it. 

And I assume, Secretary Goodman, you, you would concur with 

that judgment? 

Ms. GOODMAN. Yes, absolutely. We need to lead by example. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. That is right. 

Now, even in this Administration which continues officially to 

deny the science of climate change, in a January 2019 DoD report, 

of the 79—they looked at 79 installations. And in that report, twothirds of those 79 installations were vulnerable to recurrent flooding; more than a half are vulnerable to drought; about a half are 
91 

vulnerable to wildfires. And a lot of that clearly is a change, is it 

not? 

I would ask the two of you from a military perspective. We obviously did not build installations knowing they were at risk of flooding, drought, wildfires. Something has happened. Something has 

changed that makes a half to two-thirds of those installations vulnerable. Would that be a fair assessment? 

Mr. MCGINN. It is. And it is primarily because the Earth is heating up, especially this great big heat sink called the ocean. You 

hear about El Nino or La Nina. And those effects put more energy 

into the atmosphere: stronger winds, upper air currents. They 

bring up much more water vapor. And the, the frequency and the 

intensity of storms that are in this air/ocean interface caused by 

the wick being turned up, if you will, and temperature is going to 

be a continuing phenomenon. And it will affect a lot of coastal 

areas and, as we saw just in the past two hurricane seasons in the 

Caribbean and the East Coast, areas that are hundreds of miles inland as well. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Admiral—I am sorry. Ms. Goodman. 

Ms. GOODMAN. I would just add that what this means is that we 

can no longer fully rely on the historical record to predict what the 

future will bring. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. Good point. 

Ms. GOODMAN. So, historic heat records, flooding, and storm patterns have changed, and they have shifted. And, so when you want 

a reset to become more resilient for the future you cannot just rely 

on the past. We need to look at the changing conditions. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. One of the big changes, particularly affecting 

your service, Admiral, again, is of course the melting of ice sheets. 

So, in the Arctic you have got floating ice, and if it melts, it melts. 

It does not particularly displace water volume, right, because it is 

already counted floating on the water. 

But in the Antarctic and in Greenland, significant melting of ice 

sheets raises global sea levels, does it not? 

Mr. MCGINN. It does in fact. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. And what could go wrong with that from the 

Navy’s point of view. 

Mr. MCGINN. Well, I think rising sea levels affecting places like 

Norfolk Naval Station, Naval Air Station, Air Force bases in that 

Tidewater area are good examples. And, as Ms. Goodman pointed 

out earlier, even on sunny day flooding, king tides, et cetera, we 

are already dealing with that. So, increasing sea level rise because 

of ice sheets coming off of land masses is going to affect it. 

More in our present danger, if you will, is the intensity and the 

frequency of storms that cause tidal surge. That is not directly related to sea level rise. But when you have a 6 or 8 or even 10 foot 

tidal surge, that is devastating in its power to wipe out infrastructure along the coast. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. And, of course, we have the double phenomenon 

do not we in some of these coastal areas—you mentioned Norfolk— 

where we have rising sea level and we have subsidence of land. 

And the combination is really a problem. 

Mr. MCGINN. So, location of critical back-up power systems, for 

example, are practical things that we can do. If you are going to 
92 

deploy a data center you do not want to put it in the basement of 

a building. You know, you want to put it up on higher ground. You 

want to think through what is it going to be like when the wind 

is blowing, when the rain is falling sideways, and flooding is coming in, what are the things that have to work. And we can make 

those engineering and design changes starting now that will help 

us when it is bad. 

Mr. CONNOLLY. I thank you all. 

And, Mr. Chairman, again, thank you so much for having this 

helpful hearing. I really appreciate it. I know the public does as 

well. 

Chairman ENGEL. Thank you, Mr. Connolly. 

Ms. OMAR. 

Ms. OMAR. Thank you, Chairman. 

I wanted to begin with a response to one of my colleagues earlier 

who is not here who had asked what was the percentage of displacement of people, what percentage it was due to disasters as opposed to conflict. And that percentage is 60 percent according to 

the Internal Displacement Monitoring Center. 

We know that the global refugee crisis really is exacerbated, by 

climate change. And we do not need to look further from home. We 

know this is true. At least 400,000 residents of New Orleans were 

displaced by Hurricane Katrina. And for but some, and disproportionately many of those people were black and they were permanently displaced. 

While climate change is making droughts and famines worse, it 

is making resources scarcer, making conflicts fiercer, and recession 

more brutal, our country is resettling historically low numbers of 

refugees. And citizens of some of the countries that have been hit 

hardest by climate change, including Yemen, and Iran, Somalia, 

are currently subject to an arbitrary and racist Muslim ban. 

So, Ms. Goodman, you mentioned in your testimony that your 

parents were refugees. And as you know, I myself am a refugee. 

Could you tell us a little bit about the importance of American 

leadership in refugee resettlement, especially from a national security perspective? Specifically, do you agree with me that it is in our 

Nation’s security interests to respond to the global refugee crisis, 

much of which is caused by climate-related factors, with more care 

than this President has done? And what might it look like to you? 

Ms. GOODMAN. Thank you, Congresswoman. Yes, my mother, 

who was a Holocaust refugee, and is sitting behind me today, 

would not be here but for the open arms of the United States. And, 

she was one of the fortunate few who was able to escape Germany 

in the 1930’s. 

So, I fundamentally believe that it is important for America to 

be a refuge and to welcome those who are seeking shelter. That is 

not to say that we do not need immigration laws and border security. Of course we need that. But, we also need to welcome those 

in need, and particularly when we face the greatest wave of refugees since World War II today, many, as you have noted, are fleeing in part because of changes in climate and natural resource 

scarcities, in addition to seeking economic opportunity. 
93 

Mr. OMAR. Appreciate your response. It is one of the American 

values to see ourselves as a refuge. And I probably would not have 

survived if America did not open its arms to welcome my family. 

Mr. Weisenfeld, in your testimony you spoke about the particular 

vulnerabilities to climate change in the global south. We are seeing 

this right now with the terrible situation in Mozambique, 

Zimbabwe, and Malawi where more than 800 people have been 

killed by the cyclone Idai. 

There is also a cholera outbreak in Mozambique as a result of 

the cyclone that has affected more than 200 people. 

I wanted to read you a quote from a CNN article that was dated 

on March 31st. And, Chairman, I would love to submit that for the 

record. 

Chairman ENGEL. Without objection. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
94 

change, the poor world is 

already being devastated 

by it 

Drone video shows Cyclone ldai's devastation in Mozambique 01:12 

Pi!{ll.! 1 ol7 
95 

{CNNJ- "Upstae down" are me only \Vords Manusli J\!tJert A!tJen lias to doscnbe lire aner the povvertul cyclone 

!ciai 

Nearly two weeks since the powerlul cyclone destroyed most elf tllR r:itvof fleire Mm:arnbique. it ts a long way 

from normal. Alben, a fisherman, tn hts wooden pirogue on a 

local tJoach. "We arc suffenng hold on" 

aftor visiting U1e city 

price of cltmate change provoked mostly, not 

Hundreds of squc-ne rniles are covered by water. floodinfJ an area so vast it can be seon from space. Only when the 

water recedes completely, says Macfwl, wt!l Mozambique be able to count the bodtes 

Tl1o inland floodwaters have yet to clear. 

llligtllt t:herection:. affecting more than half a million people 

camps with tens of thousands 

h:tp~·l/w~nN crH1.comj2019/03/31/atricatpoores1-hit~tlle·lliHdest-clim~te-cllange-rno?amboque-int!/mciex htMi Page2of7 
96 

4/2{19, 

clroug!lt, populat:on 9rowth and climDte d1ange nea1·1y made Cape Town tl1e flrst c:ty 111 t!1e vvorid to run 

The inequality of climate change 

is often ctescr!bed ns a problern that v,Jill affect future generations. But t!1e world's most vulnerable 

are alroacly f:3cir1g its cJevastating effects. 

T ~1e United Nations estimates Utat 4.2 

decades, witll 

Many of the world's poorest live in 

a tnw rise can be st1arply felt and 

I Ctt£~r 

Meanwhile, n1ost of the wor!cl's richest nations are tile largest ernission 

modern farn11ng pra.ctic:es thcrt pmducc: clrmate c:11angE1 ccrusingernissions. 

by burning fossil fuels and 

In rhotos: Cyclone ldai's impact 

Fnvironment in Oxford 

linked to climate change. 

or 2 

Indonesia or the 

by global warming more keenly titan highm 

That Is not to say that developed countries are immune to its 

effects. 

Hurricane Harvey, a storm whose intensity was l:nked to 

causecJ biblica! f:ood·ng :n the sutnmer of 

20:l7 Etrocmd Houstonand surroundrn;tcocrnti:cs. More t11an 

80 people diecJ 

Psge3of7 
97 

Houston wore floocled during Hurricane Harvey. 

problems like c!imate change better 

Profes:3orof r3ecJScren:ce r1nd International Affairs, to!cl 

iUJ:o. :cne u0 De11ar1:mernt :cnlousin<) ar1d Url)an De>Jelc>pnlent avvanjed $48.3 m:llio:-1 to the state Lou;s1a.na to 

we've 

governn1cnt," Oppen!leimer said 

Infrastructure wrecked 

tsler oer 0eanct1:1rtcs. which lost more than 9/'YQ of its 

States. Because for a!! our 
98 

C8tnstrophic flooding in Bangladesh in 2017 destroyed at least 950,000 houses. 

ftle country ~las built anti-cyclone shelters, coastal embankments, and invested in a cyclone ancl flood warning 

rxec11ction systoms. However, its efforts are tinancial!y l1milcd, adds Safra de Campos 

Heira, wtrich lies below sea level, 

with poorly planned settlements 

nnstr~1nn''' t>' frr,nrl' Offlcials worried about tile low lying city, w!JiCil is fi!lod 

place before Cyclone ldai llit 

Stronger storms 

''Higr1 ratrJs ctf p.overtv, a lack of resil!ent infrastructure, s1un1s and a disaiJPC•amrnc'' of' pnJte,cted infrastructure in 

said 

intensity of extreme weather 
99 

Filipinos tlad never seen McClean said. The people in thG coastal City of Tacloban could not even 

tjescribethe seven-meterr ticlnl surge that came witrl the storm 

l'age6o'7 
100 

groups believe the death toll in Mozambique will be far higher than the official figure. 

'TI1ev Simply did not 11ave words to explain w11at was happening to them." 11e said. 

The UN's Economic Commission for Africa estirnates that Mozambique, Zimbabwe, and Malawi, may have lost S1 

lJiltlon of Infrastructure in the cyclone. 

roads are re-paved, she said. 

As eventss ~in

1 ~~:~~~~~~~i~~;;~IBang!adesl1 and tt1e Philippines have shown, climate d1ange ls a problern of the 

present. N 

With reporting from CNN's Anna Cardovll/is In Mozambique and Duarte Mendonca in London. 
101 

Mr. OMAR. Graca Machel, a former Mozambique Minister of Education and Culture, said to CNN, ‘‘This is one of the poorest places 

in the world which is paying the price of climate change provoked 

mostly by the developed world.’’ 

I tend to agree with her. The United States contributes disproportionately to the emission of green gases, trailed only China 

in recent years. So it seems to me quite obvious that our domestic 

consumption and domestic environmental policies are harming our 

national security by exacerbating the effects of climate change. 

Do you think it is fair to say that as a matter of national security 

we must take a concerned effort to cut out own green gas emissions? And is it fair to say that this should be an imminent and 

urgent priority for our country? 

Mr. WEISENFELD. Thank you very much for the question, Congresswoman. And thank you for highlighting the plight of the people in Mozambique and in the southern part of the world who are 

suffering from this. 

My experience is in the international development field. I am not 

someone who is very familiar with the issues of global carbon emissions. I would say that, I had the privilege earlier in my career to 

have served in Zimbabwe and have seen some of the areas that are 

subject to these floods. And I can recall back in the mid-’90’s driving across Mozambique and seeing that it is in fact one of the poorest countries in the world. 

And it is a great tragedy of climate change that the countries 

that are the most fragile, where governments are the weakest, 

where communities are the most vulnerable are the ones who experience the greatest impact of climate change. And I firmly believe 

the U.S. people, as a country that is very generous, is deeply interested in investing in those areas and ensuring that we can take 

preventative actions using modern technologies to ensure that people have structures, and water efficiency, and understand water 

flow so that we can mitigate these impacts before they happen. 

Mr. OMAR. Thank you. And I yield back. 

Chairman ENGEL. Thank you. That concludes today’s hearing. I 

again thank all witnesses and all our members for their participation today. 

The committee stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:23 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 
102 

APPENDIX 

FULL COMMITTEE HEARING NOTICE 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6128 

Eliot L. Engel (D-NY), Chairman 

April 2, 2019 

TO: MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

You are respectfully requested to attend an OPEN hearing of the Committee on Foreign 

Affairs to be held in Room 2172 of the Rayburn House Office Building (and available live on the 

Committee website at https://foreignaffairs.house.govQ: 

DATE: 

TIME: 

SUBJECT: 

WITNESSES: 

Tuesday, April2, 2019 

10:00 a.m. 

How Climate Change Threatens U.S. National Security 

Vice Admiral Dennis V. McGinn, USN (Ret) 

(Former Assistant Secretary of the Navyfor Energy, Installations and 

Environment) 

The Honorable Sherri Goodman 

(Former Deputy Undersecretmy (){Defense for Environmental Security) 

Mr. Paul Weisenfeld 

Executive Vice President, International Development 

RTf International 

(Former Assistant to the Administrator for the Bureau for Food Security, 

US. Agency for International Development) 

Mr. Barry K. Worthington 

Executive Director 

United States Energy Association 

By Direction of the Chairman 
103 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

MINUTES OF FULL COMMITTEE HEARJNG 

Day _ _:_11_,ue,s,d,ay"--_D,ate'----"0""4/0=2/,~'1:::..9 ___ ,Room~--"-21"-'7.-'2_.RHo-'--0"-1l--

Starting Time 10:03 a.m. Ending Time 12:23 p.m. 

Recesses _0_ L_to _) L_to _) L_to __ ) l__to _) L_to _) l__to __) 

Presiding Member(s) 

Chairman Eliot L. Enge4 Rep. Wllli4m Keating, Rep. Jim Cosm, Rep. Juan Vargas 

Check all of the foUowing that apply: 

Open Session 0 

Executive {closed) Session D Televised 0 

TITLE OF HEARING: 

ElectronicaUy Record~taped)0 

Stenographic Record 1.!:.1 

How Climate Change Threatens U.S. National Security 

COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: 

See attached. 

NON-COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: 

N/A 

HEARING WITNESSES: Same as meeting notice attached? YesEJ NoD 

(If "no", please list below and include title, agency, department, or organization.) 

STATEMENTS FOR THE RECORD: (List any statements submitted for the record.) 

SFR -Engel (I), Engel (II), Connolly 

IFR - Lieu (I), Lieu (II), Lieu (Ill), Omar 

QFR- Sires, Smith 

TUMESCHEDULEDTORECONVENE ___ _ 

;'UME ADJOURNED 12'

23 p.m. 
104 

PR!o:>MT 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

X 

-----c·. X 

-x X 

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

FULL COMMITTEEHE4RING 

lY!Eit1BE.'R PRES'J:NT 1lfEMBER 

Eliot L. Engel, NY X Michael T. McCaul, TX 

Brad Sherman, CA X Christopher H. Smith, NJ 

Gregory W. Meeks, NY X Steve Chabot, 011 

A lbio Sires, NJ Joe Wilson, SC 

Gerald E. Connolly, VA X Scott Perry, PA 

Theodore E. Deutch, FL X Ted Yoho, FL 

Karen Bass. CA Adam Kinzinger, IL 

William Keating, MA X Lee Zeldin, NY 

David Cicilline, Rl James Sensenbrenner, Jr., WI 

Ami Bcra,CA X Ann Wagner. MO 

Joaquin Castro, TX Brian J. Mast, FL 

Dina Titus, NV Francis Rooney, FL 

Adriano Espai!lat, NY X Brian K. Fitzpatrick, PA 

Ted Lieu, CA John Curtis, UT 

Susan Wild, PA Ken Buck, CO 

Dean Phillips, MN X 

llhan Omar, MN X Guy Rcschenthaler, PA 

Colin Allred, TX X Tim Burchett, TN 

Andy Levin, Ml X Greg Pence, IN 

Abigail Span berger, VA X Steve Watkins, KS 

Chrissy 1-Ioulahan, PA Michael Guest MS 

Tom Malinowski. NJ 

David Trone, MD ··-

Jim Cos!.~· ~A 

Juan Vargas, CA 

Vicente Gonzalez, TX 
105 

2011 Crystal Drive, Suite 600, Arlington, VA 22202, USA 

Tel: +1 703 341.2400 

Fax. +1 703 553 4817 

www.conservation.org 

April2, 2019 

The Honorable Eliot Engel 

Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs 

U.S. House of Representatives 

2170 Raybum House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

The Honorable Michael McCaul 

Ranking Member, Committee on Foreign Affairs 

U.S. House of Representatives 

2066 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

CONSERVATION 0 

INTERNATIONAL 

-

Re: Committee Hearing on "How Climate Change Threatens U.S. National Security" 

Dear Chairman Engel and Ranking Member McCaul, 

Thank you for the opportunity to provide input to the Committee's hearing: "How Climate Change 

Threatens U.S. National Security." 

The ties between international conservation, climate change, and national security have become 

increasingly clear. The world is less safe when shortages of fresh water, food, and other natural 

resources lead to instability and conflict. Conflict can arise when criminals profit from poaching 

wildlife and stealing natural resources. The Committee's continued strong support for international 

conservation, notably through the END Wildlife Trafficking Act of 2016, has strengthened both 

America's long-term foreign policy objectives as well as enhanced U.S. economic and national 

security interests around the world. 

Security risks arising from resource degradation are increasing in many developing countries. Loss of 

natural capital, such as forests, fresh water, and natural pollinators, is accelerating due in part to 
106 

climate change. This loss contributes to instability, conflict, radicalization, and, in the worst case, 

failed States. U.S. leadership on these critical issues is invaluable. 

Climate Change, National Security, and Nature 

The impacts of climate change are being felt across our country and in every region on Earth. 

Wildfires have scorched California, hurricanes are taking heavy tolls, coral reefs are dying, and yearslong droughts are rendering barren vast stretches of agricultural land. In fact, according to a report 

by Morgan Stanley, climate disasters cost the world $650 billion over the last three years, and the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported that 14 weather and climate disasters in 

2018 cost the United States $91 billion in 2018, the fourth hottest year on record. And these impacts 

are set to accelerate- with global temperatures across land and sea already 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit 

above the 20'h cenh1ry average in 20181

• In the face of these nahual disasters, greenhouse gas 

emissions, the main driver of climate change, aren't decreasing. In fact, they arc going up. The 2018 

IPCC special report "Global Warming of 1.5°C" found that the world is on track to blow past the limit 

at which runaway climate change will upend life as we know it. With business-as-usual trends, 

damages associated with global warming could total $54 trillion by 20402• The urgency of accelerating 

climate action has never been clearer. 

We know action is needed at the global level. In developing countries, the agriculture sectors absorb 

26% of total damage and losses from climate-related disasters, according to a report by the Food and 

Agricultural Organization', and as a result, between 2008-2015, an average of 26.4 million people 

were displaced annually by natural hazard-induced and climate-related disasters. Climate-induced 

displacement has led to unprecedented migration, including from Central America and the future 

stability and well-being of the U.S. in part depends on making the world more stable, safe, and 

secure. However, the rising threat of climate change and associated natural resource scarcity and 

biodiversity loss increases the risk of conflict and instability in many regions around the world, 

including some of strategic importance to the United States. As a result, our national and economic 

security interests depend on the stability of our planet's climate and the integrity of our wildlife and 

natural resources, which sustain societies and economies around the world and enhance their climate 

resilience. 

A Natural Solution 

Our approach to protecting, sustainably managing, and restoring our natural ecosystems around the 

world requires engaging a range of actors -including governments, local communities, states, civil 

society, and the private sector. There is strong scientific consensus that the path to avoiding 

dangerous climate change risks to national security requires urgent transformation across all scales 

and sectors, including rapid energy transition, technological innovation, and natural climate 

solutions. Over the last few years, there has been increasing consensus and scientific certainty on the 

1 https: I jwww.cnbc.com/20 19/02/14 I climate·disasters-cost-650-billion-over-3-years-morgan-stanley.html 

2 https:/ jwww.nytimcs.com/2018/1 0/07 /climate/ipcc-climate-report-2040.html 

3 http://www.fao.org/3{!8297EN/i8297en.pdf 
107 

role of nahue as a climate solution. On an a1mual basis, nearly one fourth of emissions at the global 

level come from land use change- with 11% of global emissions from tropical deforestation alone. 

Trees and soils store vast amounts of carbon and when forests are burned or cleared to allow for 

agricultoral expansion, urban development, and timber extraction, that carbon is emitted. And 

currently, we know that protecting, sustainably managing, and restoring forests will get us about a 

third of the way to keeping temperatore rise no more thanl.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees 

Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels, providing 37% or more of the emissions reductions and 

removals needed. Natoral ecosystems are the original carbon-sequestration technology, and they are 

an indispensable part of the solution to climate change. Stopping climate change will require 

reducing emissions, in all ways, including increased efficiency in current energy production and 

usage, increased used of cleaner sources of energy, and natural climate solutions. 

What may be even more relevant relative to national security, however, is that natural climate 

solutions also provide signiiicant benefits to reduce or alleviate the impacts of climate change. 

N a tore's climate solutions arc immediately available, cost-effective, and achieve both climate 

mitigation and adaptation results. For example, restoration of mangroves, wetlands, reefs, and 

coastal ecosystems can provide measurable storm protection benefits to coastal communities. With 

the frequency of intense events increasing and more than 60% of the global population living on 

coasts, natural climate solutions can provide a low-cost and sustainable solution to reducing climate 

risk. Additionally, forests provide nah1ral flood protection, and water filtration. Agroforestry and 

climate smart agriculh1re practices can increase the resilience of production systems. Therefore, many 

of nature's climate solutions not only help mitigate the causes of climate change, but also can reduce 

risk, and therefore contribute to more security and stability in vulnerable regions around the worldwhich could reduce the economic cost of losses and damages and potentially, stem the tide of 

climate-induced migration. 

Conservation Intemational has been working with partners around the world to accelerate action on 

climate change. We develop cutting edge science, work with partners to design sustainable 

landscapes and protect marine ecosystems, foster innovative financing, and advise on policy at the 

local, national, and international levels. We envision a world where natore's contribution to 

addressing climate cl1ange is fully realized. This means that nahiral climate solutions arc 

implemented to their fullest potential for mitigating climate change and are also fully deployed in 

places where ecosystems can help vulnerable populations adapt to the already-present and future 

effects of climate change. 

International Conservation Programs 

By investing in proven, U.S.-led, international conservation programs that help less-developed 

countries better manage their natural resources and protect their forests, fisheries, and wildlife from 

bad actors and natoral disasters, countries can increase their resilience to climate change with nahiral 

climate solutions, and the United States can better protect its own national and economic security. 

The following programs exemplify the critical role international conservation efforts play in U.S. 

foreign policy. Promoting "natoral security" boosts America's national security: 
108 

The U.S. Agency for Intemational Development (USAID) biodiversity programs deliver the majority 

of U.S. intemational conservation assistance on the ground. In partnership with foreign govemments, 

civil society, the private sector, and local communities, the programs help protect some of the largest, 

most at-risk natural landscapes and species. By maintaining and restoring the natural resources that 

supply fertile soil, clean water, food, and medicine and tackling global challenges such as wildlife 

trafficking, USAID biodiversity programs strengthen U.S. foreign policy objectives by bringing aid 

millions of people, strengthening local economic growth, stability, democracy-building, health, and 

security. These all, in turn, can strengthen communities' resilience to climate change impacts. 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) manages programs that conserve our planet's rich wildlife 

diversity, protecting habitats, fighting illegal wildlife trade, and building capacity for wildlife 

conservation. The Intemational Wildlife Trade program provides oversight of domestic laws and 

intemational treaties that promote the long-term conservation of plant and animal species. The 

Multinational Species Conservation Fund works to conserve iconic species like elephants, rhinos, 

tigers, great apes, and marine turtles. T11e FWS regional programs support grassroots, on-the-ground 

conservation work that addresses global threats to endangered species and other wildlife, while 

promoting civil society and intemational partnerships that enhance U.S. foreign policy objectives and 

national security. 

The Global Environment Facility (GEF) is an independent global financial instihttion that provides 

grants to support sustainable use and improved management of natural resources, uniting countries 

with corporations and non-profit organizations. With more than 4,500 projects in 170 countries, the 

GEF is the largest single financier of conservation. Every U.S. dollar contributed to the GEF generates 

significant retum through strategic investments tl1at bring together govemments, civil society, the 

private sector, and other partners to tackle the planet's biggest issues, including preventing tropical 

deforestation, combating wildlife trafficking, protecting global fish stocks, and promoting sustainable 

economic growtl1 in the developing world. 

The Tropical Forest Conservation Reauthorization Act (TFCA) was signed by the President on 

january 14'", 2019. Since 1998, the TFCA program has saved more than 67 million acres of tropical 

forest by allowing developing countries that meet certain criteria to be relieved of debt owed to the 

United States in exchange for their conservation efforts. Known as debt-for-nahtre swaps, these 

agreements demonstrate the U.S. Govemment's commitment to helping fledgling democracies while 

protecting U.S. economic and national security interests. The reauthorization expands these efforts to 

coral-reef ecosystems. To date, the TFCA program has sequestered 56 million metric tons of carbon 

dioxide, which is the equivalent of taking 11.8 million cars off the road. 

Each of the programs described play a significant role in preserving wildlife, biodiversity, and 

sustainable landscapes that all have an integral component towards mitigating the impacts of climate 

change that are being felt across our cotmtry, every region on Earth, and are impacting our own 

national security. 
109 

Thank you for your leadership in holding this important hearing. Conservation Intemational values 

the role om natural environment plays in mitigating the U.S. national and economic drivers of 

instability related to climate change. We look forward to working together to continue to develop 

policies that can help to accelerate action on climate change. 

Sincerely, 

Jennifer Morris 

President 

Conservation Intemational 
110 

Statement for the Record from Representative Gerry Connolly 

How Climate Change Threatens U.S. National Security 

April2, 2019 

"Global environmental and ecological degradation, as well as climate change, are likely to fuel 

competition for resources, economic distress, and social discontent through 2019 and beyond." 

These are the words of the U.S. Intelligence Community in its 2019 Worldwide Threat Assessment, 

which identifies climate change as one of the pressing global threats to U.S. national security. As 

some still debate the existence of man-made climate change, meanwhile the Department of Defense 

(DoD) has acknowledged the reality of its impact on our military posture and made sizeable 

investments to mitigate its harmful effects. Climate change is also a major driver of instability and 

economic losses around the world, both of which threaten U.S. national security interests. 

Despite the overwhelming consensus among scientists, national security officials, and foreign 

governments that climate change is real and presents a shared global threat, President Trump and 

his Administration have taken drastic measures to halt progress against this challenge. In June 2017, 

Trump announced that the U.S. would pull out of the Paris climate accord, a pivotal climate change 

agreement that has now been signed by every other nation on Earth. His Administration has 

systematically scrubbed mentions of climate change from websites across the federal government. 

And now the President is reportedly considering a proposal to create a Presidential Committee on 

Climate and Security to counteract the findings of his own defense and intelligence officials that 

climate change is a threat to national security. 

According to a January 2019 DoD repo1i, "'the effects of a changing climate are a national security 

issue with potential impacts to DoD missions. operational plans, and installations.'' Of the 79 

installations addressed in the report, two-thirds arc vulnerable to recurrent flooding, more than onehalf are vulnerable to drought, and about one-half are vulnerable to wildfires. In response to these 

vulnerabilities. DoD has incorporated climate resilience as a cross-cutting consideration in its 

planning and decision-making processes. 

In addition to threatening our military installations, climate change contributes to competition over 

resources, which can lead to cont1ict and instability. As Former Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis 

said, '"climate change can be a driver of instability and the Depmiment ofDcfcnse must pay 

attention to potential adverse impacts generated by this phenomenon." According to the 2018 

Global Report on Internal Displacement, 61 percent of new internal displacements were triggered 

by disasters, compared with 39 percent by conflict. The World Bank has estimated that by 2050, 

more than 140 million people in sub-Saharan Africa, South Asia, and Latin America could be 

driven from their homes as '"climate migrants." lt is critical for our government to understand the 

link between climate change and migration, so that we can direct resources where appropriate to 

strengthen resilient communities and mitigate harm. 
111 

In November 2018, the Trump Administration released the Fourth National Climate Assessment 

(NCA), which assesses the science of climate change and variability and its impacts across the 

United States. According to that repo1t, ''without substantial and sustained global mitigation and 

regional adaptation efforts, climate change is expected to cause growing losses to American 

infrastructure and property and impede the rate of economic growth over this century.'' While 

industries that depend on natural resources and favorable climate conditions, including agriculture, 

tourism, and fisheries, are especially vulnerable, American businesses across the board rely heavily 

on global supply chains that will suffer price increases in products and crops. The NCA rep01t 

emphasizes that the Midwest will be disproportionately affected by higher temperatures, drought, 

and flooding, resulting in a potential 75 percent drop in corn production and 25 percent loss of its 

soybean yield. Altogether, the report projects annual losses of hundreds of billions of dollars in 

some economic sectors by the end of this century. 

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recently warned that the point of 

no return on climate change may be less than twelve years away. It is clear that climate change 

presents an urgent and monumental threat to U.S. national security. The time to act is now, before it 

is too late. 

2 
112 

Question: 

Questions for the Record from Representative Albio Sires 

How Climate Change Threatens U.S. National Security 

April2, 2019 

Climate change is not a far-off concern in the Caribbean. Its effects are already being felt in the 

form of lengthy droughts, constant flooding, rising sea levels, and increasingly frequent and 

severe hurricanes. What has been the impact of U.S. disaster preparedness programs in the 

Caribbean and what more can the U.S. be doing to support disaster risk reduction and climate 

change adaptation efforts in the region? 

Ms. Sherri Goodman: The United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the 

Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA), the United States Southern Command 

(USSOUTHCOM), and other U.S. departments and agencies have made significant investments 

in recent years to improve the disaster response capacities in the Caribbean. Disaster preparedness 

assistance helps to reduce human suffering and property Joss in the region and maintains the U.S.' 

influence and access across the Caribbean Basin. These eflorts support the Caribbean 2020 

Strategy, under the U.S.-Caribbean Strategic Engagement Act of2016 (H.R. 4939) and respond to 

priorities outlined by the Caribbean Community (CARICOM), when the Organization's 

representatives met with Vice President Pence, Deputy Secretary of State John Sullivan, and 

USAID Administrator Mark Green during 2018's Summit of the Americas in Lima. Peru.' 

Our continued aid, engagement, and presence across the Caribbean Basin (home to almost 45 

million people) is of great importance, especially at a time when China is investing heavily in the 

region, presumably with the intent of supplanting the U.S. as the region's economic partner of 

choice. 1 China's increased economic and political tics to the Caribbean represent a hemispheric 

strategic challenge that the U.S. should counter by demonstrating to Caribbean states that 

America's priorities are their priorities. 

Nevertheless, though significant gains continue to be made on the disaster preparedness front, 

there is justifiably growing concern that not enough is being done to prepare the Caribbean Basin 

for risks and consequences that extend well beyond the traditional variety of risks and shocks. 

Climate change presents an existential risk to the Caribbean community, because the phenomenon 

not only threatens to compound traditional disaster risks, but to introduce new ones, as well. There 

is little doubt that disaster preparedness, to include mitigating the kinds of destructive scenarios 

1 Tannenbaum, B. (2018, April3). Filling the Void: China's Expanding Caribbean Presence. Retrieved April 19, 

20 19, from http://www .coha.org/fi !ling-the-void-chinas-expanding -caribbean-presence/. 
113 

that climate change threatens to put in motion, is a regional imperative. As such, expanding and 

deepening our cooperation with the region on disaster preparedness in such a way that planning 

for climate change is incorporated into the front end of other critical strategic planning efforts, so 

climate-related imperatives are addressed in tandem, is arguably the most effective way for us to 

demonstrate that the American people are supportive of the region's strategic priorities. 

On the domestic front, changes made in 2018 in the form of the Disaster Recovery Reform Act 

(that was enacted into law as Title XII of the Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization 

Act) will enable the rebuilding of critical infrastructure that has been damaged or destroyed by 

natural disasters in a more resilient manner. This Title also contains measures to facilitate disaster 

preparedness and mitigation, as one avenue to address these expanding concerns. 

According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Report for Policy Makers 

(2014), "Increasing warming amplifies the exposure of small islands, low-lying coastal areas and 

deltas to the risks associated with sea level rise for many human and ecological systems. Further, 

although the number of storms is not expected to increase, the projections are that they will be 

more intense with higher rainfall rates and increased maximum winds2 Caribbean economies also 

tend to be dependent on tourism, export agriculture, and other sectors that may be sensitive to 

climate impacts, including sea level rise, storms, and changing rainfall patterns. Poor or antiquated 

critical infrastructure, such as water distribution networks, roadways, and electricity grids further 

compound resiliency-building challenges. 

Of growing concern to me is how these environmental changes and resource vulnerabilities may 

combine with pre-existing state fragilities (e.g., high unemployment that leads to economic 

instability, as well as weak govemance, lack of political will and leadership, and weak institutions 

and infrastructure) to affect the security of regional states and U.S. national security, as a result. 

The Caribbean Disaster Emergency Management Agency (CDEMAl hosted a climate changenational security event in December 2018 to facilitate a dialogue concerning the underlying 

Caribbean security risks that arc likely to be exasperated by climate change. The event produced 

the outline of an action plan explaining how the climate resilience agenda will be advanced from 

a climate change and national security perspective. This event, and promised next steps, should be 

seen as a signal that the Caribbean has a growing appreciation of the dangers manifest at the nexus 

of traditional security threats and climate change. 3 At that time (i.e., December 20 18), my 

colleagues at the Center for Climate and Security also published a report, which demonstrated and 

2 1PCC, 2014: Summary for policymakers.ln: Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Part A: 

Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Field, C.B., V.R. Barros. D.J. Dokken. K.J. Mach, M.D. Mastrandrea, 

T.E. Bilir, M. Chatterjee, K.L. Ebi, Y.O. Estrada, R.C. Genova, B. Girma, E.S. Kissel, A.N. Levy, S. MacCracken. 

P.R. Mastrandrea, and L.L.White (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, 

NY, USA, pp. 1-32. 3 Fetzek, S., & Barrett, 0. December 15). Caribbean policy brief draft- Climate security drivers in the 

Caribbean. Retrieved from 
114 

underscored some of the ways in which natural disasters and climate change impacts can converge 

with "long-standing state vulnerabilities/fragilities" to compound development woes across many 

of the region's small islands. 

It is important to note that climate change as a "threat multiplier" for traditional economic, social, 

and security vulnerabilities likely will not be limited to the territorial and maritime confines ofthe 

Caribbean Basin. The contemporary historical record shows that during periods of war, natural 

disasters, and severe economic stresses, the at-risk populations look for safe havens in America. 

The U.S., in many instances, has opened its doors to the tens of thousands of war and natural 

disaster refugees from Central America (e.g., El Salvador, Honduras, and Haiti) who, if forced to 

return home, would face life-threatening conditions.4 The climate-security nexus (i.e., climate as 

a "threat multiplier'') is not an over-the-horizon risk, but a ncar-term imperative, so I welcome the 

fact that the Caribbean emergency and disaster response entities (e.g., CDEMA) have already 

taken initial steps to meet these challenges, but they need help. 

There are several actions that the U.S. government can take to facilitate such assistance, as follow 

here and in response to Question t/2. 

Additional Recommendations: 

• The recent Ministerial for the "U.S-Caribbean Resilience Partnership contains 

recommendations to improve disaster response, including: through U.S. assistance 

to the Caribbean; aud, through civil-military coordination and training. 

Congress should not only support these two lines of efforts but should build on them 

by integrating climate-related security considerations. 

The United States-Caribbean Strategic Engagement Act of2016 (H.R. 4939) should be 

amended- or related strategic and/or other implementation documents- to incorporate 

climate-related risks and resilience planning at the front end and should tie these to the 

development challenges facing the region. 

A greater appreciation by decision-makers of the interrelationship between climate 

change and foreign policy and national security objectives should be encouraged to 

continue to enhance the "mainstreaming" of climate change and resource management 

issues and strategic planning into these arenas. Relatedly, more complex, real-world 

scenarios -- the ones that climate change impacts can help to produce - should be 

planned and "exercised" more. 

4 Cohn, D., Passel, J. S., Bialik, K., Cohn, D., Passel, J. S., & Bialik, K. (2019, March 08). Many immigrants with 

Temporary Protected Status face uncertain future in U.S. Retrieved April 20, 2019, from 

https:/lwww.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/03/08/immigrants-temporary-protected-status-in-us/. 
115 

Mr. Paul Weisenfeld: Chainnan Sires, thank you for your question and for your commitment to 

the region. I am honored to have had the opportunity- both in my current role at RTI International 

(RTI) and previously at USAID -to work on a variety of U.S. assistance programs in the Western 

Hemisphere. These programs would not be possible without the continued bipartisan support of 

this Committee and leaders like you. 

As you know, many countries throughout Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) are particularly 

vulnerable to volcanic activity, forest fires, and earthquakes, as well as extreme climate changerelated events like hurricanes and droughts. The costs of these extreme weather events cannot be 

overstated: globally, between 1998 and 2017, "[w]hile the majority of fatalities were due to 

geophysical events, mostly earthquakes and tsunamis, 91% of all disasters were caused by floods, 

storms, droughts, heatwaves and other extreme weather events.''5 Climate-related changes such as 

increasing temperatures, rising sea levels, less predictable agricultural seasons, and stronger and 

more frequent hurricanes threaten lives and livelihoods in the Caribbean, impacting both human 

safety and economic opportunity. 

During my time at RTI, I have witnessed these challenges through our work implementing the 

Regional Disaster Assistance Program (RDAP), funded by USAID's Office of Foreign Disaster 

Assistance (OFDA).6 Through this program, RTI assists OFDA to maximize response, planning, 

training, and risk reduction efforts in 27 LAC countries, including 14 Caribbean nations. 

In addition to deploying individuals and teams to support response efforts in countries within 24 

hours of when a disaster occurs, the RDAP also shares with partner country counterparts new 

knowledge and best practices in disaster response and preparedness in areas such as urban search 

and rescue (USAR), which includes first responder training, incident command system (ICS) set 

up, hazmat training, and basic life support, among other topics. 

This approach emphasizes capacity building in conjunction with response efforts to increase 

partner countries' ability to mitigate and respond to climate-related and other shocks. For example, 

government officials and regional partners arc now able to complete online trainings that cover 

several USAR topics using RDAP materials which are currently available on a platform that has 

capacity for 300 simultaneous trainees. This online training is being expanded in partnership with 

the local partners throughout LAC to include more topics and allow wider audiences to access 

standardized, high-quality training. Through the RDAP, we are also supporting efforts to 

institutionalize disaster risk reduction (DRR) through local and national educational systems. The 

project is working with local teachers and principals to include DRR in secondary and primary 

school curricula. In addition, DRR is incorporated into higher education curricula via publicprivate partnerships and regional university networks such as the Latin American and Caribbean 

University Network for DRR (REDULAC). 

I urge Congress to continue funding these critical programs as a means to support disaster risk 

reduction and reduce vulnerability to climate shocks in the region. Continuing these types of smart 

investments - in tandem with long-term economic growth and infrastructure efforts - allows the 

U.S. Government to maintain its long-standing tradition of American generosity in times of crisis, 

5 https://www.preventionweb.net/files/61119 credeconomiclosses.pdf 6 https: //www .rti .org/i mpact/bu i lding·disaster ·res iii ence·latin ·america·and·caribbean 
116 

while also contributing to countries' self-reliance. While we cannot prevent natural disasters from 

occurring, we can help partner nations - many of whom are current or future trade partners to 

prepare for and respond to crises on their own. 

Question: 

Looking ahead, what should be the top national and regional priorities for strategic planning on 

disaster preparedness and disaster-related assistance and recovery in the Caribbean? Do these 

priorities align with current national initiatives or those being undertaken by the United States 

and other actors? 

Ms. Sherri Goodman: Continued development assistance to the region is essential. This priority 

likely could be elevated by Congress and the national security and foreign policy communities. In 

addition, a "whole-of-government" approach would facilitate proactive and response efJorts, 

including incorporating resource management and climate projections into strategic planning 

efforts at the front end. The Caribbean should continue to better prepare for traditional risks posed 

by natural disasters and extreme weather events that are expected to be exacerbated by climate 

change in the future and incorporate updated predictions into strategic infrastructure, security, and 

foreign policy planning, and related emergency preparedness and response planning, efforts on the 

front end. Since climate change refers to trends, forecasting can be more difficult. Fortunately, 

forecasting and predictive tools and analytics are improving to facilitate such efforts. The U.S. 

should continue to promote multi-national and multi-sectoral strategies that enhance the adaptive 

capacity of the region to cope with climate change impacts and mitigate the causes of climate 

change in a coordinated, effective and sustainable manner. It also should enhance research and 

development efforts to further improve predictive capabilities, analytics, and methods. 

Disruptions to economic development, and related political instability or conflict witnessed in 

recent years in the Caribbean and other resource-scarce parts of the world that are especially 

vulnerable to the projected impacts of climate change, could give rise to emigration.7 Climate 

change effects threaten the region's development significantly, also due to the potential spread of 

pandemic diseases, so health issues that have implications for U.S. security and foreign policy 

objectives also must be addressed. 

Mr. Paul Weisenfeld: Looking ahead, U.S. Government strategic planning for disaster 

preparedness and disaster-related assistance and recovery in the Caribbean must continue to 

supplement immediate disaster response by building the capacity of local responders and disaster 

response systems and improving the resilience of vulnerable populations to recurring shocks, thus 

advancing the region'sjourney to self-reliance. 

7 Fctzek, S., & Barrett, 0. (2018, December 15). Caribbean policy brief draft- Climate security drivers in the 

Caribbean. Retrieved April20, 2019, from https://www.cdema.org/Caribbean policy briefClimate security drivers in the C'aribbean.docx.odf. 
117 

With the understanding that natural disasters will continue to occur, over time the RDAP 

coordinated with OFDA to shift its emphasis from disaster response to also include capacity 

building and disaster risk reduction (ORR). As I observed during my time coordinating the U.S. 

Government response to the devastating 20 I 0 earthquake in Haiti, the ability of a community to 

quickly and effectively respond to and recover from a disaster ultimately hinges upon existing 

local capacity. 

At the same time, we must approach ongoing, long-term economic growth efforts through a 

resilience lens. These programs are helping to build up and bolster existing structures and systems 

so that countries are better able to withstand and bounce back from climate-related and other 

threats, thus protecting hard-won development gains. Through the RDAP project and similar 

activities, OFDA is already addressing these above-listed priorities and helping countries in the 

Caribbean to better manage crises and sustain themselves and their populations in the long-term. 

Question: 

Chile is among the countries most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. Its government 

has responded with a National Action Plan and taken steps to reduce carbon dioxide emissions 

and improve climate resilience. 47% of the energy consumed in the country comes from 

renewable sources, aiming to reach 60% by 2035 and 90% in 2050. Energy has been the top 

investment sector during the last three years, demonstrating the commitment of the private 

sector. What can other countries learn from Chile's example in taking decisive action to mitigate 

the impacts of climate change? 

Ms. Sherri Goodman: Most island nations and virtually all other nations have promulgated 

Nationally-Determined Commitments and some form ofNational Action Plan on Climate Change, 

with clean energy and energy efficiency often featuring prominently in those plans, as well as 

significant adaptation measures. Energy remains a strategic vulnerability for the region, which, 

given the high dependence on foreign energy sources could increase the region's overall economic 

vulnerability. Electricity prices in the Caribbean are among the highest in the world, due to oil 

imports and increasing economic pressures in the region. 

China and Russia are rushing to move into developing countries to develop strategic energy and 

mineral resources, and thereby enhance their geopolitical power and strength across regions and 

the globe. The U.S. must maintain its leadership position in the world, continue to engage, and 

continue to pursue competitive economic development opportunities in key countries and regions. 

Energy, particularly clean energy development (such as solar and wind), is a key area in which to 

do so. 

In addition, many of the larger Caribbean nations have taken measurable actions to facilitate multisectoral approaches as well as to raise the profile of climate change by assigning responsibility for 
118 

this issue via a named portfolio in their respective governments. Further, like Chile, most 

Caribbean states appreciate the cross-cutting nature of climate change and that there is a need to 

develop an integrated approach in order to effectively build resilience at all levels. 8 

In 2002, the Caribbean Common Market (CARICOM) took a major step in self-organizing to 

address the climate change challenge, when it established a regional climate change coordinating 

mechanism, namely, the ~)ribhcan Communit\ Climate Chpm.:c Ccntn:_(CCCCC). The so-called 

'"5-Cs" mandate is to "support the people of the Caribbean as they address the impact of climate 

variability and change on all aspects of economic development." The Centre not only provides 

"timely forecasts and analyses of potentially hazardous impacts of both natural and man-induced 

climatic changes on the environment," but is also an Accredited Entity (AE) (i.e., through the 

Green Climate Fund) authorized to enable member states to access United Nations' funding for 

climate adaptation and mitigation programs and projects. 

Additional Recommendations: 

Specific lines of actions to be pursued include: 

Question: 

• Encourage government ministries and agencies to showcase best practices and 

serve as models for their societies in terms of deploying renewable energy and 

energy efficiency technologies and policies; 

Diversify electricity and fuel supplies to the greatest extent feasible, particularly 

toward clean energy resources, with ambitious goals for deploying renewable 

resources and energy efficiency; and, 

• Modernize energy infrastructure, including through the use of advanced grid 

technologies and capabilities. 

We know that natural disasters often force people to flee their homeland. In the last 20 years, the 

U.S. has provided temporary protected status to individuals from countries like Honduras and 

Haiti, who were displaced by natural disasters. Unfortunately, this administration is working to 

end the TPS program, a decision that I strongly oppose. Do you predict that climate change will 

contribute to increased migration from Central American and Caribbean countries and what 

policies should we consider to address this challenge? 

Ms. Sherri Goodman: Yes, because climate change is projected to exacerbate the impacts on 

already-scarce resources, such as food, water, and energy, particularly in areas prone to droughts 

8 Climate Change Policy Framework for Jamaica. (2015, September 12). Retrieved April20, 2019, from 

http://www .1se.ac. uk!Grantham lnstitute/wp-contcntluploads/20 16/0 5/ Jamaica-Climate-Change-Policy-fwL2015.pdf, authored by: Ministry of Land Water and Climate Change. 
119 

and floods that are dependent on agriculture, herding, or fishing for their livelihoods. Thus, climate 

change could be a factor that contributes to increased movements of populations within and/or 

across borders in or from Central America and the Caribbean. 

Unfortunately, as you noted, the TPS status of some nations is threatened. This comes at a time 

when nations in the region are facing threats from economic and political instability, drug and 

gang violence, compounded by extreme weather events. For example, some in El Salvador, 

Honduras, and Nicaragua are struggling to overcome a protracted drought, which continues to fuel 

a step migration process. Thus, I recommend the following measures. 

Additional Recommendations: 

• Continue/extend TPS for countries facing crises, such as El Salvador, Haiti, 

Honduras, and Nicaragua. 

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security should engage CAR! COM (including 

with involvement from CDEMA and CCCCC, as appropriate) to formulate 

contingency plans for more likely mass migration scenarios. 

• Invite CDEMA, as appropriate, to participate in U.S.- sponsored mass migration 

exercise scripting (e.g., Department of Homeland Security's Integrated Advance). 

Relatedly, plan and "exercise" more complex, real-world scenarios --the ones that 

climate change impacts are likely to yield. 

'The U.S. States-Caribbean Strategic Engagement Act of2016 bill declares that it is U.S. policy to increase 

engagement with the governments of the Caribbean region, including the private sector, and with civil society in 

both the United States and the Caribbean. The Department of State shall submit to Congress a multi-year strategy for 

U.S. engagement to support the efforts of interested nations in the Caribbean region that identities State Department 

and U.S. Agency for International Development (USA !D) priorities for U.S. policy towards the Caribbean region. 
120 

Question: 

Questions for the Record from Representative Chris Smith 

How Climate Change Threatens U.S. National Security 

April2, 2019 

There is a lot of bipartisan support for our Power Africa initiative. 

a. Can you elaborate on Power Africa's objectives, particularly with regard to the 

expanding the power grid and building resiliency? 

Mr. Paul Weiscnfeld: Representative Smith, let me begin by thanking you for your long-standing 

and passionate support for U.S. investments in Africa- especially your early support for USAID's 

Power Africa program and its establishing legislation, the Electrify Africa Act of2015 (PL 114-

121 ). The continued success of this critical program is dependent on champions in Congress like 

you. 

As you know. Power Africa was launched in 2013 in order to increase access to power in subSaharan Africa by leveraging technical and legal experts, the private sector, and governments from 

around the world. Power Africa's goal is to add more than 30,000 megawatts of cleaner, more 

efficient electricity generation capacity and create 60 million new home and business connections. 1 

At RTI, we are proud to be implementing two Power Africa programs: the Power Africa Off-Grid 

Project and the East Africa Energy Program. The Power Africa Off-Grid Project is a four-year 

program that provides technical assistance and targeted grant funding to support the development 

of Africa's off-grid solar home system and mini-grid sectors. To date, the larger Power Africa 

initiative this program supports has worked with approximately 150 off-grid companies and 

investors in over 10 sub-Saharan African countries. 

The East Africa Energy Program is a four-year project that aims to expand affordable and reliable 

electricity services in East Africa. It focuses on optimizing the region's power supply, increasing 

grid-based power connections, strengthening utilities, and increasing the region's power trade. 

Mr. Barry K. Worthington: The launch of Power Africa 2.0 in 2018 increased the initiative's 

focus on expanding and strengthening transmission and distribution grid infrastructure. 

Transmission in particular will play a key role in unlocking greater power supply and 

facilitating electricity trade between neighboring countries. To date, many African governments 

and development partners have focused on advancing country-based approaches to power 

generation and transmission. As a result, some countries now have national supply surpluses and 

stranded power assets, while others face critical supply shortages. The ability for electricity trade 

to flow from areas of surplus to areas of demand is severely constrained, within and across 

1 https://www.usaid.gov/powerafrica/aboutus 
121 

borders. Expanded transmission infrastructure enables regional trade, which enhances resiliency 

and energy security. Specifically, regional transmission enables the development of more costefficient energy resources even when they are located in remote areas far from major population 

centers. It also helps regions achieve greater economics of scale in electricity generation, resulting 

in reduced costs and enhanced affordability for end-users. Finally, regional transmission 

enhances security by creating a larger, more diverse energy portfolio that helps insulate individual 

countries from unexpected events like drought. 

In 2018, Power Africa published its Transmission Roadmap to 2030, which aims to enhance 

cooperation among major stakeholders by identifying the transmission projects most critical to 

cross-border electricity trade and highlighting bottlenecks and risks of delay. Power Africa 

identified 18 priority transmission projects in East, West, and Southem Africa, and prioritized 

them based on their potential to unlock regional trade, their scheduled completion time, and the 

feasibility of resolving the bottlenecks they face. Together these projects represent the potential 

for a combined installed capacity of 11,000+ megawatts (MW) and 7,200+ kilometers (km) of 

lines. The Transmission Roadmap also proposes an Action Plan to facilitate accelerated action in 

the development partner community, building on existing efforts at the sub-regional level. This 

will enable public and private stakeholders to identify potential gaps in the support provided to 

priority projects and facilitate cross-regional dialogue to address these gaps. 

Power Africa is already providing concrete support to the transmission sector. In Southem Africa, 

USAID has embedded a full-time Project Coordinator to manage the development of a 560 

km, 400 kV transmission line needed to evacuate power from a planned 400 MW gas plant in 

Mozambique. In addition, the U.S. Trade and Development Agency (USTDA) is providing 

transmission design advisory services to the planned Mozambique-Zambia 400 kV transmission 

interconnector, including detailed design and technical inputs for tender documents for the 

engineering, procurement and construction contractor. 

Power Africa's expanded focus on transmission has also leveraged increased resources from our 

development partners. Jn May 2018, USAID Administrator Mark Green signed a 

Memorandum Of Understanding between Power Africa and the Republic of Korea. In this 

agreement, the Republic of Korea committed to adding I ,000 kilometers of transmission lines in 

Africa and providing $1 billion in power sector investment. 
122 

Question: 

b. How do efforts to enhance resiliency with respect to Power Africa interact with our 

national security objectives in Africa? 

Mr. Paul Weisenfeld: As you know, access to electricity is not just an economic issue- it touches 

every aspect of society. Administrator Green outlined this connection best in the most recent Power 

Africa annual report, stating, "Lack of access to electricity in much of sub-Saharan Africa does 

more than just stunt economic growth. It leaves large swaths of population trapped in living 

conditions that make economic progress nearly impossible. It reduces the potential of agricultural 

yields, and the effectiveness of health care delivery." 2 As we have seen through our work, when 

access to reliable and affordable electricity is threatened, community cornerstones such as 

businesses, schools, and hospitals struggle to operate. 

Helping governments fulfill their responsibility of ensuring reliable access to energy for their 

communities promotes prosperity and security. As you know, communities that do not have viable 

opportunities for prosperity or suffer from weak governance are those most vulnerable to 

instability, including disease outbreaks, migration, and extremism- all of which threaten U.S. 

investments and interests not only in Africa but our national security here at home too. We have 

seen this most acutely with the Ebola outbreaks in West Africa in 2014 and the rise of extremist 

groups throughout Africa. Ensuring reliable and affordable access to power, and thus enhancing 

communities' resilience, is an important and cost-effective piece of preventing these types of 

threats before they emerge. 

For this reason, our Power Africa Off-Grid Project is collaborating with the Office of Transition 

Initiatives (OTT) at USAID to help counter violent extremism by strengthening civil society and 

promoting economic growth through off-grid electrification in multiple countries in West Africa. 

Electrification will enable rural communities in this region to access a variety of technologies, 

including wireless communications, water pumps, computers, lighting, refrigeration, and medical 

equipment. In turn, access to these technologies will promote economic growth in the education, 

food security, health, information, and public spaces thereby strengthening the communities' 

resilience and, ultimately, our U.S. national security. 

Mr. Barry K. Worthington: Power Africa's efforts to strengthen, diversify, and expand power 

systems across sub-Saharan Africa makes countries more resilient to economic and 

environmental shocks. With enhanced stability and resilience, countries are able to plan their 

future power systems more proactively and on longer time horizons, providing increased clarity 

and transparency to the private sector. In addition, this helps ensure that rather than procuring 

power in moments of crisis, African countries will continue the trend of procuring power 

competitively, opening up expanded opportunities to US firms and like-minded partners. 

2 pl, https://www.usaid.gov/sites/defaultlfiles/documents/1860/2018-Annual Report1015 508.pdf 

3 
123 

Æ 

Question: 

c. To what extent does our Power Africa initiative attempt to be "climate change neutral?" 

Mr. Paul Weisenfeld: At RTI, we are proud to be implementing two Power Africa programs: the 

Power Africa Off-Grid Project and the East Africa Energy Program. These two projects' scopes 

of work focus on increasing access to electricity with the ultimate goal of supporting development 

priorities, including inclusive economic growth, security, and improved health and education 

outcomes. To achieve these goals, our teams focus on leveraging private sector engagement, 

driving economic development, and encouraging productive uses and outcomes related to health, 

education, agriculture, and more. While "climate change neutral" is not a stated objective of the 

programs, our work does include a variety of energy low-emissions energy generation and 

distribution technologies both on- and off-grid, including solar home systems and mini-grids. 

Mr. Barry K. Worthington: Per the Electrify Africa Act of 2015, Power Africa promotes an 

"all-of-the-above energy development strategy" that focuses on advancing a diverse portfolio of 

solutions that align with both market demand and the development objectives of African 

countries. This includes oil, natural gas, coal, hydropower, wind, solar, and geothermal. To date, 

approximately two-thirds of the generation projects that Power Africa has supported have been 

renewable. 

4