U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

56–054PDF 2010

COMBATING CLIMATE CHANGE IN AFRICA

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA AND GLOBAL HEALTH

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

APRIL 15, 2010

Serial No. 111–105

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

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

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California, Chairman 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

BILL DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

DIANE E. WATSON, California 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

MICHAEL E. MCMAHON, New York 

JOHN S. TANNER, Tennessee 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

LYNN WOOLSEY, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

BARBARA LEE, California 

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

DAVID SCOTT, Georgia 

JIM COSTA, California 

KEITH ELLISON, Minnesota 

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, Arizona 

RON KLEIN, Florida 

VACANT 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

DAN BURTON, Indiana 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

RON PAUL, Texas 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

J. GRESHAM BARRETT, South Carolina 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina 

GUS BILIRAKIS, Florida 

RICHARD J. KESSLER, Staff Director 

YLEEM POBLETE, Republican Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA AND GLOBAL HEALTH

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey, Chairman 

DIANE E. WATSON, California 

BARBARA LEE, California 

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

LYNN WOOLSEY, California 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

Jonathan Pershing, Ph.D., Deputy Special Envoy, Office of the Special Envoy 

for Climate Change, United States Department of State ................................. 8

Mr. Franklin Moore, Deputy Assistant Administrator, Bureau for Africa, Office of the Assistant Administrator, United States Agency for International 

Development ......................................................................................................... 16

His Excellency Leon M. Rajaobelina, Chairman of the Board, Madagascar 

Foundation for Protected Areas and Biodiversity (Former Malagasy Ambassador to the United States) ................................................................................. 45

Fred Boltz, Ph.D., Senior Vice-President, Global Strategies, Conservation 

International ......................................................................................................... 52

Kenneth P. Green, D.Env., Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute ... 58

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

The Honorable Donald M. Payne, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of New Jersey, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Africa and Global 

Health: Prepared statement ................................................................................ 3

Jonathan Pershing, Ph.D.: Prepared statement ................................................... 11

Mr. Franklin Moore: Prepared statement ............................................................. 18

His Excellency Leon M. Rajaobelina: Prepared statement .................................. 48

Fred Boltz, Ph.D.: Prepared statement .................................................................. 55

Kenneth P. Green, D.Env.: Prepared statement ................................................... 61

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 80

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 81

The Honorable Diane E. Watson, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of California: Prepared statement ............................................................ 82

The Honorable Donald M. Payne: Material submitted for the record ................. 85

Questions submitted for the record by the Honorable Earl Blumenauer, a 

Representative in Congress from the State of Oregon (responses not received prior to printing) ....................................................................................... 91

(1)

COMBATING CLIMATE CHANGE IN AFRICA 

THURSDAY, APRIL 15, 2010

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA AND GLOBAL HEALTH, 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m. in room 

2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Donald M. Payne 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. PAYNE. Good morning. The hearing will come to order. Let 

me thank you for joining the Subcommittee on Africa and Global 

Health here this morning for this critically important hearing entitled Combating Climate Change in Africa. 

The threat of climate change is serious and extreme, and it is 

very urgent that we take a look at it. While the impact is felt in 

every country around the world, developing countries have disproportionately experienced the devastating effects of climate 

change. 

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change, the IPCC, has reported that in 2008 alone more than 20 

million people were displaced by sudden climate-related disasters; 

an estimated 200 million people could be displaced as a result of 

climate impact by 2050; climate change currently contributes to the 

global burden of disease and premature deaths, and adverse health 

impacts from diseases like malaria, dengue and diarrhea will be 

greatest in the low-income countries. 

African countries in particular are most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, such as desertification. Many countries—

for example, Kenya and Ethiopia—increasingly face extreme 

droughts and serious floods, making their population more food insecure and more prone to diseases associated with malnutrition. 

The United Nations reported in 2009 that approximately 23 million 

people in seven East African countries relied on food aid due to 

decimated crops from a decade of poor rains. 

Addressing climate change is a vital component of development, 

and we must devise cost-effective adaptation assistance targeted at 

the most vulnerable communities in Africa. Conservation farming, 

storing water in time of drought and early warning systems can 

have a tremendous impact in preparing communities for disasters. 

Strengthening methods of assessment of adaptation, providing education and training for public awareness and building capacity are 

also critical components of combating climate change. 

The United States has committed to providing technical support 

and financial assistance to combat climate change. In the fiscal 

2

2010 Congressional Budget Justification for Foreign Operations or 

CBJ, President Obama requested funding for global climate change 

and related clean energy assistance for Africa totaling $104.6 million, $95 million in development assistance and $9.6 million in economic support funds. 

In addition to adaptation programs, strong mitigation policies are 

essential to combating this global crisis. We must begin to reverse 

the damage that has been done by reducing growth in greenhouse 

gases emissions while promoting energy efficiency, forest conservation and biodiversity. 

African countries contribute comparatively low levels of greenhouse gas emissions, the GHGs. The International Energy Agency 

estimates African nations emitted only 3 percent of world carbon 

dioxide, CO2, from human-related sources in 2007. However, Africa 

is likely to warm more than the global average. That is not fair. 

Without policies to significantly reduce global GHG emissions, 

most climate models project the global average temperature to rise 

above natural variations by at least 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit above 

the 1990 levels. The current global rates of deforestation contribute 

to more than 20 percent of human-caused greenhouse gas emissions, which makes deforestation a considerable contributor to 

human-induced climate change. 

The African Union’s common African position has given priority 

to adaptation, but African nations must also develop policies now 

that will reduce carbon emissions in the future. The United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen was an historical 

first step in the global effort to aggressively combat climate change. 

The Conference was attended by 120 heads of state and laid out 

ambitious points of action. Although it fell short of legally binding 

agreements, countries made significant financial commitments, and 

we must follow through on those commitments and work toward a 

legally binding agreement sometime in the future. 

Climate change impacts every aspect of development, from reducing poverty, to economic growth, to peace and stability. The challenges are great indeed. However, combating climate change can be 

an opportunity. African nations can leapfrog some of the steps 

western nations took and mistakes that they made in their development. 

The 2004 Nobel Peace Prize winner, Wangari Maathai of Kenya, 

said,

‘‘We have a responsibility to protect the rights of generations, 

of all species, that cannot speak for themselves today. The 

global challenge of climate change requires that we ask no less 

of our leaders or ourselves.’’

We in the United States must work with the leaders and civil society of African nations to combat climate change and its effects 

and infuse these efforts into our development framework. I sincerely thank the panel of esteemed witnesses for testifying before 

us today and sharing their insights on what we as a nation are 

doing and what more must be done to address this critical issue. 

I will now turn to our ranking member, Mr. Smith, for his opening remarks. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Payne follows:]

3


56054f-1.eps
4


56054f-2.eps
5


56054f-3.eps
6

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you 

for calling this very important hearing. In the past year and particularly since the British climate-gate scandal of last November, 

the debate on climate issues has been more vigorous than ever. 

Whereas in the past the views of some climate scientists were ignored or suppressed, that is changing dramatically, and I for one 

welcome this. I have been following the arguments closely and believe that this debate must continue in light of concerns of manipulated data and efforts to suppress dissenting views within the scientific community, and we need to re-examine all the relevant 

questions with an open mind. 

I look forward to going over some of those fundamental questions 

with our witnesses. Is the climate really changing and how significantly? To what extent are the changes caused by human behavior? 

What can we reasonably expect the consequences to be, and how 

can we best respond? 

One of our witnesses today who is an expert on climate change 

and on issues related to it, Kenneth Green, was resident scholar at 

the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. He is 

a man who has served as Executive Director of the Environmental 

Literacy Council, Chief Scientist for the Center for Studies and 

Risk, Regulation and Environment at the Fraser Institute, and he 

has also been an expert reviewer on the U.N. Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change Working Group in 2001. 

He makes a very important point in his piece, and I would ask 

unanimous consent that it be made a part of the record——

Mr. PAYNE. Without objection. 

Mr. SMITH [continuing]. Called Climate Change: The Resilience 

Option, by Kenneth Green, which was published in October 2009. 

[NOTE: The information referred to is not reprinted here but is 

available in committee records.] 

Mr. SMITH. I would hope that members would take the time to 

read it, but one question that he asks is, ‘‘What is better,’’—this is 

his quote—‘‘climate resilience or climate stasis?’’

In general, the mainstream response to the issue of climate 

change has been reactive, pessimistic, authoritarian and resistant 

to change. Those alarmed about changing climate would stand 

earthward the stream of climate history and cry stop. Enough. 

Rather than working to cease human influence on climate, they 

want to find a way to make the climate stand still. 

This focus on creating climate stasis has led to policy proposals 

that would have been laughed at or dismissed as wacky conspiracy 

theories in the 1980s, but mainstream anticlimate change activists 

are proposing nothing less than the establishment of global weather control through energy rationing, regulations and taxes, all managed by a global bureaucracy with a goal of leading humanity into 

a future that will become smaller, more costly and less dynamic 

over time. Throughout his piece he makes a point talking about the 

resilience option, and I hope that he will expand upon that during 

his testimony. 

Mr. Chairman, much is at stake for Africa. Home to hundreds of 

millions of people who at present are ill-equipped to deal with any 

of the potentially bad side effects of climate change that some AfriVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:19 Aug 23, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\AGH\041510\56054 HFA PsN: SHIRL
7

can experts fear—crop failures, drought, desertification, disease, 

flooding in the coastal cities and mass migration. 

Most experts see Africa because of its developing economy as 

more vulnerable than any other continent to the risks of climate 

change. Mr. Chairman, because of its emerging development, Africa 

creates relatively little of the greenhouse gases some experts blame 

for the climate change, and there is little the policies of the African 

Governments can do to affect the African climate per se. 

This means we have a responsibility, in concert with real risk, 

to bear in mind that the people of Africa with whom we share our 

planet as we consider questions regarding climate change and, 

most importantly, the appropriate response, a responsibility we can 

perhaps meet best by helping African countries to become more resilient. 

But most of all, I believe Congress has to get this right and right 

now. This means we need to re-engage in the scientific and policy 

debates over climate change. Those debates are far from over. 

Again, I thank you for calling this very important hearing and 

yield back. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you. Congresswoman Woolsey? 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to be very 

quick. As CRS has noted, induced climate changes are expected to 

increase water stress, reduce arable land areas and crop productivity, reduce fishery productivity, increase malnutrition, increase 

coastal hazards and expand disease vectors. So all of this means 

fewer jobs, more pandemic illness, more displaced people, and it 

will undoubtedly lead to political and social instability. 

So my ears will be open. My questions today will be about how 

is climate change directly related to Africa’s and by extension the 

United States’ own security and what can the United States do to 

help Africa in that regard. So thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much. Our first panel we will hear 

from Dr. Jonathan Pershing, deputy special envoy for climate 

change. Dr. Pershing has served as deputy special envoy for climate change since March 2009. In this capacity as deputy special 

envoy, he is the head of delegation for the United Nations Climate 

Change Negotiations. 

From 1990 to 1998, he served as deputy director and science advisor for the Office of Global Change at the U.S. Department of 

State. Before joining the State Department, Dr. Pershing headed 

World Resources Institute’s Climate and Energy Program and was 

a faculty member at American University and the University of 

Minnesota. 

From 1998 to 2004, Dr. Pershing headed the Energy and Environmental Division of the International Energy Agency 

headquartered in Paris, France. Dr. Pershing earned a doctorate of 

philosophy in geophysics and is the author of many articles and 

books on climate change and climate policy. 

Also joining our first panel is Mr. Franklin Moore, deputy assistant administrator for the Bureau of Africa at the United States 

International Development Agency (USAID). A career member of 

the Senior Executive Service, Franklin C. Moore was appointed as 

deputy assistant administrator for the U.S. Agency for International Development’s Africa Bureau in January 2008. 

8

Previous to his appointment, Mr. Moore served as director of the 

Office of Environmental and Science Policy within the Agency’s Bureau for Economic Growth in Agriculture and Trade since October 

2002. Additionally, Mr. Moore has served as acting deputy assistant administrator and director for the Agency’s Global Center for 

the Environment. He received a master’s degree in agricultural economics, as well as a certificate in African Studies from the University of Wisconsin at Madison. Mr. Moore also studied for his Ph.D. 

in development studies at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. 

Mr. Moore has lived in both Western and Southern Africa. He 

has worked in approximately 40 countries overseas and was instrumental in getting the United States to join the Convention on 

Desertification, which was approved by the Senate about 8 or 9 

years ago. It is really a pleasure to have both of you with us. 

Dr. Pershing? 

STATEMENT OF JONATHAN PERSHING, PH.D., DEPUTY SPECIAL ENVOY, OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL ENVOY FOR CLIMATE 

CHANGE, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Mr. PERSHING. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Smith and Representative Woolsey, thank you very much for having a chance to 

testify before you today. I have provided a longer version of my testimony for the record, which if it would be okay I would like to 

summarize here in just some brief comments. 

Mr. PAYNE. Without objection. 

Mr. PERSHING. This is my first appearance before this subcommittee, and I very, very appreciate your holding this hearing 

and indeed your interest in the issue. It is one which I think you 

all have noted will affect the entire world, but which you have also 

noted will affect the poorest and the most vulnerable, a great many 

of whom are in Africa, perhaps the soonest and the most severely. 

Let me echo some of the comments that you have each made 

about the severity of the problem. It is an issue which has garnered 

unprecedented international attention. At the U.N. Climate Convention session in Copenhagen in December, as you noted, Mr. 

Chairman, more than 120 heads of state participated—unprecedented—including 23 from Africa. At that meeting, due in no small 

part to the personal participation of President Obama and Secretary Clinton, we adopted the Copenhagen Accord. 

The Accord does a number of key things. It calls for countries to 

limit greenhouse gas emissions to a level that would avoid some of 

the damages that we have been talking about, a rise of less than 

two degrees Celsius. It calls for both developed and developing 

countries to list the specific actions or targets they intend to set toward a take to cut their emissions. 

It calls for full transparency in that process and it sets some provisions for financing, globally approaching $30 billion over the next 

3 years and setting a goal of mobilizing $100 billion a year from 

both public and private sources by 2020. And finally it calls for establishing some new technology mechanisms, enhanced action on 

adaptation, key for this region in particular, new incentives for forest protection, also critical for this particular reason. 

African nations were extremely active in the negotiations of the 

agreement in Copenhagen. The session marked the first time that 

9

the region had a common position, and the African Union subsequently endorsed the Accord at its summit earlier this year. 

I want to make one additional point, which has to do with U.S. 

activities. The world pays enormous attention to what we do, and 

your own efforts here in Congress are closely watched. I wanted to 

warmly commend and thank the House of Representatives for moving our country one vital step forward by passing the American 

Clean Energy and Security Act. 

The passage of this bill had a major impact on the nature of our 

international discussions and demonstrated that the U.S. is serious 

about climate change and clean energy. It is clear from the ongoing 

international negotiations that the world eagerly awaits similar 

progress on legislation in the Senate. 

Let me turn to Africa for a moment then. Africa’s share, as you 

noted, Mr. Chairman, of greenhouse gas emissions is very small. 

Sub-Saharan Africa, only about 6 percent of global emissions of the 

six greenhouse gases, and as was also noted about 3 percent of the 

CO2 on the energy side, but it encompasses about 12 percent of the 

global population. 

But as you have also noted, if emissions are relatively modest, 

the impacts are not. Africa is one of the most vulnerable continents 

to climate change, and the vulnerability is exacerbated by a range 

of challenges such as poverty, governance and the all too frequent 

natural disasters and conflicts. 

The litany is sobering. Just a few. Seventy percent of families are 

dependent on agriculture. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change projects that agricultural production and food security is 

likely to be severely compromised. Also according to the IPCC, the 

population at risk of increased water stress—something that you 

have done a great deal of work on—is projected to rise by between 

75 and 250 million people due to climate change. That is by 2020. 

By 2050, water stress could affect 350 to 600 million people in Africa. 

Climate change may also contribute to conflict. A recent report 

co-authored by the Institute for Sustainable Development and the 

Institute for Security Studies identifies links between climate 

change and conflict in Africa due to water scarcity, limited arable 

land, increasing floods and droughts. 

We recognize that successfully addressing climate change in Africa will acquire political commitment on the part of leaders, broader 

engagement by local communities and civil institutions and practical results-oriented activity on the ground. To support that, we 

have proposed substantial increases in foreign assistance. 

The Fiscal Year 2010 appropriation includes approximately $1 

billion for international climate efforts to the Department of State, 

the Department of Treasury and the U.S. Agency for International 

Development. The President’s Fiscal Year 2011 budget of about 

$1.4 billion targets these same agencies, and the contribution is 

split between bilateral assistance and contributions to multilateral 

climate change programs. 

In addition, the Fiscal Year 2011 budget request would allow 

several other agencies to provide technical and financial assistance 

with a climate focus, approximately $100 million, and would proVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:19 Aug 23, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\AGH\041510\56054 HFA PsN: SHIRL
10

vide an additional approximately $400 million from nonclimate specific activities that have climate benefits. 

The fact that our climate assistance goes through a variety of 

mechanisms makes it a bit hard to say exactly how much goes to 

every specific recipient, but we estimate about 20 percent of the 

State and USAID climate assistance in 2010 and around 30 percent 

of the total in 2011 would benefit African countries. 

In closing, let me raise just a few points. Climate change is a 

both real and an unfortunately accelerating threat. The U.S. and 

the world must act quickly and aggressively to curb our emissions 

if we are to avoid the most severe damages. We can and we should 

assist the world’s most vulnerable to adapt to the effects of climate 

change and to help support developing countries in building their 

capacity to develop low emissions and sustainable pathways that, 

as Mr. Smith has stated, need to be resilient. 

Efforts to address the impacts of climate change and support low 

carbon development in Africa will serve U.S. strategic priorities. It 

will strengthen democracy, increase investment, improve health, 

help present conflict and effectively address transnational challenges. 

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to answering any questions you and the members of the committee may 

have. Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pershing follows:]

11


56054b-1.eps
12


56054b-2.eps
13


56054b-3.eps
14


56054b-4.eps
15


56054b-5.eps
16

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Moore? 

STATEMENT OF MR. FRANKLIN MOORE, DEPUTY ASSISTANT 

ADMINISTRATOR, BUREAU FOR AFRICA, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, UNITED STATES AGENCY FOR 

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT 

Mr. MOORE. Good morning, Chairman Payne, Ranking Member 

Smith and Representatives Watson and Woolsey. Thank you for the 

opportunity to testify before you again. I have submitted testimony 

for the record, but with your concurrence would like to make a 

short statement. 

Mr. PAYNE. Without objection. 

Mr. MOORE. Climate change is one of the premier development 

challenges of our generation. In my statement I will concentrate on 

two points: Adaptation because of its relationship to resiliency and 

our interaction with African organizations, including the African 

Union. 

If climate risks and opportunities are not taken into account 

across the entire portfolio of the United States’ development efforts, 

if we continue what is called business as usual, if there is not a 

twinning of climate and development, then we risk making investments that will fail to meet long-term development objectives or, 

worse, make Africa even more vulnerable to the effects of climate 

change. 

For example, coastal development pursued without consideration 

to a long-term rise in sea levels can put human lives and economic 

endeavors at risk. Populations that are not the most vulnerable 

now may become more vulnerable 20 to 30 years from now because 

of the results of climate change. Twenty to thirty years from now 

the route into and out of poverty may change. Access to food and 

water may change, and burdens of disease may change. 

As you have mentioned, Mr. Chairman, as Dr. Pershing also 

mentioned, in particular for Africa the reductions in soil moisture, 

changes in water cycles and the effect that has on a continent 

where 71 percent of the land is arid, semi-arid or dry subhumid 

will be tremendous. We can come back to that in questions if you 

would like. 

Adaptation to climate change is about proactively taking these 

expected shifts into account in our development planning rather 

than responding later when we will not be as effective, adaptations 

to actions taken to help communities and ecosystems cope with actual and expected changes in climate by building resilience. This 

adaptation can be achieved by first reducing exposure, establishing 

disaster plans or building codes that prevent construction in highly 

vulnerable places. 

Second, reducing sensitivity, planting better adapted crops or 

building more robust infrastructure and, third, increasing adaptive 

capacity, diversifying economic activities, building human capacity, 

improving access to information and early warning systems. 

How do we make adaptation investments? USAID is taking three 

routes. First, science and analysis for decision making. USAID will 

make investments in scientific capacity to improve climate informaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:19 Aug 23, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\AGH\041510\56054 HFA PsN: SHIRL
17

tion predictions and analysis to identify vulnerable populations, 

sectors, ecosystems, regions and activities. 

Second, effective governance for climate resilience. USAID will 

invest in diffusing this information and improving the capacity to 

use climate information in an analysis and decision making, including improving public communication and education, the strengthening of communities and civil society and private sector engagement to improve our performance in implementing climate-proof 

activities. 

This will lead to the integration of adaptation strategies into development solutions across the broad range of the development 

portfolio. In some cases, the insertion of business as usual will need 

to be reversed through examples, so our third group will be in some 

cases to implement climate solutions. 

Let me turn briefly to the subject of organizations. The African 

Union is increasing its capacity to become operational. Next week, 

during consultations between the AU and the United States, 

USAID will begin a discussion leading to a formal memorandum of 

understanding that will assist our ability to provide more operational support in a variety of areas, including climate change, in 

particular the African Union’s ClimDev Program. 

However, AID has long worked with a number of African subregional organizations. With the Economic Community of West African States, ECOWAS, we have worked on access to energy, including reducing the flaring of natural gas associated with oil production. 

We are working with the Secretariat of the Southern African Development Community, SADC, to assist and facilitate investments 

in energy infrastructure projects that also lower the carbon footprint. 

We have worked with the Common Market for Eastern Southern 

Africa, COMESA, its Working Group on Climate, Agriculture, Forests, Land Use and Livelihoods, to highlight best practices, create 

enabling conditions and highlight innovative sources of finance. 

Our broadest and most useful impacts have been with SILS in 

West Africa where we focused on food security and natural resource management and with COMESA where we focused on conservation farming, as mentioned by you, Mr. Chairman. 

We must act quickly and effectively to help Africa prepare for the 

wide ranging, long lasting environmental and human challenges 

that climate change will bring. Without effective adaptation, Africa 

will only see the threats that cause hunger, disease and conflict increase, but if we work together to address climate change across 

every sector we can forge a way forward that not only prepares Africa’s most vulnerable people to cope with new pressures, but also 

creates better opportunities, better living conditions and better 

lives. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Smith and 

members of the subcommittee for your support. I look forward to 

the questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Moore follows:]

18


56054a-1.eps
19


56054a-2.eps
20


56054a-3.eps
21


56054a-4.eps
22


56054a-5.eps
23


56054a-6.eps
24


56054a-7.eps
25


56054a-8.eps
26

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much. I thank both of you for your 

very interesting testimony. 

Dr. Pershing, in your opinion what are the main pillars of the 

Africa Union’s (AU) common position, which defines Africa’s collective agenda in the international climate change talks? 

Mr. PERSHING. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. There are 

a number of elements to it. They have talked about looking for equity. Their view is that at the moment the process is one which I 

think you have pointed out. They are a very small share of the 

total contribution to global emissions, but a disproportionately 

large share of the impacts, and they are looking really at the inequity of that kind of circumstance. 

They are looking for assistance. They are looking to find themselves ways that we, the world—not just the United States, but 

other donor nations around the world—can help them emerge from 

this period of development with a more sustainable pathway. That 

includes efficiencies in the energy sector. That includes improvements in the land use and forestry sector, and it also includes resilience and adaptation capacity for the damages that we all see coming and can’t avoid. 

And then finally they would like to have a more significant voice 

in the negotiations. Their view is that historically they have been 

really underrepresented in the process. There has been a concern 

that the African community more widely doesn’t tend to have a 

voice at the small tables, and if they do that voice is a single individual who is vastly outnumbered by others from the developing 

world, as well as the developed world, and so part of their hope is 

to be more active. 

They have been living up to this. I came back from the most recent round of negotiations just on Monday, and over the course of 

the weekend, in which we had a short discussion, the Africans 

played a much more active and very constructive role. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you. How would you actually characterize the 

U.S. response to the AU’s common position? 

Mr. PERSHING. We have been quite supportive of it. There are a 

number of key elements, and I just list the three that I walked 

through. 

With respect to the issue of this equity problem, we have made 

a clear case that we expect a great deal more from the major economies than we expect from the poorest and the least capable ones, 

many of those in Africa. 

It doesn’t rule out all of the Africas. We actually have expectations for South Africa that are quite substantial, and they are living up to them, but we make a distinction between those who don’t 

have capacity and need assistance and those who do have capacity 

and should be pressed to move forward. 

We have been working with them. We had some very extensive 

consultations with them in the run-up to Copenhagen and since 

then in the context of the negotiations to help elicit the positions 

that they are worried about and to help them both frame them and 

bring them into the mainstream of the discussion. 

And we have been focused very extensively in our financial dealings and in our financial efforts both in terms of the development 

of our administration’s budget, as well as in considering the multiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:19 Aug 23, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\AGH\041510\56054 HFA PsN: SHIRL
27

lateral financing on the needs of this community as they have been 

articulating themselves. 

Mr. PAYNE. And finally, although the Africa Union’s common African position has given a priority, as we mentioned, to adaptation, 

are there appropriate ways for African nations to contribute to 

greenhouse gas emissions mitigation as well? 

Mr. PERSHING. Thank you very much. Yes, there are quite a 

number and some very significant. 

If we take a look at the major forest basins around the world, 

there are three that we probably are most focused on. We all think 

often about the Amazon Basin. We think about Southeast Asia. 

Many people don’t think so much about the Congo River Basin. It 

is an extraordinary resource. It is a part of I think people often 

refer to those communities as the global lungs of the planet. 

If we can’t work aggressively and successfully to reduce deforestation we can’t succeed, and the countries in that region are actively 

working with us and together among themselves and with other 

donor countries to build that capacity, so an enormous effort there. 

The South Africans in parallel, big energy issues there. The Nigerians, significant energy issues on their side, land use change 

across the board not just in the Congo Basin, but an extensive series of opportunity in the energy sector and the land use sector on 

global mitigation. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much. Mr. Moore, let me ask you. 

In your opinion, how can we use our efforts to fight climate change 

in Africa as an opportunity to sort of see how we can move in that 

direction? 

Mr. MOORE. Thank you, sir. Let me start by adding a piece to 

what Jonathan has just said in terms of mitigation because he 

talked about deforestation, but another critical aspect of mitigation 

has to do with that land degradation, which is desertification. 

And in this case, as we look at land management practices and 

as we work with farmers and communities moving from current 

practices which release greenhouse gases, the conservation farming 

which does not and helps to sequester greenhouse gases better, we 

also have some possibilities with new crop varieties to also improve 

their ability in terms of what they produce and improve their productivity in producing it so they actually can earn more money per 

hectare rather than just producing more crops. 

There is an example where I think we can see some differences 

in the way in which Africans respond to climate change. 

Mr. PAYNE. I didn’t know if Africans were listening and were trying to call you to put in some additional points. 

You mentioned something. Offhand, can you think of any African 

country that in the past 3 or 4 or 5 years because of assistance 

from USAID or different kinds of farming techniques—fertilization 

or irrigation—have gone from a negative agriculture production to 

a positive one? Is there any example you can think of offhand? 

Mr. MOORE. I can give you two countries where through conservation farming we see not only an increase in their production, 

but also probably a higher payoff to their individual farmers. Those 

would be in Zambia and Malawi. 

As I mentioned, we have done some work with COMESA at looking at a combination of USAID, COMESA and the World AgroVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:19 Aug 23, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\AGH\041510\56054 HFA PsN: SHIRL
28

forestry Center in Nairobi looking at some different schemes that 

look at conservation, farming and the integration of tree crops in 

those farming areas that we are beginning to see some exciting responses. 

If one wants to look historically, one could look at the world that 

USAID engaged in with Niger 30 years ago, and it was work that 

we engaged in with them over forest tenure and land tenure and 

moving that tenure from the government to communities. 

Interestingly enough, 30 years later we are beginning to see a 

tremendous response in the resiliency of those farmers as they face 

different periods of drought and floods and their ability to diversify 

their income from only agriculture from crops to agriculture from 

crops and fruit trees. 

So that is the best long-term case, and the short-term, the last 

4 or 5 years, Zambia and Malawi would be cases I would point to. 

Mr. PAYNE. Just finally, and then we will have our ranking member. The land issues are big issues in Africa—Kenya, Ethiopia, 

throughout Zimbabwe: How does the land issue factor into Africa’s 

overall development in the area of agriculture or climate change 

and the whole desertification question? 

Mr. MOORE. I would say the land issue and land tenure is probably the most critical issue as one looks at not only how one responds in the short term, but how one responds in the medium and 

long term. 

In the case of Niger, as I pointed out, farmers were not prepared 

to plant trees and go through the work of planting trees on land 

that the tenure and the benefit of the tenure was going to to the 

government. They were prepared to do that on land where the tenure and the benefit from that tenure went to those farmers. 

That is a classic case of being able to establish either ownership 

rights or long-term use rights in tenure schemes that allow those 

individuals who are working the land to reap the benefits. If one 

is moving to things like conservation farming, again there is a 

strong link between how long do I have rights to benefit from this 

new technology and my implementation of the new technology, so 

it is critical. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much. I know that on the utilization 

of land, for example, in Namibia before the independence you 

would have large tracts of land that the white settlers owned. One 

perhaps would be used for farming. The other would just be laying 

dormant and not productive. 

We would find the same thing I think in Zimbabwe to some extent and in South Africa. So I know that the land issue is really 

a major, major issue, as you have mentioned, and I appreciate your 

comments. 

Mr. Smith? 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Pershing and Mr. 

Moore, thank you very much for your testimony today and for your 

work. 

You know, both Chairman Payne and I come from a state that 

has been very much challenged over the last three or four decades 

on environmental issues, so we I think share a deep concern for 

whether it be ocean dumping, pollution, toxic waste cleanup, all the 

issues that we have had to face because of irresponsibility that 

29

went on for decades that preceded it, and certainly we are not out 

of the woods yet. 

So when you talk about a cleaner development in Africa, being 

able to get it right, I would suggest that the more we can do along 

those lines the better so that they are more eco friendly. 

And their people. You know, I actually chaired the Autism Caucus and have come to the agonizing conclusion that the triggers, 

and there are many potential triggers, are not just something that 

America is dealing with. I have been in Nigeria. I know that there 

is one estimate. It may be a high estimate. I don’t know that, but 

I know a number of the NGOs there. They are concerned about autism in Nigeria. 

And one estimate was 1 million children suffer from that developmental disease or disability and could that be because of flaring 

or could that be because of a lot of other issues that are connected 

to fossil fuels. It could be because mercury is certainly one of the 

expected triggers. So I thank you for your testimony. 

I do have a couple of questions I would like to ask. Dr. Green 

has written, and I quote, ‘‘It is fair to say that scientific understanding of which factors contribute to change in the earth’s climate is still in a very early stage. Even the experts at the IPCC 

acknowledge this to be the case.’’ Do you gentlemen agree with 

that? If so, or not, how early of a stage are we in in that actual 

fundamental understanding about is this manmade? 

Mr. PERSHING. Let me start with that particular question. My 

own thinking about this is that we are not all that early. If we take 

a look at the science of climate change, the issue has been around 

now for, give or take, about 130 years. 

Some of the first work was done at the turn of the last century—

not the most recent one, but the previous one, the late 1800s—in 

Sweden, a lot of work in Europe, looking at the consequences and 

where people thought things were. The physics of the basic understanding of black body radiation and how that proceeds is quite 

well understood, the physics of the change in atmospheric concentrations also quite well understood. 

I think where the issue lies is our ability to predict what will 

happen in the future and to make any serious assessment about 

the precision of the impacts in a specific location, and what we are 

seeing now is an effort to try to expand that capacity. 

So, for example, if you are interested in knowing whether or not 

the next raft of hurricanes will come through and batter the New 

Jersey coast, I would give you very low odds. If you wanted to look 

at it in the same way as to whether or not it would affect the central part of Africa or in fact look at storms coming through the Indian Ocean, I would give you very low odds. 

If, however, what you want to say is that the consequence of climate change is going to be a warming of the oceans and the change 

in the warming of the oceans leads to an increased probability of 

intensity of storms, high odds. Very reasonably good probability. 

So it is then about where we are in that sequence. I would say 

we are well beyond the basic science into a determination of the 

specifics, but we can make some quite strong policy analyses and 

justifications for action based on what we know. 

30

Mr. MOORE. Very quickly, sir, I actually don’t deal so much with 

the science of the climate change part. I leave that to Jonathan, 

but I would say from a development point of view it doesn’t matter 

whether it is human or not. The reality is one has to look at adaptation to vulnerabilities, and we realize that they are increasing, 

and we must build in resilience. So that is true no matter what the 

cause is. 

Mr. SMITH. You know, in reading both of your statements the 

whole idea of hypotheses versus real science and whether or not we 

are dealing with something that is provable or at least with realistic expectations. 

Mr. Moore, you said that rain fed farming may drop in some African countries by as much as 50 percent by 2020, and wheat could 

disappear from the African continent entirely by 2080. I know you 

attribute that to the IPCC 2007 report. And in like manner, Dr. 

Pershing, you said that crop revenues could fail by as much as 90 

percent in 2100. These are really long-term projections. You know, 

to make decisions based on something, I mean, how strong is the 

science that this is likely to happen? 

I remember when Paul Erlich did his population bomb, and 

frankly it unleashed some very Draconian responses, including the 

one child per couple policy in China, which has made brothers and 

sisters illegal, has led to forced abortion, all kinds of deleterious 

and I think catastrophic consequences. 

It was based on those longer term projections. We would be out 

of energy, remember they were saying, by the year 2000. Well, that 

certainly hasn’t happened. So I am just wondering how much reliability is there to those kinds of what is going to happen in the 

year 2100? 

Mr. PERSHING. Let me make a couple of points about it. I think 

that the analysis of the IPCC should be taken for what it is. It is 

a series of scenarios that try to project forward based on expected 

policies that are currently in place. It doesn’t include climate policy. 

So, for example, if we were to try to do something about this 

problem—and the doing something could range from reducing 

greenhouse gas emissions to finding crops that could withstand additional salinity or tolerate drought or tolerate additional heat—we 

would have a different model and those kinds of statistics would 

not be borne. 

At the same time, it is very clear that we are already beginning 

to see certain kinds of impacts. The statistics suggest without in 

my mind much doubt at all that we are well beyond a simple variable, that we are beginning to see these damages and that they 

look increasingly severe because of existing stresses in the environmental arena. That means water stresses, temperature stresses, 

population stresses, needs for arable land, that whole series of 

things. 

So we are at the tipping point in some of the places, and Africa 

in particular is incredibly vulnerable to very small changes. Whether wheat disappears or not, and here I fully agree with Franklin. 

Whether wheat disappears or not, the odds of it being much, much 

more difficult to sustain a family with much less water is real, and 

we understand that. 

31

Mr. SMITH. Okay. I did note, Mr. Moore, that you had said despite a lack of extensive data in many countries, so I am always 

concerned when we have very little data and we make huge extrapolations from the little data that we have. 

Let me ask another question with regards to the population control issue you just mentioned, Dr. Pershing. Population pressures 

was the word you used. Is the Obama administration seeking to 

combat climate change in Africa by reducing the number of African 

children? I would hope that this is not going to become a pretext 

for population control, which we have seen. 

You know, there have been many pretexts for it in the past. Even 

the U.N. Population Fund, which is now trying to piggyback its 

agenda with climate change, said for the most part—this is right 

off their Web site—countries with high rates of population growth 

contribute relatively little to greenhouse gases and other irreversible global ecological threats. 

But I have reviewed much of the other pro abortion organizations’ and population control organizations’ statements, including 

those on the Web sites, and they see this as an engraved invitation 

to say Africa needs more population growth. 

As you point out, 12 percent of the world’s population contributes 

6 percent of greenhouse gases. Again, I am not sure how that is 

all arrived at. I know the numbers probably, but how do we determine 6 percent? But it is very little. We know that, and I think 

that is a good given. 

Could you answer that? Is this going to be another? I say that 

because people like Paul Kagame in Rwanda have now said we 

need child limitation policies of a three child per couple policy. He 

got that from the U.N. FPA and China. His people visited Beijing 

2 years ago, came back, as did other African leaders, and said we 

need child limitation. 

And if we blame the victim, the child, as a carbon breather for 

climate issues, I think we are going down the wrong street, and it 

is antithetical to respect for human rights and children in Africa. 

You know, I believe in adaptation. I believe in resilience, but it 

shouldn’t put children at risk and in harm’s way. Dr. Pershing? 

Mr. PERSHING. Let me just very briefly answer the question with 

one word. No, that is not the policy. 

Mr. SMITH. I appreciate that. And I will ask one final question, 

Mr. Chairman. The issue of unintended consequences. 

I read Dr. Molly Brown of NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center’s 

statement. I am sure you have read it as well. She talks about and 

we all remember when ethanol was all the rage. I was for it. We 

were all for it because we do want biofuels. We want alternatives 

to fossil fuels. 

But then all of a sudden there was a huge spike in food that was 

unanticipated. The response was a little bit weak at first, but I 

think with switchgrass and other alternatives I think we have gotten to a better place, but I am worried about what she said in her 

conclusions. She said increased temps and change in water cycle 

are likely to require adaptation in local agricultural systems in Africa. 

She says, Dr. Molly Brown, that cap in trade are likely to increase every price, which will have a spillover effect—energy prices, 

32

I should say—on food prices due to the coupling of the food and energy markets. She also said that use of biofuels will put direct upward pressure on food pricing, which is the last thing on earth that 

Africa needs. 

I am just wondering how you work through that in terms of that 

unintended consequence of spiking food prices in Africa. 

Mr. PERSHING. I would say we work through that by looking at 

those systems that increase the production and productivity in an 

agricultural sector, whether that agriculture is intended for food or 

it is intended for fuel. 

When you couple it with climate, it means that one begins to look 

at some of those potential tree crops that can be biofuel tree crops 

that survive well on degraded lands and begin to make sure that 

the research that is done on them allows them down the road to 

be released to fill that need. 

But a large portion of the response is increasing the production 

and productivity across a whole range of crops and livestock so that 

one is able to meet not only the food needs, but the fuel needs and 

other needs that agriculture provides for. 

I would just say quickly as we look at wheat, whether or not that 

comes to bear is partly dependent upon the research that goes into 

wheat crops that looks at how do we create wheat crops that flower, for example, at a higher temperature? How do we create wheat 

crops which are resistant to stem rust or leaf rust, because that 

may be climate change, but they may occur for a whole variety of 

other reasons. 

It could occur in a year where your climate variability is quite 

different and one would want to be able to meet that need. So I 

think in part some of it is research for the scenarios because 

whether they are climate change scenarios or other scenarios, we 

need to be prepared for them 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. Thank you, Mr Chairman. 

Mr. PAYNE. Ms. Woolsey? 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have to ask a direct 

question in response to Congressman Smith. 

My question to both of you would be isn’t it true that giving 

women the ability to control the size and timing of their families 

through family planning and pregnancy prevention, that given 

these resources there is a direct impact on the health of the family 

and the economy of that family and of the communities, which in 

turn——

How does this get to you? I am not trying to make this political. 

Which in turn allows these communities to respond to the environmental needs that will be forced upon them or prevention needs 

that we need to be helping them with. 

Mr. MOORE. I guess my one word answer would be yes. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Yes. 

Mr. MOORE. I would expand on that by saying you have talked 

about two things, economic opportunity and women and their desire to do child spacing, the size of their families, et cetera, and 

those are highly tied. 

The piece you didn’t point out is that to the degree that we make 

economic opportunity and education available to women that that 

tends to have an effect on family size, child spacing, et cetera, in 

33

ways that help for Africa, which faces a tremendous youth bulge 

and a tremendous growth in population currently in some countries 

that provide alternatives and I think do not lead one to some of the 

problems that Representative Smith pointed out because women 

are spacing their children, as opposed to some other particular 

means. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. But if you would yield to just one more little question on this? If they don’t have available to them the education for 

family planning and the ability to prevent pregnancy—I know it is 

because they are insisting on it the more educated and the more 

independent they become, but we still need both parts. 

Mr. MOORE. I agree with that. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you. All right. So then I have two questions, one to you, Mr. Moore. You cautioned us about business as 

usual, and then you began speaking of USAID studies, and I immediately responded oh, yes. Business as usual. Let us study something that we already know there are things we should be doing. 

Maybe we need more studies, but what do we already know and 

where is the support missing and the funding for USAID and other 

NGOs and through the United States of America? What programs 

should we be working on that we already know that we are shortchanging, or are there any? 

Mr. MOORE. I tend to think that we are beginning to work on 

many of the programs where the shortchange may be, but let me 

give you an example. We know that water cycles will change. We 

know that there are some areas, and we have seen this through climate variability to date, that will echo between having drought and 

having flood. 

As we look at water management, and it is something that we 

are very actively looking at with the State Department now. As we 

look at water management, those are the types of things that we 

need to bring on board as we look for those activities and the design of those activities not just now, but how we see them in the 

future. 

The same would be true with community location. As I tried to 

highlight in my testimony, we do expect sea levels to rise, so how 

one deals with communities that are at or below sea level currently 

is something that we need to take a look at and make sure we are 

managing. 

Certainly in developed countries like the Netherlands they are 

well down the road in looking at things like that, so it is just 

things like that that need to be more fully integrated into our portfolio, and I think we have begun to do that. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I am beyond my 5 minutes. Can 

I match you guys? 

Mr. PAYNE. Certainly. We don’t discriminate against women. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Oh, yes. Oh. So, Dr. Pershing, you mentioned that 

we need to increase foreign aid, and of course we all agree with you 

on that, but would you suggest that we just increase it in general, 

or do you think it is important that we increase the percentage of 

foreign aid that be directed to Africa or both, and how would you 

use those funds if we direct them to Africa? 

34

Mr. PERSHING. So I think the answer to the first is yes, in general. I think the United States doesn’t live up to what I think it 

could do. 

I think that we have an overall obligation or responsibility, if you 

will, but also a self interest in that increase, and I think it behooves us to think about all aspects of that as we look at our foreign assistance package, and I think part of this process that we 

are all involved in is to think about what priorities we design with 

that increased assistance. 

With respect to it, I think that in my world the climate change 

issue is one that needs to be integrated across the board, and 

Franklin spoke to this about the fact that we have substantial assistance programs already underway, many of which could well be 

undercut because we have not paid attention to the climate change 

consequences in development programs. 

If you take a look at a water program, one can think easily of 

the example that you put funding into building hydroelectric systems, but you didn’t pay attention to the fact that you are going 

to lose the river flow, and all of a sudden that perfect dam is now 

standing in the middle of a dry bed. It is not exactly a good spend 

for your financing. 

When you don’t have enough, you want to use it as well as you 

can use it. That kind of integration seems to be at the heart of 

what I think we are proposing in the budget and the finance. There 

are also key pieces that specifically focus on the climate change aspects, things that are not general development assistance that 

would not happen but for climate change, things that really speak 

to a change in fundamental long-term trends that we have to manage. 

So I can look at variability in the system. I can be resilient 

against that, but what if I am at a place where I am looking at 

a complete loss of water supply or a place that is a coastal development where sea level rise will inundate the entire shore? I have a 

very different model there. That is a really specific climate model 

that I think we need explicitly to be working on. 

Africa is one of those places that I think has been low and needs 

to be raised, and in that context I am delighted that you guys are 

thinking about this. 

Ms. WOOLSEY. Thank you. 

Mr. PAYNE. You don’t have a second question? Okay. Mr. Flake? 

Mr. FLAKE. I thank the chairman. I apologize if this ground has 

already been plowed, but has there been any mention of the Eskom 

application or South Africa application for the World Bank loan 

just approved? Can you tell me what the U.S. position on that has 

been, Dr. Pershing? 

Mr. PERSHING. Yes. Thank you. No, it did not come up yet, Mr. 

Flake, and thank you for the question. It was an internal discussion of quite some extent. We looked carefully at, in fact, the conversation that you had with Assistant Secretary Carson when he 

was here where I think you also raised a great deal of concern 

about it. 

We ultimately abstained in that vote, and the reason we abstained was the following: The first is that on the basis of a number of factors which govern the individual project acceptance in our 

35

internal process, they didn’t quite meet those standards. In fact, 

they didn’t meet those standards. There were questions about how 

the product was managed. 

There were questions about the greenhouse gas emissions associated with an effort to create a substantial amount of electricity, 

4,800 megawatts. It is a huge plant. It is an enormous plant, which 

had a very small ancillary component that dealt with renewable 

energy, but didn’t in any fashion address the greenhouse gas emission to the Center. 

But why did we not just vote no? We didn’t vote no because at 

the end of the day there is a very clear, ongoing development need 

in the continent and in South Africa particularly where they have 

a concern about the adequacy of electricity supply, about the 

interruptability that we have seen because they have reduced capacity and had additional growth in demand and that that meant 

that we needed to give them some flexibility and some leeway. 

We are trying to make clear as we work forward with the South 

Africans that this is going to be an evolving policy for us; that we 

do intend to hold people accountable for the greenhouse gas emissions associated with these kinds of projects. We can’t dismiss that 

in a long-term trend, but neither are we going to be categorical and 

say it is you or nothing and we will block things that don’t make 

sense. 

In this instance, there is a balance that we could achieve if the 

product did go forward. We understand that it would go forward. 

The abstention was meant to reflect our concern about the process, 

but also our understanding of the dynamics inside of the country. 

Mr. FLAKE. Mr. Moore, do you want to add anything to that? 

I read that the U.S. Treasury put out a statement basically saying we oppose this, but we are not going to oppose it. I just want 

to express my concern that it seems, and I myself lived in South 

Africa for a while, Namibia as well, Zimbabwe as well. The needs 

are certainly there. 

And South Africa obviously wants a nuclear future. They have 

one plant now, but certainly that is where they see themselves over 

the next several decades and that is where they want to go, and 

I hope they do. I hope we go a lot further in that direction. 

But in the meantime, it is very difficult for them, given what 

they have, to do anything but what they proposed, and I hope that 

it is understood—this is putting aside all questions about World 

Bank loans and everything else—that if we try to dictate policy to 

countries, developing countries in this fashion, and simply say that 

despite what your energy needs might be and the expense were you 

to go to another energy we simply aren’t going to support you, that 

is difficult I think on not just South Africa, but certainly all of subSaharan Africa. 

I would just caution that we ought to tread lightly there and recognize the needs that are there and the capacity that they have financially. So with that, I yield back. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you. Ambassador Watson? 

Ms. WATSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The President’s budget 

requested $408 million for the Global Food Security Fund, and 

global hunger and food security is clearly a priority for the adminVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:19 Aug 23, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\AGH\041510\56054 HFA PsN: SHIRL
36

istration as it is among its three initiatives for the foreign aid 

budget. 

However, the administration has not set specific policies, even 

though the need for attention to growing food insecurity is quickly 

becoming apparent. In April 2008, a culmination of drought and 

failed harvest and the continued rise in global food prices has left 

at least 7 million people facing hunger in Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia 

and Somaliland. 

According to the USAID Food Security Assessment for 2008 and 

2009, growth in the number of food insecure people is highest in 

sub-Sahara Africa. Food security has ties to climate change, as you 

have been mentioning all along, and climate adaptation must be a 

strong undercurrent of any food security initiative. We have been 

addressing that most of the morning here. 

So how will the administration balance providing food assistance 

to African nations with establishing food security through climate 

adaptation in African nations, and does the administration plan on 

advocating for the use of genetically modified plants and how do 

you plan to encourage use, especially since the overuse of GMOs is 

being called into question here in the United States? Either one of 

you or both of you, please. 

Mr. MOORE. It will take me just a second to think to weave the 

number of pieces together. I would start by saying that if you look 

at what is coming out as the response for food security you will see 

that in terms of focus countries there are far more African focus 

countries than anywhere else. 

In terms of how that focus manifests itself and your discussion 

on some of the problems that face security, I think that Africa is 

one of the areas where increasingly research is being focused down 

on farming systems and focused on the ability of those farming systems to respond to a variety of changes, whether they are longterm or whether it is just climate variability. One of those is the 

use of biotechnology. 

I would point out that when biotechnology generally is used to 

respond to problems of Africa, it is used in a very different way 

than biotechnology is used in agriculture in the United States. Let 

me give you a fast example. When one looks at Africa and the application of biotechnology, what one tends to concentrate on is a 

crop’s reaction to flowering time or flowering temperature, so one 

may want to engineer a crop that flowers at a higher temperature. 

One may want to highlight a crop’s ability to survive in drought 

or a crop’s ability to survive in flood. 

Those are very different biotechnology applications than applying 

biotechnology for a mechanized farm so that when one weeds on 

that farm one can use a herbicide that kills weeds, but allows the 

plant to remain. So biotechnology often is characterized as a single 

type of technology. It is a technology that responds to a wide range 

of agricultural problems. 

Yes, we tend to advocate biotechnology as being potential to solve 

the problems I highlighted early on, and I think over time you see 

that a larger number of Africans and, more importantly, African 

farmers are making use of biotechnology in their production mix. 

I hope I have answered all of your question. 

37

Ms. WATSON. Yes. You are alluding to most of my concerns. I just 

returned from Ethiopia, and I have been working with a group 

called Light Years Intellectual Property because there, as you 

know, in the northern part of Ethiopia they grow one of the finest 

coffee beans that has contributed to the massive success of 

Starbucks. 

Mr. MOORE. Yes. 

Ms. WATSON. However, the return, the value of return to the 

farmers was very nil. I do believe in climate change. I have seen 

it. I come from southern California. You know, it never rains in 

southern California. Are you kidding? Constantly it has been raining. And so climate is indeed changing. 

What we realized there in the part of Ethiopia—we were in 

Addis Abeba, but we were talking about where the farmers live—

is that they really lacked a lot of the information necessary to continue to grow the kind of fine crops. They have four different levels 

of coffee beans. 

And so we found that helping them brand, patent, copyright and 

promote and bargain so they can get a return and then improve 

and continue to farm, that a lot of education was necessary and so 

we were talking about USAID and how we can help these farmers 

not only in that area of Africa, but in other countries and particularly the underdeveloped countries. 

The International Relations Committee has been looking at ways 

we can improve not only in the USAID programs, but in other programs as well. And so in terms of climate change and in terms of 

the knowledge that the farmers have the things they grow and not 

only grow, but make naturally, what are your plans in terms of 

really helping the individual farmers? 

Now, this particular program, IP, Light Years IP, will continue 

to do what its mission is. And so what kind of support can we expect from the administration? 

Mr. MOORE. I would say that one of the things we are doing as 

we look at that sort of agricultural support is not only looking at 

the production of crops, but looking at the crop throughout its entire value chain. 

You have mentioned coffee. One of the interesting things about 

coffee, you know it is graDed in the 100 points and once you get 

above 80 points each point that you gain the coffee goes up geometrically, not arithmetically, in terms of price, but by not focusing 

on the value chain we miss many of the prime opportunities. 

If a coffee cherry is harvested and it is gotten to a washing station in under 4 hours rather than the average 4 hours then that 

coffee will tend to grade five points higher. That has nothing to do 

with the growing of the cherry. That has to do with the movement 

of the cherry from the farm to the washing station. 

So in many cases what we are looking at is what is taking place 

across the value chain and where are the areas of the value chain 

where a farmer is missing the opportunity to improve the quality 

of the crop from the consumer’s perspective and therefore missing 

out on price. 

Much of that low-priced coffee that you talk of occurs because 

farmers are harvesting that coffee and walking it to a washing station and taking 10 hours to do that. If they are provided with a 

38

bicycle and can get it there in 2 hours, there is five points right 

there and an increase in price, so one of the things we are doing 

is looking at value chains more completely and trying to capture 

opportunities that can provide payback to farmers. 

Ms. WATSON. Yes. Who has that responsibility? Where does it reside? 

Mr. MOORE. The responsibility for? 

Ms. WATSON. You are saying what we are looking for. What department? 

Mr. MOORE. Well, we have been working on that directly with 

coffee producers and coffee firms in the middle. I have not done 

anything directly in Ethiopia, but I have done things directly in 

Rwanda where we have worked with a crew that has come in and 

designed a bicycle that can actually carry bags of freshly harvested 

coffee and get them to washing stations in half of the time, enabling those farmers to benefit. 

So that is something that we and AID have been looking at with 

both the farmers and with the middle persons who are involved in 

the washing and the further production of the coffee. 

Ms. WATSON. Thank you so much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you. Ms. Lee? 

Ms. LEE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for 

not being here during your testimony, but I have been looking 

through it and am really delighted to see you here and welcome. 

I hope my question is not redundant. I know at least with regard 

to my resolution it probably isn’t. I introduced H. Con. Res. 98, 

which is a congressional resolution that recognizes the disparate 

impact of climate change on women and efforts of women globally 

to address climate change. 

This resolution affirms the commitment of Congress to support 

vulnerable populations, including women, to prepare and to build 

and adapt to the impacts of climate change. Of course, we know 

that women are particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climate 

change and are often responsible for those tasks that are climate 

sensitive—gathering fuel wood, water, producing food for the family. Women produce over 50 percent of the world’s food. In Africa 

it is up to 80 percent. 

At the same time, because women play such a vital role, it is essential in engaging them in a community’s effort to adapt, so I 

want to find out, first of all, if you are doing anything and what 

you are doing to ensure that women are engaged, as well as what 

we are doing to respond to their unique needs as we move in this 

direction. 

And then secondly, many of us were quite concerned about the 

Bush administration’s decision to walk away from the Kyoto Protocol in I guess it was 2001, how critical now is the United States’ 

legislation to garnering the full participation of major and emerging economies around the world and how do we get back into 

Kyoto? 

What do we have to do in this regard and the impact of delaying 

the legal codification of the United States’ climate commitments 

through such legislation. What are the impacts of that? 

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

39

Mr. MOORE. Why don’t I start with the women portion and turn 

it over to Jonathan for the remaining portion. 

As you have laid out, we have a clear understanding of the disproportionately large role that women play, particularly in production and particularly in agriculture, and as we have been designing 

the Feed the Future Initiative have tried to highlight both how one 

works with women and meets the unique needs of women. 

Let me give a couple of examples. If one is working on how one 

conveys a new technology and the use of new seeds and an increasing use of fertilizer, and let us say one has generally for the world 

looked at designing that technology for communication for someone 

with a sixth grade education and one comes into an area where 

women only have a third grade education, then the design of how 

one conveys that information has to be changed, so we are actively 

looking at things like that. 

We are actively looking at how do we increase the number of 

women who are working on agricultural research and development 

because we find they communicate to other women better in conveying some of those technologies. When one looks at water and 

the application of water, one has to look at what are technologies 

that women actually can employ in supplementing radon fed agriculture with other forms of water. 

So I think that as we look at some of the major areas where climate change intersects with women such as agriculture that people 

have finally got it that one has to quite consciously target responses that are responses targeted for women so that women, 

whatever their differences are, are able to respond and increase 

their production and productivity. 

With regard to Kyoto and the other parts, I will turn it over to 

Jonathan. 

Mr. PERSHING. Thank you very much, and thank you for the 

question. I just wanted to add one point to what Franklin said 

about the women’s issues. 

Secretary Clinton has been extremely engaged in this, and 

Miland Revere, who I am sure you work with quite a lot, is extremely active not broadly only in the women’s issues, but also specifically in the questions of women and climate change. We have 

had a series of discussions with her. It has been on the agenda. 

There are now a series of women’s groups and it is a separate 

coalition that engages in international negotiations, so at the international level there is also an increasing understanding that we 

have to address specific populations, not merely collective——

Ms. LEE. Sure. And let me just say I hope you all would look at 

this resolution because I would like Congress to be on record supporting this, and that is exactly what H. Con. Res. 98 would do. 

Mr. PERSHING. So I look forward to seeing that. The second question that you asked really is with regard to the international process and how Congress is received. Let me just reiterate a point I 

made, which is that it is incredibly helpful that you collectively on 

the House side did do the American Energy and Climate Act. It has 

an enormous impact. It changed the dynamic. 

We had come to the negotiations with a history that was of disavowing the reality of the issue, and the fact that we could have 

Congress standing behind the President saying it is real, it is urVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:19 Aug 23, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\AGH\041510\56054 HFA PsN: SHIRL
40

gent and we are beginning to move forward made an enormous difference. 

We will still see enormous frustrations if there is not legislation, 

and that means clearly that both houses have to move. I think 

there has been a great deal of discussion in the international arena 

by other countries waiting on us and so I think we will continue 

to see that as long as we don’t have a coherent and a visible strategy. 

With regard to Kyoto, Kyoto expires in some fundamental sense 

at the end of the first commitment period unless it is continued, 

and we are not a party to the Kyoto Protocol. I don’t believe it is 

likely we will become a party based on what is currently going forward from Congress and the recommendations being made, but we 

have got other proposals that I think would do some of the critical 

things that the idea of an international agreement would solve. 

In particular, we would like to set some goals for where we want 

to be. The Copenhagen Accord gave us a scientific number that 

said let us try to keep below a two degree warming. We want to 

set countries with flexibility for what they can do most effectively 

at home and urge them to do that in the context of a long-term, 

low emissions development strategy. 

So now your development programs with a footprint that is sustainable, which means substantial reductions globally, but think 

about those in terms of policies and individual measures. Don’t dictate from some center, but give countries the capacity and then 

help them in producing, and that is going to require some assistance. 

Ms. LEE. Sure. 

Mr. PERSHING. So on the assistance side——

Ms. LEE. And finally, Mr. Chairman, let me just say, though, I 

think what you said makes a heck of a lot of sense that we will 

do this anyway, what Kyoto requires, but the symbolism and the 

principle of the United States being part of Kyoto and the Protocol 

and going back into that, that overall effort to me just makes a 

heck of a lot of sense. 

I wish we could figure out a way that the United States could 

once again be part of the global community and be part of the 

Kyoto Protocol. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much. Mr. Smith wanted a quick 

question. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The information or the 

ability to predict with some certitude is an important question. I 

met with the people who did the number crunching for CBO when 

H.R. 2454, the cap in trade bill, and asked them their methodology, 

how they came to their conclusions. I met with them for about 11⁄2

hours on February 4 in my office. 

And they, and they have done this in their CRS report, have said 

that CRS focuses on estimates for the year 2020. Any estimate beyond that point or any cumulative estimate to 2030 or beyond 

should be viewed with the utmost skepticism. I do believe that our 

policies need to be grounded in a transparent, science-based approach to enhance our understanding of methodology employed. 

I would ask both of you if you would to elaborate on exactly—

please, exactly—and maybe you need to do this for the record beVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:19 Aug 23, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\AGH\041510\56054 HFA PsN: SHIRL
41

cause both of you have information. You quote the IPCC panel, its 

findings that rain-fed farming may drop in some African countries 

by 50 percent by 2020. 

How is that arrived at? The details. I mean, in reading that panel’s report I was struck by how many times the word could was 

used over and over. Now, of course science is not hard and fast 

sometimes in terms of its predictions, but that word needs to be 

emphasized I think if we are going to make policies based on it. 

And then the idea that we could disappear from the African continent, as I mentioned before, entirely by 2080. You know, CBO 

would say at least on terms of some of its predictions after 2030 

we are rolling the dice. How was that arrived at, the exact methodology if you could? 

Dr. Pershing, your point that South Africa, and this is looking 

back, has electrified its communities and grown its economy, has 

seen its emissions rise above 30 percent between 1990 and 2005. 

Who did that study? Was it peer reviewed? How credible is that 

study? 

And then finally, when you say that net crop revenues could fall 

by as much as 90 percent by 2100. Again, we are looking 90 years 

out. I really want to know, and I think everything has to be science 

based. Who did that work? Was it transparent? Somebody conflicting views, were they shown the door, because that is something 

that is coming out after those emails have surfaced. 

I want good policy—I think we all do—in a bipartisan way, but 

it has to be based on science, and exaggerations do the cause of environmental protection a great disservice. So if you could give us 

the specific facts of how that was arrived at? 

Mr. PERSHING. Let me just say a few things. The first one is that 

with regard to the South Africa numbers, those come from South 

Africa, so they are governmental numbers. 

They are drawn from and corroborated by sources of the International Energy Agency, which puts out carbon numbers, as well 

as by a program at MIT that puts out land use and forestry numbers. They have been amalgamated, but the South African Government has those same numbers, so that is where those particular 

ones come from. 

With regard to the long term, I think that is a——

Mr. SMITH. Do you believe they are accurate? 

Mr. PERSHING. I believe they are the best we have. They are consistent with numbers that the U.S. Government puts together 

through the Energy Information Administration, and they seem to 

be based on a variety of factors such as global trade in certain 

kinds of commodities. In the case of South Africa where a nontrivial share is actually a local commodity like the coal side it is 

a bit more difficult, but we have pretty good information based on 

the electricity sales, which is often where these are derived from. 

My guess is, yes, they are pretty accurate. Is it accurate to within a tenth of a percent? I wouldn’t bet on that. Is it accurate within 

a percentage or two? I probably think it is. It is probably pretty 

good in that regard. There are interesting questions, of course, 

about intensity numbers, which are based on the economic quality 

of a country, and an informal and a formal economy certainly enter 

42

in there so you have some uncertainty, but that is where those 

come from. 

With regard to the larger set of numbers, there is a great deal 

of literature that has been reviewed. I am very happy, and we will 

arrange to make sure that you get a copy of the material that supported it. The IPCC does this work through a process where you 

have a committee that is selected by an international group with 

all countries weighing in—the U.S. also weighs in—where you select authors, and the authors are then tasked with the job of finding and collating material from the literature. 

That literature has certain restrictions. It must be available to 

the public. It must have been peer reviewed, although in some 

cases they also use governmental literature which has been reviewed within a government, but has a different kind of a status 

than one reviewed in a scientific journal. Both of those tend to be 

used. 

That then goes to an international review where the governments around the world and private scientists around the world 

are invited to provide feedback. In the current rules and practices 

of the IPCC, every single comment must have a response, and that 

is made public as well, and that is on the Web site of the IPCC. 

It is pretty extensive. 

One last thing, the email controversy that has erupted that has 

been really quite significant over the course of the last 6 to 8 

months. There was a report that was released yesterday that was 

undertaken by the U.K. Government to evaluate this university in 

the U.K. that was deemed to have done some bad work. They have 

completely been exonerated. Their view is that it was good science. 

The comment that was made was that there needs to be more care 

taken in the writing of emails. 

There have been two detailed reports. This is the second of the 

two, both of which cleared them of wrongdoing, but we would be 

very happy to send you, because I think the point you are raising 

is one that we want to be airing and make very explicit. Bad 

science leads to bad policy. 

Mr. SMITH. Especially those longer term predictions, which our 

own CBO, we have a great deal of confidence that they try to do 

an honest job, yet they say after 2030 forget it. 

Mr. PERSHING. Maybe I could add one point if I could, sir. 

Mr. SMITH. Yes. 

Mr. PERSHING. The issue of the long term I think speaks to two 

questions. I would take with an enormous dose of salt the precise 

number. What I would take with a great deal more worry is the 

trend, and that trend is consistent in the CBO studies, as well as 

in these. 

So if I say it is 90 percent or it disappears or I say it is down 

by 50 percent and it is really devastated, they both are trends that 

I worry about based on today’s numbers, and those are the kinds 

of things that I think we have to be planning for. 

A lot of our infrastructure has a much longer lived timeframe 

than just 10 years out. It has a farming community program, an 

urban development program and a transport program that is 30 

and 40 and 50 years into the future, so that larger framework does 

have a value even if the precision is certainly questionable. 

43

Mr. SMITH. Great. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much, both of you. I concur with Mr. 

Flake—that is interesting—on the Medupi coal fired plant. There 

was a lot of controversy regarding the coal fired plant in South Africa to loan before the World Bank the $3.7 billion loan. 

However, many of us interested in Africa, interested in the environment, sort of 100 percent of environmental issues, however, did 

feel and wrote the World Bank and actually personally spoke to 

Mr. Zoellick and our Members of Congress about the United States 

not opposing the loan from the World Bank because if there will 

be development and the cleanest type of technology is going to be 

used in this plant and also there are renewable energies included 

in that loan such as wind and solar, we felt that it would hamper 

development not only in South Africa, but this plant will have an 

impact on Southern Africa countries around South Africa that we 

should support the plant. I kind of agree. I was glad that the 

United States decided to abstain at the most because I think there 

was a leaning toward perhaps voting against it. 

I just also agree with Representative Smith that I certainly don’t 

feel that abortion has any place in any country’s policy as a way 

of controlling population, and I don’t think anyone here supports 

that. However, I do feel that there does have to be some consideration for family planning, family spacing. 

Using the case of Rwanda, Rwanda is a little bit smaller than 

Maryland. Rwanda has twice as many people as Maryland, about 

10.5 million people. Maryland has about 5.5 million. The difference 

in Maryland and Rwanda is that only about 40 percent of the land, 

50 percent of the land at the most, is where people live. Much of 

it is forest, hills, and therefore if you take the population of Rwanda and compare it to the density of Maryland you would find that 

it is probably about four times as dense as Maryland or higher, 

perhaps even five times more people in the land space in Rwanda 

than is in Maryland. 

Now, I think that a President is going to have to decide, especially since over 50 percent of the population is under 18, what will 

be the situation 20 or 30 years from now if family planning and 

family spacing by economic development, by education is not promulgated, and so these are some real problems. 

As we know, close to 1 million people were killed in 100 days in 

Rwanda with the genocide. Now, that was other issues. However, 

many issues were kind of involved in that close to 1 million people 

in 100 days. So I think that we really have to encourage family 

planning and work with, like I said, economic development, empowerment of women, education of women, those issues that will 

tend to strengthen the family. 

Just finally, not that there is anything that has to do primarily 

with what we are talking about, but I just thought you might be 

interested in the fact that the European countries are shutting 

down their airspace and canceling flights because of what is reported as a massive cloud of volcanic ash, which has been morphed 

over the western and northern European countries, posing a danger to flights. They have canceled flights in the U.K., Ireland, Sweden, Belgium, Denmark and the Netherlands because of the volcanic eruption, which broke through the icecap and has this ash. 

44

So this world is becoming much more fragile, and this whole 

question of the environment is something that we are really going 

to have to I think pay more attention and invest more financially 

in. But let me thank this panel. It was a very interesting discussion, and we appreciate your participation. 

We will now bring up the second panel. 

[Pause.] 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you. We will now have our second panel. We 

welcome you here. We would like to certainly welcome Ambassador 

Leon Rajaobelina, chairman of the board of the Madagascar Foundation for Protected Areas. Ambassador Rajaobelina had extensive 

experience and public service in the financial sector around the 

world before assuming the position as chairman of the board for 

the foundation. 

Ambassador Rajaobelina served on the Conservation International Board of the Directors. He has held multiple positions 

with Conservation International, including his current position as 

regional vice president for African programs. 

From 1991 to 1994, Ambassador Rajaobelina worked for 

Sanapar, a public investment company, as the chief executive officer. He was later appointed as the Ambassador from Malaysia to 

the United States in 1983 and completed his ambassadorship in 

1989. He also served as executive director of the International 

Monetary Fund. 

Ambassador Rajaobelina is a member of a number of projects and 

groups, including the World Bank Group’s Extractive Industries 

Advisory Group promoting best practices in extractive industries, 

as well as a Trustee to the American World Heritage Fund. The 

Ambassador holds a degree from the Institute of Political Affairs in 

Paris, France. 

Next we have Dr. Frederick ‘‘Fred’’ Boltz, senior vice president 

for global strategies at Conservation International. Dr. Boltz has 

served as senior vice president since 2009. He has held several 

posts while at Conservation International, including vice president 

of CI’s Conservation Strategies Division from 2003 to 2009 and senior director of the Peoples in Protective Areas Department from 

2003 to 2005. He also served as a CI technical advisor for the 

Zahamany Integrated Conservation and Development Project. 

Prior to joining Conservation International, Dr. Boltz was a consultant for Forest Economies and Management at the Rwandan Association for Environmental and Integrated Development and as a 

program officer for the Forest Management Trust, Inc. 

Madagascar’s Protected Area Systems from 1997 to 1999. 

Dr. Boltz holds a Ph.D. and master’s in science and natural resources economies from the University of Florida. He has authored 

and co-authored several works and publications, including A Climate for Life, Meeting the Global Challenge, Journal of Forest 

Economies, Forest Policies and Economics, and The Wealth of Nature: Ecosystem Services, Biodiversity and Human Well-Being. 

Finally, we have Dr. Kenneth Green, resident scholar at the 

American Enterprise Institute. Dr. Green is an environmental scientist and has over 10 years of environmental policy experience at 

various institutions in California and in Canada. 

45

Prior to joining AEI, Dr. Green served many posts in environmental science and policy, including his work as executive director 

for the Environmental Literacy Council from 2005 to 2006, chief 

scientist and director of the Center for Studies in Risk, Regulation 

and Environment at the Fraser Institute, from 2002 to 2005, and 

was an expert reviewer for the United Nations Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change. 

Dr. Green holds a doctorate of environmental science and engineering from the University of California-Los Angeles and a master’s of science in molecular genetics from San Diego State University. In addition, Dr. Green has authored various works and publications including National Review Online and the American and 

the Wall Street Journal Europe, as well as a secondary school textbook entitled Global Warming: Understanding the Debate. 

Thank you very much. We will start with you, Your Excellency. 

STATEMENT OF HIS EXCELLENCY LEON M. RAJAOBELINA, 

CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, MADAGASCAR FOUNDATION 

FOR PROTECTED AREAS AND BIODIVERSITY (FORMER MALAGASY AMBASSADOR TO THE UNITED STATES) 

Ambassador RAJAOBELINA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I have prepared a summary of my testimony, and I respectfully ask that my complete testimony be entered into the record. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you. Without objection. 

Ambassador RAJAOBELINA. Chairman Payne, Ranking Member 

Smith, honorable members of this committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the current and 

prospective impacts of climate change in Madagascar and other African countries. 

It is true that I come today here on behalf of the Madagascar 

Foundation for Protected Areas and a former Ambassador to the 

United States from Madagascar. However, especially following the 

presenters of this morning, I am convinced that my testimony represents the common dilemma faced by other African nations. 

In Madagascar, as in other African countries, we are greatly concerned by climate change and believe that we are already living 

with its impacts. Average surface temperature of the African continent has increased by about .5 degrees Centigrade over the last 

century, and climate change models suggest that Madagascar, as 

well as all of Southern Africa, are going to be among the most affected regions on the planet by climate change. 

In Madagascar, over the last decade we have experienced severe 

droughts in the south of the country and intense cyclones followed 

by rain, heavy rain, in the north and east. Studies throughout Africa show that rural communities are experiencing local changes in 

climates that are shortening growing seasons and thus impact crop 

yields. 

For people in poverty and simply trying to survive on a daily 

basis, even small climatic changes that affect a harvest can be catastrophic. Adaptation response that improves the ability of the 

rural poor to cope with events for which they cannot plan are clearly going to be needed to create social and economic resilience—developing is the key word—to climate change. 

46

For example, in the dry south of Madagascar USAID programs 

are already working to introduce drought-resistant crops that are 

better suited to new or more variable climate conditions that have 

been mentioned this morning by my friend, Franklin Moore. These 

types of programs show great promise, but the reality is that decision makers do not yet have the tools to precisely predict the 

changes that will occur, and planning around this uncertainty is indeed difficult. 

Building resilience to climate change impacts will therefore be a 

fundamental element of addressing rural development in African 

countries. We need to learn from past agricultural project failures 

and go beyond cookie cutter solutions. Rural communities have a 

better understanding of local challenges and resources that are 

unique to their region, and when given the right resources they are 

often the best placed to develop successful solutions. 

I believe that much of the adaptation responses that we need for 

rural communities can be achieved through the provision of resources to allow for flexible and simple mechanisms such as small 

grants, microcredit, training, information or access to good quality 

crops. Through a participatory process that includes community 

and government we can better address climate challenges that are 

hard to plan for and address key development needs of these communities. 

Moreover, healthy ecosystems and biodiversity underpin a community’s ability to adapt to climate change. Human well-being, 

functioning ecosystems and climate change are intimately interlinked. Natural ecosystems provide many of the basic materials of 

life for rural, poor and vulnerable communities in Africa, including 

fresh water, food and renewable natural resources that often provide incomes. 

In Madagascar, it has been shown that most of the important 

sites for ecosystem services, as I will mention, are also the most 

important area for biodiversity. To repeat, ecosystem services, their 

health and the biodiversity that maintains them are essential for 

human well-being and critical for the sustained long-term development needs of rural communities in Africa in the face of climate 

change. So understanding climate impacts and the adaptive strategy engaging communities and valuing ecosystem services will be 

critical for tackling climate change in rural Africa. 

The Copenhagen Accord, which has been referred to this morning, explicitly recognizes that reducing the loss of tropical forest is 

critical if we are to reduce the carbon dioxide emission. Conservation and natural resource management programs have achieved notable success and developed most of the tools needed to halt deforestation. 

For example, in Madagascar the actions to combat deforestation 

of which the United States Government has been a key supporter 

have managed to reduce national carbon dioxide emissions by over 

10 million tons per year over the last 15 years, so funding for 

REDD+ would provide the boost that we need to allow us to scale 

up our localized successes. 

Regarding the important commitments that were made in Copenhagen, I want to come back to what has been said this morning by 

Dr. Pershing. It is vital that the pledges made in Copenhagen are 

47

acted upon urgently and that the money is used in part for better 

planning and the preparation of national strategies for REDD, as 

well as monitoring and verification of carbon dioxide emissions. 

Finally, it is key that the United States strengthen their past 

and current investments with a predictable stream of long-term 

funding as was proposed in the House passed climate and energy 

bill as mentioned this morning. For instance, since 1990 USAID 

has invested in Madagascar more than $120 million in well-targeted environment and development activities that most demonstrably reduced deforestation while at the same time supported the 

sustainable livelihoods of hundreds of thousands of poor rural Malagasy people. The same is true throughout Africa. 

The lessons, experience and human capacity that have resulted 

from such programs can and should be immediately put to work to 

combat greenhouse gas emissions from the destruction of natural 

ecosystems. Harnessing nature’s ability to provide such solution 

will help vulnerable communities deal with the impacts of climate 

change and their development needs. 

I am pleased that the proposed United States budget recognizes 

urgency for immediate climate change funding for developing countries such as Madagascar. I do hope that the U.S. Congress will 

maintain this level of funding for climate change while at the same 

time protecting existing funding needed for other critical areas, 

such as development, education, health and conservation. 

Chairman and honorable members of the committee, I thank you 

for the opportunity to submit my statement. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rajaobelina follows:]

48


56054c-1.eps
49


56054c-2.eps
50


56054c-3.eps
51


56054c-4.eps
52

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Boltz? 

STATEMENT OF FRED BOLTZ, PH.D., SENIOR VICE-PRESIDENT, 

GLOBAL STRATEGIES, CONSERVATION INTERNATIONAL 

Mr. BOLTZ. Chairman Payne, thank you very much. Chairman 

Payne, Ranking Member Smith and esteemed committee members, 

thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss 

the important challenge of climate change in Africa, the solutions 

within our reach and the key leadership role that the United 

States has played and remains poised to fulfill across the African 

continent and to the majestic island of Madagascar. 

Please permit me today to present a brief summary of my submitted testimony. 

Mr. PAYNE. Without objection. 

Mr. BOLTZ. I would like to begin by saluting the testimony provided by Ambassador Rajaobelina. The social, economic and environmental challenges faced in Madagascar are mirrored across the 

African continent and indeed throughout the developing world and 

will only be exacerbated by climate change. The opening remarks 

that you made, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Smith, eloquently describe these important challenges that we face as a global community. 

The urgency of climate change as a global security issue has been 

highlighted in studies and public statements by leading U.S. military intelligence and security agencies, which consistently point out 

that climate change could have significant geopolitical impacts 

around the world, contributing to poverty, environmental degradation, spurring conflict and further weakening fragile governments. 

This is of particular relevance across the African continent. 

Current science reveals the potential magnitude of challenges 

that Africa will face. A consensus model, for instance, of climate 

change developed under the IPCC and downscaled to the African 


56054c-5.eps
53

continent suggests that under present trajectories Rwanda’s current climate conditions will disappear entirely and that mean temperature temperatures in west Africa may increase some five degrees Celsius by the end of this century. 

The already stressed natural resource sector across Africa will be 

further complicated by climate change, which threatens to exacerbate the scarcity of fresh water, endanger food security, increase 

extreme natural events such as floods and droughts and heighten 

the vulnerability of local populations to poverty, disease and conflict. 

Further complicating the daunting challenges of reducing poverty, conserving natural ecosystems and sustaining peace, as the 

U.S. has been invested for decades, climate change moves the goalpost for sustainable development and security, and on global security issues like climate change the U.S.’s continued leadership will 

be critical. 

The U.S. Government has led the world in promoting sound governance and sustainable management of natural resources 

throughout its many agencies working internationally. Throughout 

much of the developing world, the U.S. Government programs have 

reduced poverty, sparked economic development, increase biodiversity and natural resource conversation, strengthened institutions 

and governance and reduced conflict. 

The knowledge, stability and investment that the U.S. Government has fostered in places like Namibia, Madagascar, the Congo 

Basin, through its flagship projects truly have no equal. Through 

these efforts and building upon sound science and practical field 

experience, the United States and NGOs like Conservation International and our 1,200 partners globally have the tools necessary 

to confront the challenges posed by climate change. 

For instance, scientific capacity to diagnose the vulnerability of 

natural ecosystems to climate change provides a basis for understanding and acting in a very cost effective manner to mitigate the 

catastrophic impacts of climate change and to build the climate resilience and adaptive capacity of human and natural communities. 

Productive and resilient natural ecosystems are essential to adapting to climate change. 

Measures to ensure the conservation of these natural ecosystems 

and their services such as freshwater provision, pollination, mitigation of natural disasters, et cetera, will moderate the impacts of climate change on human communities. Natural ecosystems are the 

source of livelihoods for the rural, poor and vulnerable communities 

throughout Africa, providing drinking water, food, fuel and fiber, 

fertile soils and productive fisheries. 

CI’s long history of conservation success in Africa, supported by 

U.S. Government efforts from Liberia to Madagascar, provides this 

very basis for securing the natural ecosystems critical to maintaining climate resilience and adaptive capacity of communities and 

confronting the global climate change mitigation challenge. 

Countries across the globe are considering measures to transition 

to low carbon development for a sustainable future. Throughout Africa, from war torn developing states such as Liberia to emerging 

leaders such as Rwanda and South Africa, national governments 

and civil society are working jointly to forge a path to sustainable 

54

green economies. And a global solution to the climate crisis, which 

Dr. Pershing referred to earlier, offers an immediate entry to this 

green sustainable development pathway. 

Reducing emissions from deforestation and logging, or REDD+, 

constitutes approximately one-sixth of annual greenhouse emissions globally. Cutting deforestation in half offers about one-third 

of the cost effective technologically available solutions by 2020 to 

meet global stabilization targets to keep temperature rise below 

two degrees Celsius. In addition, REDD offers an unprecedented 

economic opportunity providing capital for national development 

based upon a global willingness to pay for preserving forests. 

A case in point. At the request of the Government of Liberia, CI 

conducted an analysis of the potential for REDD to contribute to 

Liberia’s economy and found that net revenues of $30 million per 

annum can be generated over a 25 year period at a modest payment of $5 per ton CO2 emissions avoided. 

But this requires up front costs of building the systems of governance, retooling the forestry and agricultural sector and aligning 

investment to secure this conservation of these important areas, 

while improving livelihoods of those securing the permanence of 

those emissions reductions. 

The U.S. Government is presently contemplating a $120 million 

investment in the agricultural sector in Liberia, which in combination with a bilateral program supporting REDD would provide the 

platform for stimulating a transition to this low carbon development and green economy, a development model on which green 

means not only ecologically friendly, but also economically prosperous, and that is fundamental. 

These measures are within our immediate reach. We have the 

knowledge and capacity, and the U.S. Government has built a 

track record of success in conserving natural ecosystems, stimulating economic growth, sound governance and market solutions to 

development crises. With resolute action to provide technical and 

financial assistance, the United States can again lead African nations on their transition to low carbon economies and great global 

security. 

Distinguished Chairman, committee members, please accept my 

thanks again for this distinct honor of addressing you today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Boltz follows:]

55


56054d-1.eps
56


56054d-2.eps
57


56054d-3.eps
58

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you. 

Dr. Green? 

STATEMENT OF KENNETH P. GREEN, D.ENV., RESIDENT 

SCHOLAR, AMERICAN ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE 

Mr. GREEN. Yes. Thank you, Chairman Payne. Thank you, Ranking Member Smith. Good to see you again, Representative Flake. 

Thank you all for inviting me here to speak today. Along with my 

remarks I have submitted a pertinent study to the record called 

Climate Change: The Resilience Option, that I would like accepted 

into the record. 

To conceptualize my remarks, I will offer a bit of background. As 

was mentioned, I am an environmental scientist and policy analyst 

by training, having spent the last 20 years studying environmental 

policy at research institutions in Canada and the United States. 

My beliefs regarding climate change are based on what I learned 

in my doctoral studies, supplemented by another 20 years of reading in the scientific literature, as well as the reports of the IPCC, 

two of which I appraised as an expert reviewer for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 

For all of that time, I believe that manmade climate change is 

real and climate signs both legitimate and important. I believe that 

all things being equal, doubling of the concentration of greenhouse 

gases in the atmosphere would likely raise the global average temperature by about one degree Centigrade, posing a mixture of moderate risks and moderate benefits. 

I am not convinced that strong positive feedbacks will boost global warming to extreme levels. As physicists such as Richard 

Lindzen of MIT pointed out, the opposite in fact seems to be true. 

Negative feedbacks, as are the norm in nature, seem to be canceling out some of the expected impact of humanity’s greenhouse 

gas emissions. 

This comports with both common sense and an understanding of 

the biological concept of homeostasis. The earth has been hotter 

and cooler in the past, greenhouse gas levels have been higher and 

lower in the past, but the earth has never run away into a permanent swelter or a permanent deep freeze. Feedback mechanisms 

tend to keep the earth’s climate at a reasonable midpoint, subject 

to ice ages and warm periods. 

If the climate were so unstable that sudden pulses of greenhouse 

gases such as recent human emissions or volcanic emissions could 

easily make it run away we would not be here. So while I do not 

and never have denied the reality of climate change, I do believe 

it is more moderate than people have been led to believe, and I believe the institution of climate science has been badly perverted—

no offense intended—by its entanglement with government. 

In particular, the priority the government has placed on having 

predictions of the future in order to execute long-term plans has led 

to far too much emphasis placed on computer models that in reality 

are little more predictive than computerized horoscopes. Trying to 

plan national economies and a global economy have wasted vast 

amounts of time and money that could have done much more good 

invested elsewhere. 

59

Now, the issue du jour. How do we help Africa manage its climatic risks, which again are real and can be significant, depending 

on where it is you happen to be on the African continent. First, the 

single most helpful thing we can do for Africa is to help her people 

become wealthier. 

Wealthier societies, especially those with democratic institutions 

and market economies, are naturally resilient to environmental 

variability and disasters of all sorts. Promoting the development of 

liberal democratic and market economic institutions in Africa 

should be our country’s primary focus. 

Second, we should stop trying to impose expensive and immature 

technologies on ourselves or on others. Despite the optimistic chatter of would-be rent seeking wind and solar energy tycoons, we do 

not currently have the technologies needed to curb greenhouse gas 

emissions significantly without breaking the bank. To the extent 

we deploy those technologies, we will slow our rates of economic 

growth and technological development while raising the costs of our 

exports, including food, medicinal exports and biotechnology and 

agricultural exports. 

To the extent we impose such technologies on developing countries, all we will do is slow their development and hinder their 

most urgent mission of lifting their people out of poverty. It is hard 

to see how any of that helps the people of Africa or anyone else. 

In any event, serious people must recognize that any near term 

greenhouse gas emission reduction we might achieve will be 

swamped by Chinese emission growth, making the actions all pain 

for no gain. 

Finally, we need to avoid making things worse by inadvertently 

encouraging climatic risk taking. When governments get involved 

in infrastructure development and disaster relief, they can often 

unintentionally promote risk taking by members of the public. 

For example, here in the United States when people who live at 

the water’s edge or in floodplains are hit by storms or floods, our 

government intervenes not only to help them avoid harm, but to 

keep them financially whole as well, including the property that 

they have invested in, so we see them build back over and over 

again in climatically fragile areas. That describes most of the history of the state I grew up in, California, where if it doesn’t burn 

down, slide down or shake down, it gets built up right where it 

was. 

And too often government actions lead people into harm’s way 

through infrastructure creation that leads them to climatically 

fragile areas or facilitating a dependency on a particular type of climatically sensitive resource flow, such as water. As Dr. Pershing 

pointed out, previous government efforts didn’t take climate variability into account so they would build a hydro station not thinking 

that that water may not always be there. 

The government action of building the hydro station is what 

moved the people into the climatically dangerous place, and government infrastructure development is chronically bad at this in terms 

of developing highways that lead people to spread out in urban 

sprawl, developing water systems that substitute water rates for 

farming so that we wind up farming in places people really should 

not be farming, like the California desert for that matter, and so 

60

it is very important that we not make things worse, which we have 

a history of doing. 

Finally, I believe and trust in social resilience and building 

wealth, but I think that there is a reasonable desire to ensure 

against the possibility of higher levels of warming so we should 

trust in resilience, but tie up our camel. We should do increased 

R&D funding to look for inexpensive, easily deployed, low greenhouse gas power sources to make people more adaptable to climate 

fluctuations. 

If you have a functioning HVAC unit, you can deal a lot more 

with fluctuations in the climate than if you have none, but if you 

have that HVAC unit you have electricity, and in many cases in 

Africa they have none, so it is very important to electrify and give 

people the ability to respond. 

We should also do research in geoengineering in case we need to 

physically engineer the climate locally or globally if in the rare case 

or unlikely case the models get it right of extreme predictions in 

the future. Those tools are the things we can best do. Fallback tools 

like that are the best things we can do for Africa and ourselves as 

well, as well as helping them develop economically and with democratic institutions. 

I thank you for your attention and look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Green follows:]

61


56054e-1.eps
62


56054e-2.eps
63


56054e-3.eps
64


56054e-4.eps
65


56054e-5.eps
66


56054e-6.eps
67


56054e-7.eps
68


56054e-8.eps
69

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much. Let me thank the entire panel 

for your testimony. 

And let me begin, Mr. Ambassador, by asking you about your 

country in particular. If you would describe the current and prospective impact of climate change in Madagascar and what kind of 

adaptation and mitigation needs exist in order for you to keep on 

top of the issue? 

Ambassador RAJAOBELINA. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As 

I mentioned, we have been very concerned about this climate 

change in Madagascar for the last 4 or 5 years. As a matter of fact, 

we are one of the countries which have really been a pioneer in establishing scientific bases on the impact of climate change, both on 

special, on the economy and also in devising adaptation and mitigation. 

In terms of mitigation, as I said we are one of the pioneering 

countries in developing pioneer projects or pilot projects to mitigate 

the impact of climate change, the projects some of which is being 

funded by USAID. In terms of adaptation, we have also been a pioneer. For instance, we are amongst the few countries in the world 

which have already developed what is called the REDD preparation 

plan, which is a condition for to receive REDD funding in the future. 

So I would say that on the whole we have not yet reached a point 

where we have already established a full-fledged strategy for adaptation and mitigation, but we are on the way to develop such a 

strategy. Thank you. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much. Would you also describe the 

role of Africa’s National Adaptation Programme of Action, the 

NAPA, in allowing African countries to tap into national climate 

change funding streams? How has the development of these NAPAs 

impacted Africa’s perception and its policies toward climate change 

adaptation? 

Ambassador RAJAOBELINA. As Dr. Pershing has mentioned, you 

know that we came to Copenhagen, all African countries united 

around a common strategy led by the Prime Minister of Ethiopia, 

and there is I think a common consensus view that we should approach these climate change problems united and using all the avenues in terms of negotiation as well, but in terms of securing funding for the climate change programs. 

I don’t know if you are aware that following the Copenhagen Accord the core group—the emergency fund, the $3.5 billion. There 

was a core group of contributors that has been established on 

which Congo and Niger are the members who represent Africa in 

precisely developing ways and the process through which these 

funds could be used as quickly as possible, the $3.5 billion. 

Because you know the problem is that commitments are there, 

but we don’t know yet how they are going to be used, through what 

channels they will be used, bilateral or unilateral, and the African 

countries have decided to take a common view on that and to be 

very active on this core group, which will meet in Oslo in May 

again in parallel with the negotiation on UNF. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you. And finally, in your opinion do you believe that there been adequate broad public and civil society input 

in development of Africa’s NAPA programs to date? 

70

Ambassador RAJAOBELINA. To be very frank, Mr. Chairman, I 

don’t think so. Not yet. We still need education. This is still a 

learning process, and we have to develop good communication to 

alert people. From what I have seen in my own country, clearly the 

people, the entire population, are not fully aware of the impact of 

climate change. They know the impacts. They know, but they don’t 

know what comes from that. 

The level of the rural communities, they see the changes in 

weather, the changes in the water, the water regime and so on, but 

they don’t know exactly. They don’t link that with what is climate 

change, for instance. That is why we have so much problem in linking, in your opinion, the factors. Deforestation is a key to attenuate 

and mitigate the climate change impact. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much. Dr. Boltz, the Africa Carbon 

Credit Exchange is aimed at providing a vehicle for generating economic growth and facilitating funds for the development of environmental protection and climate change mitigation projects. 

Can you describe how the ACCE can impact mitigation of GHG 

emissions and, secondly, how can the U.S. better support the development of the ACCE? 

Mr. BOLTZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I cannot speak directly to 

the ACCE. I am not familiar with that mechanism. 

Mr. PAYNE. Okay. 

Mr. BOLTZ. My apologies. 

Mr. PAYNE. All right. Let me ask you then. In your opinion, what 

climate change adaptation technology, development and transfers, 

capacity building and research do you view as the most pressing 

continent-wide in Africa? 

Mr. BOLTZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PAYNE. Why don’t you push that button? 

Mr. BOLTZ. Okay. Thank you. How is that? 

Mr. PAYNE. Great. 

Mr. BOLTZ. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The adaptation needs across Africa, and we found this in a study conducted 

in Madagascar particularly, as a top line priority relate to the 

water stresses that may occur under different scenarios of climate 

change. 

As we know, much of Africa is an arid environment already. Regions are water stressed, and many areas, especially areas that are 

more degraded and fragmented, are reliant upon conserved riparian forests surrounding rivers and the conservation of watersheds 

for the sustained provision of flows for drinking water, agriculture, 

et cetera. 

Without question, the most fundamental adaptation need is to 

understand how these water systems may change and what measures need to be taken in terms of restoring and maintaining natural ecosystems that are capturing and providing water to the African community at large. 

Mr. PAYNE. Okay. Thank you very much. Dr. Green, you mentioned several things. You say that too often government actions 

unintentionally tell people not to worry about climate risks as they 

are being bailed out. A number of issues you bring out certainly 

make a lot of sense as you talk about southern California. 

71

In your opinion, in general do you feel, just generally speaking, 

that the question of climate change and global warming is exaggerated not based on total good science? I have an idea of where you 

stand, but could you just elaborate on that a bit? 

Mr. GREEN. Sure. I will try not to go very long. Basically the core 

of climate science is the understanding that greenhouse gases trap 

outgoing radiation from the earth’s surface. 

As Dr. Pershing alluded, that has been known for a very long 

time and that humans can change the climate has been known for 

a very long time as well. Thomas Jefferson wrote about it, for example, at the local level how agriculture can change local climates. 

So that part of climate science is and always has been real and is, 

generally speaking, solid. 

But the basic physics, those basic physics suggest about a one degree Centigrade rise in temperatures for a double of atmospheric 

CO2 levels. To get anything higher than that, you leave the realm 

of what I consider to be normal science and you start having to 

make assumptions. You make assumptions about feedback loops. 

You make assumptions about future growth and development patterns and how many greenhouse gas emissions, how many tons 

there will be in the year 2075. 

You make predictions about economic growth, which of course 

look at the recent economic recession. I can guarantee you every 

IPCC document had the economic trajectories of the United States 

and the European countries dead wrong for the last 10 years. Just 

wrong. 

And so the prediction aspect, I do not consider that to be science. 

I consider that to be modeling or estimating or guesstimating in 

many cases. It is not something that can be demonstrated and 

boiled down to a chemical in a glass case that you shine the light 

through and show how it traps heat. 

And so my basic opinion is the actual real science is sound and 

robust, but it has been exaggerated partly by governments, partly 

by the media, partly by environmental groups, and they have folded into their word science what historically speaking has never 

been part of science, but instead has been part of governance, 

which is—government—predicting things and projecting things. 

That is not really science. We can’t foretell the future. We can’t 

forecast the future. 

Mr. PAYNE. And why do you think they do that? I mean, what 

is the overall goal and objective of that, in your opinion? 

Mr. GREEN. Well, it is an understandable thing. As Dr. Pershing 

also pointed out, governments act over very long timeframes. Because they are so large, they are one of the only entities that can 

do that. Only the government could say we are going to build an 

entire Federal highway system for the national defense. 

They act on long timeframes and they would like to have some 

certainty about what they are doing, and so they ask scientists for 

information. The problem is that those scientists who give them 

sort of weasel word things and say well, I don’t really know and 

I can’t really tell you, those scientists don’t get much attention. 

They don’t get much in the way of publications, and they certainly 

don’t get called to testify at hearings very often. 

72

And so the scientists who have been willing to most exaggerate 

their ability to predict the future have been the ones woven most 

intimately into the climate negotiation process leading to this overreliance on mathematical climate models that predict the future. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you. Dr. Boltz, do you concur in the opinion 

given by Dr. Green in general? 

Mr. BOLTZ. There are many elements of Dr. Green’s testimony 

and opinion that——

Mr. PAYNE. You probably need to put that mic a little closer to 

you. 

Mr. BOLTZ. Dr. Green points out an important consideration 

which Dr. Pershing also pointed out, which is that we can have 

greater certainty of the trends in greenhouse gas accumulation and 

climate change than in the precision of long-term magnitude of 

change. 

I would disagree with or contest, as Dr. Green has posited, the 

belief that climate change will be retained within a one degree increase with a doubling of concentrations is more credible than any 

other projection that has been presented. 

I think he has stated it as a belief, and I think that we should 

take it as such. I think he does acknowledge the uncertainties underlying his own ability to say with certainty and confidence what 

is likely to happen. 

I think fundamentally, though, we should not be designing our 

own strategies as a global community and as a leading nation in 

that global community based upon the least likely risk, but rather 

understand what are the magnitudes of risk that we may confront 

given trends in climate change, in atmospheric greenhouse gas cumulation and both short-term higher probabilities of impacts related to the vulnerability of communities, the increased water scarcity, et cetera, and potential long-term impacts. 

I think that if we act on a presumption of relative security that 

we are acting in error and not taking into account the measures 

that we need to take short-term on the basis of a precautionary 

principle to prevent the most catastrophic consequences. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you. Thank you very much. Mr. Smith? 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me just 

again pick up on the earlier conversation we had with Panel 1. 

Dr. Green, you had said in your writings, especially the AEI report, that it is fair to say that the scientific understanding of which 

factors contribute to change in the earth’s climate is still in a very 

early stage. Even the experts at the IPCC acknowledge this to be 

the case. 

You know, when the general media picks up and says the science 

is settled, we are causing it and that is the general impression that 

has been created both pre Copenhagen and post, could all of you 

speak to that issue of do you agree and how early in the stage are 

we about manmade climate change? 

Mr. GREEN. May I? At least since you named me I will go first 

if you don’t mind, gentlemen. 

Ambassador RAJAOBELINA. Please. 

Mr. GREEN. In the IPCC reports and I think in that study there 

is a very interesting chart that everyone should see that reflects 

the level of scientific understanding of the different factors which 

73

can move the climate, which can influence the climate. They are 

called forcings in the scientific parlance. 

Some of those forcings are considered well understood such as 

the actual greenhouse—CO2, nitrous oxide and a few others—but 

for many of them the actual level of scientific understanding listed 

is either somewhat low, low or very low. Now, that has moved up 

over time. Each of the succeeding IPCC reports has had a similar 

chart. 

But if you look at the possible range of those influences, some of 

them are so broad as to be able to swamp out much of what the 

human greenhouse gases can do, and that is where the understanding sort of comes off of the rails is what we don’t know about 

particulate matter, what we don’t know about clouds especially, 

what we don’t know about water vapor and its role on mitigating 

or accelerating greenhouse gas induced warming. 

Airplane contrails, which amazingly enough cover enough of the 

earth’s atmosphere to influence the global climate. The contrails 

are the bright lines left behind the airplanes, right? And so those 

levels of scientific understanding are admittedly low by the United 

Nations modelers, and that is what goes into these questions of for 

a given amount of increasing greenhouse gases how much warming 

do you get out the other end. 

When you strip away the things we are making assumptions 

about, the basic physics—and this is my belief, but it is also simply 

what you get when you work through the equations of heat retention in the atmosphere. You get about one degree Centigrade. And 

so that is where I believe we need to improve our level of scientific 

understanding, especially regarding water vapor and clouds, which 

are just overwhelmingly dominant influences on the climate. 

Mr. SMITH. Would anybody else want to touch it? Ambassador? 

Ambassador RAJAOBELINA. I am not a scientist, so I am not going 

to debate a scientific question. Dr. Green is much more qualified. 

But I am coming back to what Franklin Moore said that as far 

as we are concerned there are two things. One is the trend is there. 

We see that. We saw that in the past periods, and if the trends are 

continuing we will have one to two degrees increasing. Dr. Green 

has accepted that. 

And that will impact on our daily life as the committee through 

the water regime, rain regime and the drought and the recurrence 

of very tough cyclones and so that is what we are fixing on the 

ground, so how to prepare people and to make people resilient to 

the changes we are witnessing in our daily life. 

Mr. BOLTZ. Thank you, Mr. Smith. I am sorry. I am still not 

quite accustomed to this. Thank you for the question. It is an important question. 

And I think that to me fundamentally the issue is do human activities result in greenhouse gas emissions? Yes. Does the increase 

in the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere result 

in a warming effect? From what we are seeing, yes? How do other 

influences—the albedo effect, et cetera—offset that? Great uncertainties. 

But we have two certainties implicit, one that human activities 

are a current source of emissions and that increases the risk of 

global warming due to an enhanced atmospheric greenhouse gas 

74

concentration, implying that we should be cognizant and concerned 

with efforts to mitigate the emissions from human activities to 

again increase that risk of increasing atmospheric greenhouse gas 

concentrations leading to catastrophic climate change. 

I think the physics are clear related to emissions and greenhouse 

gas concentrations, the predictions less so, but fundamentally is 

that causal relationship that we have an opportunity to influence. 

Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. Let me ask a couple of questions and then yield to 

the gentlemen to respond. I wonder if it is prudent for people, very 

heavily credentialed people like Dr. Pershing and Franklin Moore, 

to quote the IPCC when they make these Draconian predictions of 

net crop revenues could fail by as much as 90 percent by 2100. 

You heard the preceding conversation. I mean, I just want to get 

to the truth and I really want to get there as quick as we can. If 

we don’t know it, we ought to admit we don’t have the clarity that 

we purport to have, and that is why my conversations with the 

CBO and others have been discouraging as to how much they don’t 

know, and yet they put on paper numbers that then become branded that this is what the cost will be, this is what the consequences 

will be. 

Even the idea that we could disappear from the African continent 

entirely by 2080. You know, I see that, and not knowing how that 

was arrived at and Dr. Pershing said and Mr. Moore that they will 

get back to us on that. The methodology is extremely important to 

know whether or not if that were something that is real we need 

to be obviously taking more aggressive action. 

Secondly, I was very encouraged in direct answer to my question 

is the Obama administration seeking to combat climate change in 

Africa by reducing the number of African children by way of population control. Dr. Pershing said in a word no. 

I raise this issue because there are a number of groups, as I said 

earlier, who just see the number of African children being born as 

a negative. The U.N. Population Fund in mid November came out 

and said that the battle against global warming could be helped by 

slowed population growth, and then they said the U.N.—this is an 

AP story. The U.N. Population Fund acknowledged it had no proof 

the effect population control would have on climate change. 

As a matter of fact, two WHO leaders, experts, warned about the 

dangers of linking fertility to climate change and they said, ‘‘Using 

the need to reduce climate change as a justification for curbing the 

fertility of individual women at best provokes controversy and at 

worse provides a mandate to suppress individual freedoms,’’ wrote 

WHO Diarmid Campbell-Lendrum and Manjula Lusti-Narasimhan, 

two WHO experts, and that is in the AP story. 

Why do I raise this? Because there are people who are trying to 

link the one child per couple policy with its Draconian effects on 

women. Five hundred women commit suicide every day—every day; 

not week, month; every day—in China because the invasion of the 

state into their private affairs is so huge. Of course, they are missing at least 100 million girls in China as a direct result of sex selection abortion and the requirement of only one child per couple. 

The Financial Post in Canada, the editor in chief, as a matter of 

fact—her name is Diane Francis—wrote an opinion piece called 

75

The Real Inconvenient Truth, and she writes, ‘‘The whole world 

needs to adopt China’s one child policy.’’ Now, she wrote this on 

December 8, 2009. 

She said, ‘‘Ironically, China, despite its dirty coal plants, is the 

world’s leader in terms of fashioning policy to combat environmental degradation thanks to its one child per couple policy.’’ She 

says to the world, ‘‘The fix is simple. None will work unless China’s 

one child policy is imposed.’’ She calls that smart policy. 

You know, if you are willing to kill children and slaughter millions of children—billions in her estimation—you are going to reduce carbon breathers known as little children. Ironically, Diane 

Francis has two children, and I wish she would have as many children as she would like, but she is suggesting, and she does it in 

very, very somber tones, that to save the planet we need to eradicate children. 

She says by 2075, under her proposal there would be 3.4 billion 

humans on the planet. You only get there through massive intrusion into the privacy of women and families. You only get there 

through coercion as China has proven since adoption in 1979 of its 

one child per couple policy. 

And even at Copenhagen, China daily said population control is 

the key to the deal and talked about how many billions, millions 

of tons of CO2 emissions a year have been reduced by their Draconian policy of slaughtering children. So I am very concerned that 

this unwittingly perhaps may unleash more drive in Africa, putting 

more little babies and children, African babies, at risk. 

In the Mail, the London Mail, there was a big article recently, 

and I would ask people to read it, where women talk about having 

abortions to help the environment and that this is the means to reducing the carbon footprint of their families by destroying their 

children. That is perverted, frankly. That is sick, and we should 

not wittingly or unwittingly put our arms around that kind of policy, in my opinion, and promote the elimination of children as a 

means of saving the planet. 

And yet in the Financial Post it couldn’t be more clear. A very 

well educated woman with a very fine skill for writing says we 

need China’s one child per couple policy. That is why I am so worried about Africa. Given all of the power to persuade and to intimidate that the international community has on some governments 

relying on foreign aid, there may be a go along acceptance of that 

kind of Draconian measure. 

So again I was encouraged by Dr. Pershing’s statement, but I 

think we have to be very careful that while we combat environmental degradation we don’t consider killing children as part of the 

solution. So if any of you would like to touch on that. 

And finally again I want to bring up the unintended consequences that Dr. Molly Brown and others have suggested. When 

the cost of energy goes up, as she pointed out in her NASA study—

it was joined by two others who wrote it, and I do believe this is 

an unintended consequence—the ability to get food in Africa and 

elsewhere will become an enhanced challenge. 

She says use of biofuels will put direct upward pressure on food 

pricing, and cap in trade is likely to increase energy prices and it 

will be—this is her words—a spillover effect on food prices due to 

76

the coupling of the food and energy markets raising food prices. 

The last thing Africans need are higher costs for food. 

Mr. GREEN. I will emulate the Ambassador and point out what 

I am not, which is I am not a demographer or a specialist in population trends or population control issues. It is not an area in which 

I have done much work or writing, so I will in general leave that 

to them, although I would certainly agree that coercion should have 

no place. Coercion of any sort should have no place in climate policy, and the ultimate form of coercion is almost certainly that sort 

of one child policy that China has invoked. 

So I will address the other points instead, and I will be brief. If 

you want to know where these predictions of future climate change 

come from and possible impacts on Africa and the like, you need 

to look to a book called The Special Report on Emission Scenarios 

by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 

That book, which is created separate from the other science reports, creates a series of what they term story lines and scenarios 

of what they think the future may be like under certain conditions 

such as increased use of fossil fuels, increased use of nuclear fuels, 

higher rates of population growth, lower rates of population 

growth, and they draw these out, often extrapolating them to the 

year 2100 from what they either see or they think is going to happen. 

That generates a concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. A scientist plugs that into a model and asks how much will that warm 

the globe based on what their model tells them. The model will 

come back with a number, and other models are used to say well, 

how will that affect certain areas of the globe. 

The IPCC acknowledges that trying to go below the continental 

level is not yet possible with any precision and so you can make 

predictions at the continental level that it would be slightly warmer or slightly cooler. Subcontinental level predictions have virtually 

no utility other than as a what if thought exercise. 

So that is where that data comes from, and I would offer to submit my copy of it to the record, but it is about this thick and it 

cost me quite a lot of money, so I am afraid you will have to acquire your own. 

On the last point of unintended consequences, I mean, this is absolutely correct. We did this with ethanol. The ethanol problem has 

not been solved and won’t be solved by cellulosic ethanol or other 

types. What we are doing is we are putting a bounty on land for 

biofuels, and as long as you place a value on a square of land that 

is higher for fuel than for food, farmers will respond and they will 

grow fuel and they will not grow food. 

This is a real problem with biofuels around the world, especially 

in Africa and in the equatorial regions because if we place a bounty 

on biodiesel, raising soybeans for biodiesel, hungry people will raise 

those soybeans at the expense of the rainforest around them. They 

will cut them down and plant and they already are. 

So the biofuel issue is one of the greatest unintended consequences you can possibly imagine and yet we still have it as a 

major aspect of U.S. policy to boost biofuel use not only here, but 

around the world. It really is a bit of a travesty. 

77

Mr. BOLTZ. Thank you, Mr. Smith, for the questions. I similarly 

do not have the expertise to speak on the issue of population control. As you have described it, certainly I would not be in favor of 

Draconian population control, killing children to address any issue 

personally nor the institution that I work for. 

I don’t have the expertise to speak of what would be appropriate 

family planning measures. However, as Congresswoman Woolsey 

referred to earlier, access to education, to health services, to nutritional services, providing the tools for sound family planning 

should be a priority for all nations on earth. Access to the basic facilities for care and sound upbringing of healthy families is fundamental. 

To the other two questions, is it prudent to quote the IPCC? The 

IPCC is currently our best source of scientific information and acknowledges its own limitations and shortfalls. The IPCC provides 

several scenarios of possible climate change impacts. Is it prudent 

to cite them? 

To the extent that they do provide a credible source and their 

shortcomings and limitations are explicitly acknowledged and considering that the role of government on behalf of its public is to 

provide for the measures needed to ensure the greatest probability 

of sustaining the welfare of current and future generations, I think 

it is prudent to follow the globally recognized science while, as Dr. 

Pershing acknowledged, noting what key gaps there are in science. 

Dr. Green has mentioned some others related to the albedo effect. 

Noting the key limitations and those areas that must be 

strengthened to provide greater certainty and to provide a more 

rigorous scientific basis which you have also mentioned as a principal concern. So is it prudent? I would agree. I would say yes. Is 

it sufficient? Not yet. We need to continue to build that scientific 

certainty and the basis for making sound decisions. 

To the last question on energy and food security, I think as a 

principle we would be wrong to try to address issues of climate 

change and climate security in isolation from issues of food security 

because they are intertwined and interdependent issues that must 

be resolved in tandem. 

Increasing scarcity of fuels upon which we are presently dependent will lead to an increase in energy prices and trigger increases 

in the price of food. Increases in the demand for land for biofuels 

or for the production of other commodities such as soy, such as cattle, will also lead to increasing scarcity of land available for agriculture and increasing food prices. These issues are intertwined 

and must be dealt with in an integrated and compatible manner. 

The measures that Mr. Moore referred to earlier I think are critical. Notably, increasing agricultural productivity, sustaining longterm climate security and adaptation capacity is also related to increasing the productivity of lands and the ability to sustain production on those lands. 

Similarly, restoring degraded lands and identifying the possibility for cultivating biofuels, for instance, on degraded lands as opposed to using fertile lands that can produce for agriculture should 

be a policy. Understanding the carbon debt that can be incurred by 

biofuel productions and establishing stringent standards for investment in biofuels such that that carbon debt is acknowledged and 

78

we are not incidentally creating higher debt by converting lands to 

biofuel use is fundamental, and that should be an element of U.S. 

investment policy. 

Lastly, there has been some efforts and Conservation International has been among those leading the development of this 

process. There is a committee established which is a Responsible 

Biofuels Producers Association that is talking about how do we 

make the best use of degraded lands, different sorts of biofuel products in different areas and address the issue of carbon debt given 

that there is an emerging and will be a future demand for biofuels 

production, but that it poses the serious risks that you enunciated. 

That group is a private sector group working with civil society 

in Indonesia, also looking at Brazil, and is making great gains, and 

the extent to which we can provide policies and investment that favors more responsible production is certainty in our long-term interest. Thank you. 

Ambassador RAJAOBELINA. Mr. Chairman, I think I can be very 

brief because most of what I wanted to say has been said by Dr. 

Green and by Dr. Boltz. 

Regarding the question of population and climate change, I certainly agree with Congressman Smith that it would be really appalling to link climate change to extreme conditions such as the 

one proposed by some quarters for the one child policy. Clearly population problems are not and cannot be dealt in such a way, but 

through various programs, from various approaches as mentioned 

by Congressman Woolsey. 

Regarding energy, that is really the key because the more the 

prices of energy increase, fuel and so on, the more it has an impact 

on households to the extent that in Africa and in Madagascar in 

particular most of the energy consumed by households comes from 

charcoal, so the more increase in energy, increase in fueling, the 

price increase, the more they are going into natural resources to 

produce. That is one problem. 

Then there is a problem mentioned by Dr. Green and Dr. Boltz, 

the question of energy versus particulate. Clearly it is a real problem. It is a real problem. The last few years that I have been going 

to—and so on, and that has been at an expense, putting it in very 

simple terms. That has to be carefully considered as explained by 

Dr. Boltz. 

Mr. PAYNE. Well, let me thank the panel for your expertise. I 

also would like to before we adjourn acknowledge the Ambassador 

from Madagascar who is with us. Thank you for attending, Mr. 

Ambassador. 

With that, I would like to ask for unanimous consent that a 

statement from JoDee Winterhof, vice president for policy and advocacy from CARE USA, be a part of the record, in addition to several questions submitted by Representative Blumenauer. 

I will now ask for unanimous consent that members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. Without objection, 

so ordered. Thank you. The meeting stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:44 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(79)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

80


56054n.eps
81


56054m.eps
82


56054h-1.eps
83


56054h-2.eps
84


56054h-3.eps
85


56054i-1.eps
86


56054i-2.eps
87


56054i-3.eps
88


56054i-4.eps
89


56054i-5.eps
90


56054i-6.eps
91

[NOTE: Written responses were not received to these questions prior to printing.]

Æ


56054g.eps