U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

34–954 PDF WASHINGTON : 2019

CLIMATE CHANGE: THE IMPACTS 

AND THE NEED TO ACT 

OVERSIGHT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED SIXTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

Wednesday, February 6, 2019 

Serial No. 116–1 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

( 

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

or 

Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

RAU ́ L M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Chair 

DEBRA A. HAALAND, NM, Vice Chair 

GREGORIO KILILI CAMACHO SABLAN, CNMI, Vice Chair, Insular Affairs 

ROB BISHOP, UT, Ranking Republican Member 

Grace F. Napolitano, CA 

Jim Costa, CA 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, CNMI 

Jared Huffman, CA 

Alan S. Lowenthal, CA 

Ruben Gallego, AZ 

TJ Cox, CA 

Joe Neguse, CO 

Mike Levin, CA 

Debra A. Haaland, NM 

Jefferson Van Drew, NJ 

Joe Cunningham, SC 

Nydia M. Vela ́zquez, NY 

Diana DeGette, CO 

Wm. Lacy Clay, MO 

Debbie Dingell, MI 

Anthony G. Brown, MD 

A. Donald McEachin, VA 

Darren Soto, FL 

Ed Case, HI 

Steven Horsford, NV 

Michael F. Q. San Nicolas, GU 

Vacancy 

Vacancy 

Vacancy 

Don Young, AK 

Louie Gohmert, TX 

Doug Lamborn, CO 

Robert J. Wittman, VA 

Tom McClintock, CA 

Paul A. Gosar, AZ 

Paul Cook, CA 

Bruce Westerman, AR 

Garret Graves, LA 

Jody B. Hice, GA 

Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, AS 

Daniel Webster, FL 

Liz Cheney, WY 

Mike Johnson, LA 

Jenniffer Gonza ́lez-Colo ́n, PR 

John R. Curtis, UT 

Kevin Hern, OK 

Russ Fulcher, ID 

David Watkins, Chief of Staff 

Sarah Lim, Chief Counsel 

Parish Braden, Republican Staff Director 

http://naturalresources.house.gov 
(III) 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Hearing held on Wednesday, February 6, 2019 .................................................... 1 

Statement of Members: 

Bishop, Hon. Rob, a Representative in Congress from the State of Utah ... 4 

Dingell, Hon. Debbie, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Michigan, prepared statement of ................................................................. 114 

Grijalva, Hon. Rau ́l M., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Arizona ...................................................................................................... 1 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3 

Hice, Hon. Jody B., a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Georgia, prepared statement of ................................................................... 115 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Baker, Hon. Charlie, Governor, State of Massachusetts, Boston, 

Massachusetts ............................................................................................... 17 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 19 

Questions submitted for the record ......................................................... 27 

Cobb, Kim, Director, Global Change Program; Advance Professor, Earth 

& Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, 

Georgia ........................................................................................................... 64 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 66 

Questions submitted for the record ......................................................... 70 

Cooper, Hon. Roy, Governor, State of North Carolina, Raleigh, North 

Carolina ......................................................................................................... 7 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 9 

Questions submitted for the record ......................................................... 10 

Curry, Judith A., President, Climate Forecast Applications Network, 

Reno, Nevada ................................................................................................ 83 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 85 

Questions submitted for the record ......................................................... 93 

DiPerna, Paula, Special Advisor, CDP North America, New York, New 

York ................................................................................................................ 71 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 73 

Hollie, Derrick, President, Reaching America, Bennsville, Maryland ......... 80 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 81 

Questions submitted for the record ......................................................... 82 

Nazar, Nadia, Co-Founder, Co-Executive Director, and Art Director, Zero 

Hour Movement; Co-Organizer of the Youth Climate March, Perry Hall, 

Maryland ....................................................................................................... 54 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 56 

Yeampierre, Elizabeth, Executive Director, UPROSE, Co-Chair of the 

Climate Justice Alliance, Brooklyn, New York .......................................... 59 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 61 

Questions submitted for the record ......................................................... 64 

Yearwood, Lennox, Jr., President and CEO, Hip Hop Caucus, 

Washington, DC ............................................................................................ 77 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 79 

Additional Materials Submitted for the Record: 

Facebook, Letter dated February 8, 2019, Submitted for the Record .......... 115 

List of documents submitted for the record retained in the Committee’s 

official files .................................................................................................... 116 
Page

IV 

Additional Materials Submitted for the Record—Continued 

Submissions for the Record by Rep. Graves 

Letter addressed to the President from Senators Cantwell, Schumer, 

Menendez, and Markey on oil production dated May 23, 2018 ......... 43 

Average Electricity Prices for each State, chart ..................................... 45 

Submission for the Record by Rep. Grijalva 

Highlights from the NOAA Report, U.S. and Global Climate for 2018 46 

Submission for the Record by Rep. Westerman 

Dilbert Cartoon .......................................................................................... 49 
(1) 

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON CLIMATE CHANGE: 

THE IMPACTS AND THE NEED TO ACT 

Wednesday, February 6, 2019 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Washington, DC 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:07 a.m., in room 

1324, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Rau ́l M. Grijalva 

[Chairman of the Committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Grijalva, Napolitano, Costa, Sablan, 

Huffman, Lowenthal, Cox, Neguse, Levin, Haaland, Van Drew, 

Cunningham, Vela ́zquez, Clay, McEachin, Case, Horsford, Bishop, 

Gohmert, Lamborn, McClintock, Gosar, Westerman, Graves, 

Webster, Hern, and Fulcher. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me call the Committee on Natural Resources 

to order. 

The Committee today is meeting to hear testimony on the 

impacts of climate change and the need for Congress and the 

Administration to act. 

Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at hearings are limited to the Chairman and the Ranking Minority 

Member. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that all other 

Members’ opening statements be made part of the hearing record 

if they are submitted to the Clerk by 5 p.m. today. 

Hearing no objection, so ordered. 

Welcome, everyone, to the first hearing of the 116th Congress for 

the Natural Resources Committee, and thank you to our witnesses 

for appearing before us, as we begin to tackle one of the most 

urgent and pressing challenges of our time. 

THE HON. RAU ́ L M. GRIJALVA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN 

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA 

The CHAIRMAN. The majority of Americans consider meaningful 

action on climate change to be a moral and economic imperative. 

They are absolutely right. And they have friends on this 

Committee, including myself and other colleagues who are here to 

work on solutions. 

Climate change is real. The emissions we produce from burning 

fossil fuels are making it worse. It is a threat to our public health, 

national security, infrastructure, and natural resources. We are 

seeing the impacts now, and they will grow stronger unless we 

change course. 

Our communities are paying the price for years of inaction on 

this issue. The massive and unprecedented storms, heat waves, 

fires, and droughts we are experiencing are not normal. They are 

being made worse by climate change, and if we don’t take action 

now, we are only at the beginning of this process. 
2 

The last 4 years have been the 4 hottest years ever recorded. Ice 

sheets are melting far faster than previously thought. The coast of 

Alaska is literally disappearing into the ocean. Indigenous villages 

are already having to relocate. 

We will see more climate refugees as time goes on. Parts of our 

planet where people currently live may very well become uninhabitable. 

Every day that we fail to act increases the costs of addressing 

this crisis for future generations. Putting our heads in the sand 

puts people’s lives at risk and our Nation’s safety in jeopardy. 

Today, we turn the page on this Committee from climate change 

denial to climate action. The Democratic Majority is here to listen 

to people, to work for people, to hear from Americans across the 

country from all walks of life whose experiences emphasize the 

need to address this crisis. 

The rest of the world understands the urgent need to take action 

on climate change. The Trump administration chooses to mock 

science and mislead the public about what our country will look 

like if we do nothing. 

As President Trump seeks to expand fossil fuel production on 

public lands, roll back the protections for clean air and clean water, 

suppress the role of science, and turn his back on international 

agreements, we have situations. 

That is why states, local community leaders, businesses, and 

many others are stepping up. They can’t wait for action from an 

Administration that appears not to care about their own well-being 

and of their constituents. 

This is a great opportunity for American entrepreneurs to lead 

the way in creating and deploying new energy technologies the 

world will need. But with people’s lives in imminent danger, we 

know that we need more than innovation; we need good policies. 

Climate change is a matter of social justice. Communities of color 

and tribes are disproportionately impacted by climate change, and 

will continue to struggle unless we take action. 

Along with testimony from our witnesses today, I invite the 

public to provide their climate crisis stories at 

www.naturalresources.house.gov. I would like to briefly share just 

one of the many stories we have already heard from the public. 

This is from a woman named Katie Davis, from Goleta, California. 

‘‘Last July on a freakishly hot night that broke records across 

Southern California, a fire suddenly broke out in our neighborhood 

due to hot winds, the likes of which I’ve never felt before, that 

pushed flames toward us rapidly. It was one of the most terrifying 

moments of my life. We ran out of the house with nothing, no time 

to prepare, and fled. Our house survived with minor damage, but 

on that anguishing night most of the houses on our street burned 

down. I look at the foundations of five burned down houses as I 

write this.’’ 

These are the stories we need to hear in this Committee and in 

this Congress. The best policies are informed by a combination of 

sound science and informed public input. These are the guideposts 

for this Committee, both in our hearing today and everything we 

do in the next 2 years. Climate change is an urgent problem. It 
3 

demands urgent action and a sense of purpose from Congress. This 

Committee will offer both. 

And I want to thank you again to the witnesses. I look forward 

to your testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Grijalva follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. RAU ́ L M. GRIJALVA, CHAIR, COMMITTEE ON

NATURAL RESOURCES

The Committee on Natural Resources will now come to order. 

The Committee is meeting today to hear testimony on the impacts of climate 

change and the need for Congress and the Administration to act. 

Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at hearings are limited 

to the Chairman and the Ranking Minority Member. 

Welcome everyone to the first hearing of the 116th Congress for the Natural 

Resources Committee and thank you to our witnesses for appearing before us as we 

begin to tackle one of the most urgent and pressing challenges of our time. 

The majority of Americans consider meaningful action on climate change a moral 

imperative. They’re absolutely right. And they have friends on this Committee, 

including the Chairman, who are here to work on solutions. 

Climate change is real. The emissions we produce from burning fossil fuels are 

making it worse. It’s a threat to our public health, national security, infrastructure, 

and natural resources. We are seeing its impacts now, and they will only grow 

stronger unless we change course. 

Our communities are paying the price for years of inaction on this issue. The massive and unprecedented storms, heat waves, fires, and droughts we are experiencing 

are not normal. They are being made worse by climate change, and if we don’t take 

action now, we’re only at the beginning. 

The last 4 years have been the 4 hottest years ever recorded. Ice sheets are melting far faster than previously thought. The coast of Alaska is literally disappearing 

into the ocean. Indigenous villages are already having to relocate. 

We will see more climate refugees as time goes on. Parts of our planet where 

people currently live may very well become uninhabitable. 

Every day we fail to act increases the costs of addressing this crisis for future generations. Putting our heads in the sand puts peoples’ lives at risk and our Nation’s 

safety in jeopardy. 

Today, we turn the page on this Committee from climate denial to climate action. 

The Democratic Majority is here to listen to the people. To work for the people. To 

hear from Americans across the country, from all walks of life, whose experiences 

emphasize the need to address this crisis. 

The rest of the world understands the urgent need to take action on climate 

change. The Trump administration chooses to mock science and mislead the public 

about what our country will look like if we do nothing. 

President Trump seeks to expand fossil fuel production on public lands, roll back 

protections for clean air and clean water, suppress the role of science, and turn his 

back on international agreements. 

That’s why states, local community leaders, businesses and many others are stepping up. They can’t wait for action from an Administration that doesn’t care about 

their well-being. 

There is a great opportunity for American entrepreneurs to lead the way in creating and deploying new energy technologies the world will need. But with people’s 

lives in imminent danger, we know that we need more than innovation. We need 

good policies. 

Climate change is a matter of social justice. Communities of color and tribes are 

disproportionately impacted by climate change and will continue to struggle unless 

we take action. 

Along with testimony from our witnesses today, I invite the public to provide their 

climate crisis stories an naturalresources.house.gov. I’d like to briefly share just one 

of the many stories we’ve already heard from the public. This is from a woman 

named Katie Davis who wrote to us from Goleta, California: ‘‘Last July on a freakishly hot night that broke records across Southern California, a fire suddenly broke 

out in our neighborhood due to hot winds, the likes of which I’ve never felt before, 

that pushed flames toward us rapidly. It was one of the most terrifying moments 

of my life. We ran out of the house with nothing, and no time to prepare, and fled. 

Our house survived with minor damage, but that anguishing night most of the 

houses on our street burned down. I look out at the foundations of five burned out 

houses as I write this.’’ 
4 

These are the stories we need to hear in this Committee and in this Congress. 

The best policies are informed by a combination of sound science and informed public input. Those are the guideposts for this Committee, both in our hearing today 

and in everything we do for the next 2 years. Climate change is an urgent problem. 

It demands urgent action and a sense of purpose from Congress. This Committee 

will offer both. 

Thank you again to the witnesses. I look forward to your testimony. 

I now recognize Ranking Member Bishop for his opening statement. 

The CHAIRMAN. I now recognize the Ranking Member, Mr. 

Bishop, for his opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROB BISHOP, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF UTAH 

Mr. BISHOP. Congratulations, Mr. Grijalva, on your first Full 

Committee chairing. I know you had a Ranking Member chairmanship at the time, but that was a long, long time ago. I am happy 

to have you here, happy to be here for this particular discussion. 

I know you have made February as Climate Change Month. I appreciate the fact that you picked the shortest month of the year to 

do that. 

Also, it happens to be, of course, Black History Month, which I 

wish we could deal with some other things. Because in the last couple of years, this Committee has done some significant issues in the 

area of Federal lands and projects. I mean we have expanded the 

Martin Luther King home, historic site, as well as the Central 

High School in Little Rock, Arkansas, which I had the opportunity 

of going to this summer, and was amazed at how actually great 

that was, as a narrative history of what is going on here. 

We will have, in the last package the Senate is pushing over, the 

establishment of the Medgar Evers National Monument, Camp 

Nelson National Monument. We also did the Kennedy-King 

Historic Area in Indiana this particular year, as well as the 

African-American Civil Rights Network, and re-authorizing historically black colleges and university preservation grant programs. 

All of those are within the purview of this Committee. That is 

our jurisdiction, talking about those kinds of things would be very 

positive. In the ones I have just listed to you also there is a $41 

million maintenance backlog, just on the programs I just enunciated. Talking about that is in the jurisdiction of this Committee. 

The Chairman has been very good in helping us come up with 

ways of funding that maintenance backlog creatively in the past. 

I hope that we can actually get to those kind of activities, which 

would be extremely important. 

All right. Now, focusing to the topic of this particular meeting, 

it is my hope that what we do is coming up with ways we can actually help people. 

Utah, for example, has had terrible air. It is part of the topography, especially in the winter time. But it is much better than the 

air that Representative Curtis and I grew up in in Utah, simply 

because of the actions of the state of Utah. EPA and other Federal 

agencies over the last 15 years haven’t done squat, but the state 

has made major changes. And I hope that we can look at how we 

can do those types of changes. 
5 

I appreciate the fact that we have two governors here with us 

today. Thank you for being here. Once again, it would have been 

nice to have known some of the topics of this hearing, even though 

Rule 4(c) requires that to be in there, and transparency requires 

it. We did not have time to invite another governor. I would have 

loved to have a governor from the West come here and join you 

two, simply because they are, unfortunately, in the middle of our 

legislative sessions, or the beginning of their legislative sessions, 

and could not make it in such short notice. But they actually have 

Federal lands over which we have jurisdiction that would be an 

input. 

But I hope that you guys can enlighten us, even though you are 

only governors. You are one of those peons that work in the outer 

hinterlands of America that really aren’t as important as we here 

in the Federal Government. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BISHOP. So, we appreciate your groveling before us, because 

all of us and the agencies breathe the rarified air and drink the 

leaded water of Washington. Therefore, we know exactly what is 

right to do. And for you to actually come here on hands and knees, 

I appreciate that. 

I hope, though, in the process, you can give us some ideas of 

what you all are trying to do in your states, how maybe permitting 

process—we can work with you easier to actually allow states to 

become partners with us, instead of being dominated by us, to find 

real solutions for real people. That, I hope, is the ultimate goal of 

what we are attempting to do. 

As I said, Utah has amazingly bad air in the winter. It is part 

of the topography. When it is snowing on the ground, the mountains prohibit any kind of wind gust from cleaning out the atmosphere. We never have bad air in the summer, except for this year, 

which meant that as every forest burned in California, a week later 

we were breathing the air of the burned California. And that was 

unique. 

And it is going to happen again, unless we actually can do something about that, which is why the frustration I had with the 

Senate using the filibuster to gut most of the forest fire reforms 

that we passed. That is one of the things that is in the jurisdiction 

of this Committee, and I wish we were talking about that. 

If we actually were able to control forest fires by different managing systems that are experts, like Mr. Westerman, who has a 

doctorate in this area, that the experts from the Forest Service in 

both the Obama and Trump administrations told us they needed to 

do to manage the lands, we could actually help with the environment. 

There is another one, too. Even though a lot of the people who 

are—well, carbon sequestration. If we actually want to get carbon 

out of the air, there are enough new studies that are being done, 

specifically in Portugal and Australia, and here in the United 

States, as well, that talk about the way of using carbon sequestration—to use plant life, which needs carbon, to suck it out of the air 

and put it into the ground where it could be useful for plant life, 

and then also help clean the air. That is the jurisdiction of this 
6 

Committee. And those are the kinds of things I hope we can do to 

talk about specific issues. 

So, I have to mention I am at kind of a loss. I do not know where 

this hearing is going, or the other six hearings you planned, because you simply haven’t told us where the goal is. At some point 

we may be asking, ‘‘Where are we going?’’ 

What is the real legislation to help people that is supposed to 

come out of these hearings—to understand whether these hearings 

are simply for those of us around the horseshoe who are going to 

make legislation. 

Or are these hearings designed for that group that is sitting at 

a table in the corner so they can write cute stories? 

Once again, we have not been given the detail of where these 

hearings are going. We would like to know that in the future. 

With that, we are ready to get started on this wonderful new adventure in a month that has only 28 days. But I would like Rule 

4(c) to be instituted so that we actually can have greater understanding and preparation so we can participate fully with you in 

these hearings. 

And governors, thank you for joining us. Thank you for groveling 

before us. I am looking forward to your testimony. 

I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Bishop. And I can assure you 

that, in terms of all the areas of jurisdiction, and on this particular 

topic that I think has significance and consequences over all our 

jurisdictions that this Committee is under, that we will aptly be 

able to—and adroitly, as well—chew gum and walk. We can do all 

these things. 

Mr. BISHOP. Are you saying that because I am chewing gum? 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. 

Mr. BISHOP. OK, fine. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. I would like to introduce our first 

panel, our distinguished panel, which consists of the governor of 

North Carolina, the Honorable Roy Cooper, and the governor of 

Massachusetts, the Honorable Charles Baker. I appreciate them 

being here, taking the time—in particular, bringing an insight. 

I don’t know if it is so much a question of groveling, but setting 

an example where, across party lines, people confront the issue of 

climate change, the effect on their constituents, and begin to take 

action. I think that is an important example that we need to remind ourselves, that we are not impotent to do nothing about this. 

We can, and we should. And the point is that we have elected 

executives here, governors, who can speak to those issues today, 

and I welcome them. 

I want to particularly thank Governor Baker for scheduling the 

Patriots’ victory parade yesterday so that he could be here, and it 

wouldn’t conflict with this hearing. I very much appreciate it. 

Under our Committee Rules, oral statements are limited to 5 

minutes, but your entire statements will appear in the hearing 

record. 

The lights in front of you will turn yellow when there is 1 minute 

left in the presentation, and red when time is up. 

After the governors have testified, Members will be given the 

opportunity to ask them questions. 
7 

I would like to inform the members of the Committee that, due 

to commitments, the governors can only be here—we have a hard 

stop of 11:30 a.m. So, depending on how many Members are here, 

we may need to shorten the time each Member has to ask 

questions. 

With that, the Chair now recognizes Governor Cooper of North 

Carolina for his testimony. 

Welcome, sir. The floor is yours. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. ROY COOPER, GOVERNOR, STATE 

OF NORTH CAROLINA, RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 

Governor COOPER. Thank you, Chairman Grijalva, for your hospitality. Thank you, Ranking Member Bishop, for your expression of 

humility through humor. Thanks to all of the other members of the 

Committee. We are grateful to be here today. 

As a lifelong resident and now it is governor, I know that North 

Carolina is a fantastic place to live, grow a family, and have a business. Between our majestic mountains, miles of coast land, and 

scenic tourist venues, a visit to North Carolina is bound to be the 

time of your life. 

But just like many places in our country and across the globe, 

we are beginning to feel the harsh effects of climate change on our 

communities and on our economy. Scientists have found that 

climate change makes weather more erratic. It makes storms larger and more powerful. And it intensifies heavy rainfalls and 

drought. 

North Carolinians, unfortunately, know about this the hard way. 

We have weathered two so-called 500-year floods within 2 years, 

and three of them within 20 years. 

In the western North Carolina mountains, erratic weather has 

caused mudslides, damaged infrastructure, cost apple growers valuable crops, and forced ski areas to close mid-season, hurting local 

businesses and putting jobs in jeopardy. 

In central North Carolina, soaring summer temperatures have 

killed poultry and crops, costing farmers critical income. Fort 

Bragg and military ocean terminal Sunny Point, two of the most 

important military installations in our country that are located in 

North Carolina, are listed at current and future risk for wildfires 

and recurrent flooding, respectively, in the U.S. Department of 

Defense report on the effects of our changing climate. 

And the worst damage has been in eastern North Carolina, 

where we now are more vulnerable than ever to devastating storms 

and floods. 

In September, just 2 years after our state was deluged by 

Hurricane Matthew, Hurricane Florence slammed into North 

Carolina. Its powerful winds and storm surge decimated coastal 

communities and crushed coastal tourism and fisheries. The storm 

stayed for days, dropping trillions of gallons of rain, inundating 

communities, drowning crops, and bringing rivers to historic flood 

levels. Hurricane Florence caused at least $17 billion in damage, 

and tragically took 43 lives. 

Then, a month later, Tropical Storm Michael took additional 

lives and caused millions more in damage. But for the survivors of 

these storms, the true cost is incalculable. 
8 

I have traveled to hard-hit communities and listened to North 

Carolinians whose lives are changed forever; tireless first responders who kept showing up to work, even though their own homes 

were destroyed; children who went weeks without schools; families 

whose livelihoods were washed away. 

I spoke with an elderly woman who was pulled from flood waters 

by a first responder, bringing with her only a few possessions that 

she could carry. When I saw her in the shelter I told her how sorry 

I was, and she looked at me and said, ‘‘I thank God I am alive. I 

thank God for that firefighter who pulled me to safety. And I thank 

God for these volunteers here in this shelter. Many of them have 

had their own homes flooded. I am going to make it.’’ 

Well, as governor of North Carolina, I have a responsibility to 

help her make it. I have a responsibility to keep all of our people 

safe. I told them we have to do everything we can to rebuild our 

state smarter and stronger, and we are pursuing unprecedented recovery and resiliency plans to help North Carolinians get back on 

their feet. 

We are also making a difference together. I am pleased that 

members of our congressional delegation and Federal agencies are 

helping provide meaningful relief to North Carolinians hit hard by 

the storm, and I look forward to continuing to work together with 

you on the Federal appropriations process. 

But when storms are becoming more fierce, it is not enough just 

to pick up the pieces. We must take action to prevent this kind of 

devastation in the future. I urge Congress and all of our Federal 

partners to match the level of determination brought to recovery efforts in our fight to reduce the effects of climate change. 

We in North Carolina are doing our part to address those effects. 

I have signed an executive order that sets a goal for our state to 

achieve a 40 percent reduction in greenhouse gases by 2025. North 

Carolina is second in the country in solar energy, and my order directs more use of renewable energy. 

It also orders state agencies to begin using more zero emission 

vehicles in our motor fleet. It orders a clean energy plan and better 

state building efficiency. It also directs our state department of 

commerce to grow our strong clean energy economy by supporting 

the expansion of clean energy business, service providers, and companies with commitments to using clean energy. 

In 2017, I ordered that North Carolina join the U.S. Climate 

Alliance, a bipartisan group of states focused on reducing our pollution and protecting our environment. 

And while local and state action is critical, Federal partners 

must join us in taking action to protect our people from the growing harm of climate change. We need Federal legislation and regulations that promote emission reductions, preservation of forests, 

marshes, barrier islands, and other national infrastructure. We 

need Federal leadership to work with global partners to fulfill and 

strengthen our international agreements. We need consistent 

Federal action that meets the urgency of our global climate problem. Our communities, our economy, and our future depend on it. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Governor Cooper follows:] 
9 

1https://www.americansecurityproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/DoD-Effects-of-aChanging-Climate-to-the-Department-of-Defense.pdf. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE ROY COOPER, GOVERNOR OF

NORTH CAROLINA

Chairman Grijalva, Ranking Member Bishop and members of the Committee: 

As a lifelong resident and now its governor, I know North Carolina is a fantastic 

place to live, grow a business and raise a family. Between our majestic mountains, 

miles of coastline and scenic tourist areas, a visit to North Carolina is bound to be 

the time of your life. But just like many places in our country and across the globe, 

we’re beginning to feel the harsh effects of climate change on our communities and 

our economy. 

Scientists have found that climate change makes weather more erratic. It makes 

storms larger and more powerful and intensifies heavy rainfalls and droughts. 

North Carolinians unfortunately know this the hard way. We’ve weathered two socalled 500-year floods in 2 years and three in fewer than 20 years. In the Western 

North Carolina mountains, volatile weather has caused mudslides, damaged infrastructure, cost apple growers valuable crops and forced ski areas to close midseason, hurting local businesses and putting jobs in jeopardy. In central North 

Carolina, soaring summer temperatures have killed poultry and crops, costing 

farmers critical income. Fort Bragg and Military Ocean Terminal Sunny Point, two 

of the many important military installations we’re proud to have located in our 

state, were recently listed at current and future risk for wildfires and recurrent 

flooding, respectively, in a U.S. Department of Defense report 1 on effects of our 

changing climate. And the worst damage has been in eastern North Carolina, which 

is now more vulnerable than ever to devastating storms and floods. 

In September, just 2 years after our state was deluged by Hurricane Matthew, 

Hurricane Florence slammed into North Carolina. Its powerful winds and storm 

surge decimated coastal communities and crushed coastal tourism and fisheries. The 

storm stayed for days, dropping trillions of gallons of rain, inundating communities, 

drowning crops and bringing rivers to historic flood levels. Hurricane Florence 

caused at least $17 billion in damage and tragically took 43 lives. One month later, 

another tropical storm, Michael, took additional lives and caused millions more in 

damage. 

For survivors of a storm like Florence or Hurricane Matthew before it, the true 

cost is incalculable. I’ve traveled to hard-hit communities and listened to North 

Carolinians whose lives are forever changed: Tireless first responders who kept 

showing up to work even though their own homes were destroyed; children who 

went weeks without school; families whose livelihoods were washed away. I spoke 

with an elderly woman who was pulled from floodwaters by a first responder, bringing with her only the few possessions she could carry. When I saw her in a shelter, 

I told her how sorry I was. She said, ‘‘I thank God I’m alive, I thank God for that 

firefighter who rescued me and I thank God for all of these volunteers helping in 

this shelter. Many of them had their own homes flooded. I’m going to make it.’’ 

As governor of North Carolina, I have a responsibility to help her make it. I have 

a responsibility to help keep all our people safe. I’ve told them we have to do everything we can to rebuild our state smarter and stronger and we’re pursuing unprecedented efforts to help North Carolinians get back on their feet. 

Weeks after Florence, I announced the new North Carolina Office of Recovery and 

Resiliency (NCORR), which is administering U.S. Department of Housing and 

Urban Development-funded Community Development Block Grants for Disaster 

Recovery for Hurricane Matthew recovery efforts. NCORR is also planning for additional Federal funding for residents hurt by Florence and will develop and implement strategies to protect North Carolina from future storms. We’ve continued to 

invest in the North Carolina Flood Inundation Mapping and Alert Network 

(FIMAN), a state-of-the-art flood mapping technology that helps indicate where to 

direct first responders and which communities remain most at risk during disasters, 

as well as the safest locations to rebuild. I’ve worked together with members of the 

North Carolina General Assembly to appropriate state relief, including $65 million 

to help our state draw down Federal disaster recovery dollars and $200 million to 

fund the North Carolina Farmer Recovery Reinvestment Program. 

We’re also making a difference together. I’m pleased that members of our congressional delegation and Federal agencies are helping provide meaningful relief to 

North Carolinians hit hard by the storm. We’ve approved over $1 billion in State 

and Federal recovery resources, including over $100 million in individual housing 

assistance from FEMA, over $550 million in estimated claims paid through the 
10 

2https://files.nc.gov/ncosbm/documents/files/Florence_Report_Full_rev20181016v10.pdf. 3https://files.nc.gov/governor/documents/files/Hurricane%20Florence%20Appropriation%20and 

%20Leadership%20Request%2011-28-18.pdf. 

National Flood Insurance Program and more than $380 million in low-interest loans 

for homeowners, renters and business owners from the U.S. Small Administration. 

While we’ve come a long way, we have much more work to do. I’m submitting two 

documents for the record: The first is a damage and needs assessment related to 

Hurricane Florence produced by the North Carolina Office of State Budget and 

Management 2; the other is North Carolina’s request to Congress for assistance in 

the aftermath of Hurricane Florence,3 which I shared with the North Carolina delegation and Federal appropriators in November. I look forward to continuing to work 

with Members of Congress throughout the Federal appropriations process. 

But when storms are becoming more destructive, it’s not enough to pick up the 

pieces. We must take action to prevent this kind of devastation in the future. I urge 

this Congress and all our Federal partners to match the same level of determination 

brought to disaster recovery in our fight to reduce the effects of climate change. 

We in North Carolina are doing our part to address those effects. I’ve signed an 

executive order that sets a goal for our state to achieve a 40 percent reduction in 

greenhouse gas emissions by 2025, increase state building efficiency and get at least 

80,000 zero-emission vehicles on the road in North Carolina. North Carolina is second in the country in installed solar capacity and my order directs the development 

of a state clean energy plan to ensure a continued transformation of the power sector away from fossil fuels and toward clean energy. My executive order also directs 

state agencies to begin using more zero-emission vehicles in our state motor fleet. 

Further, it directs our state Department of Commerce to grow our strong clean 

energy economy by supporting the expansion of clean energy business, service providers and companies with commitments to using clean energy. North Carolina is 

a national leader in clean energy and technology innovation and we’re taking steps 

to promote the growth of energy efficiency, solar, land-based and offshore wind, 

storage and other clean energy resources. 

In 2017, I ordered that North Carolina join the U.S. Climate Alliance, a bipartisan group of 20 governors committed to uphold the goals of the Paris Agreement 

on climate change, including by collectively achieving our share of the U.S. emission 

reduction target. The Alliance represents 47 percent of the U.S. population, over 

half of the national GDP and 1.5 million clean energy jobs. Alliance states are tackling climate change and growing our economies at the same time. We’re working 

across party lines to share best practices and defend our Nation’s most important 

environmental, energy and climate policies. 

I’ve also worked with coastal community leaders and business owners to fight 

seismic testing and offshore drilling, two activities that endanger the health and 

economic success of our coast. 

While local and state action is critical, Federal partners must join us in taking 

action to protect our people from the growing harm of climate change. State and 

local governments, researchers and the public rely on Federal data, research and 

analysis to inform policy decisions. Federal funding fuels critical scientific research 

and drives innovation that can help solve our climate crisis. 

We need Federal legislation and regulations that promote emission reductions and 

the preservation of forests, marshes, barrier islands and other natural infrastructure that protect communities from the worsening effects of storms. We need 

Federal leadership to work with global partners to fulfill and strengthen international agreements. We need consistent Federal action that meets the urgency of 

our global climate problem. Our communities, our economy and our future depend 

on it. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD TO THE HONORABLE ROY COOPER, 

GOVERNOR OF NORTH CAROLINA

Questions Submitted by Rep. Cunningham 

Question 1. Do you support my beforementioned bill, H.R. 291, the Coastal 

Economies Protection Act? 

1a. If yes, why? 

1b. If no, how could we work together to change that? 
11 

Answer. I support amending the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act to place a 10- 

year moratorium on oil and gas preleasing, leasing, and related activities. I would 

recommend adding language to specifically state that the moratorium applies to oil 

and gas seismic air gun testing. 

Question 2. Governor Cooper, last year the Republican Mayor of Nags Head, Ben 

Cahoon, testified before the Committee and spoke in opposition to offshore oil and 

gas development. Why is opposition to offshore oil and gas drilling a bipartisan issue 

in your state? 

Answer. North Carolinians, regardless of party affiliation, love and depend on the 

natural beauty and resources of our state. Offshore drilling and damaging seismic 

testing threaten North Carolina’s coastal economy and environment yet offer little 

economic benefit to our state. These oil and gas activities present an unacceptable 

and unnecessary risk to our coast, which depends upon vibrant tourism and fishing 

industries. 

My comment letter, dated March 9, 2018, in response to BOEM’s Draft Proposed 

Program (see attached) lists in detail the economic and natural resources that could 

be impacted by drilling off North Carolina’s coast: 

• Coastal tourism, which generates $3.4 billion annually and supports 35,000 

jobs in the region. 

• Commercial and recreational fishing, which contribute nearly $2 billion to the 

state’s economy. 

• Approximately 300 miles of ocean beaches, 614,000 acres of submerged lands 

and waters within the state’s 3nm Territorial Sea, 22 barrier islands, 2.5 

million acres of estuarine waters, and more than 10,000 miles of estuarine 

shoreline. 

• Department of Defense mission capability which, as the state’s second largest 

economic sector, contributes $66 billion in gross state product, and $34 billion 

in personal income. 

• 12 Division of Parks and Recreation units and recreational areas located 

adjacent to ocean waters or the sounds, which welcome 5.2 million visitors 

annually. 

The items listed above provide jobs, recreational opportunities, and homes for 

North Carolinians and people who travel here from around the world. Protecting 

these resources is a bipartisan issue. 

Question 3. Aside from the risks of an offshore oil spill, what other harmful 

impacts might result—either onshore or offshore—from opening the Atlantic Outer 

Continental Shelf to oil and gas development? 

Answer. Here are potential risks broken down by issue. 

Geological 

• One location in North Carolina’s coverage area in the National Outer 

Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program has overlapping geologic 

plays located directly off Cape Hatteras. Known geologic hazards could induce 

failure in safety measures, as was determined when Mobil evaluated the 

Manteo block in 1987 or induce submarine landslides. 

• The known underwater landslides offshore of North Carolina could impact underwater wellheads and trigger disastrous results in each of the six geological 

plays off our coast. 

• The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) identified three major slides: the 

Currituck Slide that extends from the northern border of the state; the Cape 

Lookout Slide that extends from the Outer Banks; and the Cape Fear Slide 

that extends from the southern border of the state. 

• If oil- and gas-related activities destabilize these slides, a tsunami could 

result. 

• A slide destabilization could also undermine the wellhead where blowout 

preventers are located. 

• The unique physical oceanographic area off Cape Hatteras at the confluence 

of the two major surface currents of the western Atlantic Ocean—the Gulf 

Stream and the Labrador Current—present significant complications for subsurface resource development due to the instability of the marine floor and 

severe surface weather. 
12 

• According to the National Parks Service’s Cape Hatteras National Seashore, 

these natural elements, including devastating hurricanes and Nor’easters 

‘‘form a navigational nightmare that is feared as much as any in the world.’’ 

It is estimated that over 1,000 vessels have been lost near Cape Hatteras. 

Marine Fisheries and Habitats 

• The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, acting through the 

National Marine Fisheries Service, designated several areas offshore of North 

Carolina as Essential Fish Habitat; a subset of these areas is designated as 

Habitat Areas of Particular Concern. Habitat Areas of Particular Concern are 

designated where they are considered particularly important for managed 

species or species complexes due to the importance of the ecological functions 

they provide and where they are at risk due to their rarity or sensitivity to 

human degradation. These designated areas include The Point, Ten Fathom 

Ledge, Big Rock and the shoals of Cape Hatteras, Cape Lookout and Cape 

Fear. 

• Essential Fish Habitat is important to migratory species such as king and 

Spanish mackerel, dolphin, tuna, and cobia, as well as the snapper grouper 

complex. Due to the importance of these species to the state’s economy, it is 

vital that Essential Fish Habitats are protected from direct, indirect, and 

cumulative impacts associated with oil and gas drilling and development in 

the Outer Continental Shelf waters off North Carolina. 

• Deep waters of the Blake Plateau in the Southeast harbor some extremely 

unusual and valuable marine ecosystems. A deep water coral wilderness 

stretches from North Carolina to Florida, including ancient reefs—some 

documented as more than a million years old—of slow-growing Lophelia 

corals. An area encompassing 23,000 square miles of these reefs has been designated as Habitat Areas of Particular Concern under Federal essential fish 

habitat provisions by the South Atlantic Fisheries Management Council. Deep 

water methane seep communities are just now being discovered; the one that 

is well documented on the Blake Ridge was also protected in the same action 

by the South Atlantic Fisheries Management Council (SAFMC). 

• The SAFMC Habitat and Environmental Protection Advisory Panel also identified further unexplored areas where deep water coral discoveries are likely 

to be made. 

Commercial and Recreational Fishing 

• The commercial fishing industry in 2016 supported an estimated 7,410 jobs, 

$166 million in income, and a $388.32 million economic impact for the state. 

In the same year, approximately 1.4 million recreational anglers embarked on 

approximately 5.4 million trips in North Carolina’s coastal waters. Coastal 

recreational fishing activity supported an estimated 15,069 jobs, $621 million 

in income, and $1.57 billion economic impact to the state economy. Combined, 

commercial and recreational fishing activities support an estimated 22,500 

jobs, $787 million in income, and $1.96 billion in annual economic impact. 

• Oil and gas development off our shores, including oil platforms, could severely 

limit the areas within which our state’s fishermen could fish for certain 

species. 

Historic Resources 

• North Carolina has earned the nickname ‘‘Graveyard of the Atlantic’’ for the 

thousands of ships lost off the Outer Banks, from Native American dugouts 

to colonial-era ships to Civil War ironclads and WWII U-boats. Other submerged historic resources include downed military aircraft. Many of these 

sites have the potential to contain human remains and may legally be considered graves subject to state, Federal, and international law. While some of 

these resources have known locations for avoidance and planning purposes, 

other archaeologically sensitive locations are unknown or unexpected. 

• Both pipeline excavation and dredging are likely to affect submerged historic 

resources within both state and Federal waters. Additionally, pipeline connections onto shore for resource transportation by land and construction of additional port infrastructure have the potential to affect archaeologically 

sensitive areas or nearby historic districts. 
13 

Military 

• Military exercises conducted in North Carolina and from North Carolinabased military installations are vital not only to national defense and 

security, but also to the economies of North Carolina and the Nation. Oil and 

gas leasing and development off North Carolina’s coast could jeopardize both 

military readiness and the North Carolina economy. 

• The normal operations of oil and gas development in the region would be 

enough to hinder military training exercises off the North Carolina coast. 

• The presence of multiple shipping and exploratory sea vessels and oil derricks 

pose a risk of obstructing visibility and encroaching on existing flight paths. 

• Because the military is the second largest sector of North Carolina’s economy, 

adverse impacts from oil and gas development would be felt throughout the 

state economy. North Carolina has the fourth-largest active and reserve military population in the Nation. The military contributes $66 billion in gross 

state product and $34 billion in personal income. More than 575,000 individuals are either directly employed by the military or work in the private sector 

providing goods or services that support the military’s presence in North 

Carolina. 

Renewable Energy 

• Development of oil and gas resources off North Carolina’s coast would 

jeopardize renewable energy opportunities in the same general area. 

• The Kitty Hawk Wind Energy Area is located in the same offshore region that 

BOEM proposes for oil and gas drilling and development in North Carolina’s 

Outer Continental Shelf waters. 

• Co-locating two separate incompatible large-scale energy projects increases 

the potential for user conflicts and environmental impacts. 

• The best way to mitigate these potential use conflicts is to remove North 

Carolina’s Outer Continental Shelf waters from further consideration in the 

Federal oil and gas leasing program. 

Commercial Shipping 

• Potential navigation and safety impacts to commercial shipping along the 

East Coast. 

Question 4. Governor Cooper and Governor Baker, while we’re discussing the 

threats and impacts associated with climate change, there’s an obvious connection to 

opening vast new areas of the Atlantic Ocean to oil and gas development. At a time 

when our country needs to confront the reality of climate change, what does the 

Trump administration’s desire to open the Atlantic coast to unfettered fossil fuel 

development tell you about their priorities about environmental protection? 

Answer. The most prudent actions the U.S. Department of the Interior could take 

on this topic are to exclude the Atlantic Coast from its forthcoming Proposed Plan 

for the National Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program for the years 

2019–2024 and to deny permit applications for oil and gas seismic air gun surveying 

off North Carolina’s coast. Offshore drilling and seismic testing unnecessarily 

threaten North Carolina’s coastal environment and economy. 

Question 5. Did either of you have conversations with former Secretary Ryan Zinke 

about his decision to unilaterally exempt Florida from offshore oil and gas development, but no other states that have equally as valuable and vibrant fishing and 

tourism industries? 

5a. Why do you think former Secretary Zinke tried to exempt Florida, but no other 

state? 

Answer. In February 2018 a bipartisan group of local officials and I met with 

former Secretary Zinke in Raleigh. We asked Mr. Zinke to exempt North Carolina’s 

coast from the offshore drilling plan, just as he had putatively exempted Florida. 

We emphasized that like in Florida, coastal tourism is important to North Carolina. 

And like Florida, North Carolina has bipartisan opposition to drilling, an ecologically fragile shoreline, and the potential for catastrophic accidents. 

I don’t know why Mr. Zinke purported to exempt Florida, but the Department of 

the Interior still has the ability to remove water off North Carolina’s coast and the 

rest of the Atlantic Ocean from consideration for the 5-year offshore leasing plan. 
14 

5b. Do you believe former Secretary Zinke potentially violated Federal laws when 

he made the snap decision to exempt a single state from his oil and gas leasing plan 

without going through the required public process? 

Answer. I can’t speak to whether or not Secretary Zinke violated the law in the 

Florida process, but I did tell him during the February 2018 meeting that if the 

final 5-year offshore leasing plan includes coastal waters off North Carolina, he 

could expect to be involved in a lawsuit. 

Question 6. Why do your administrations oppose offshore oil and gas development, 

and are your positions in line with your state’s coastal communities and coastal 

businesses? 

Answer. Simply put, offshore oil and gas development off North Carolina’s coast 

is a bad deal for the state. Please refer my responses to Questions 2 and 3 above 

for an explanation of why North Carolina opposes seismic air gun testing and offshore drilling. 

North Carolina’s coastal communities and businesses strongly oppose seismic air 

gun testing and offshore drilling in the Atlantic. Nearly 40 coastal governments 

have passed resolutions in opposition to oil and gas exploration and development 

activities off the coast. So too have North Carolina business interests passed resolutions in opposition to oil and gas exploration and development, including the tourism development authorities in Carteret, New Hanover, and Dare counties; the 

Carteret County, Outer Bank, and Wrightsville Beach chambers of commerce; the 

Outer Banks Home Builders Association; and the Outer Banks Association of 

Realtors. 

In addition, other business and key stakeholders, including the NC Association of 

Resort Towns and Convention Cities, the NC Council of Churches, and NC 

Interfaith Power and Light, submitted comments in opposition to offshore oil and 

gas activities. These positions in opposition taken by communities and business organizations echo the message we’ve heard from our state’s residents and the editors’ 

desks of our major news organizations. In August 2017, following BOEM’s renewed 

call for a new 5-year leasing plan, the NC Department of Environmental Quality 

hosted three public hearings on the coast and solicited feedback from the public on 

the Federal proposal. In total, 465 people attended the hearings in Wilmington, 

Morehead City, and Manteo. Of the 104 people who made remarks at the hearings, 

96 spoke against oil and gas exploration off North Carolina’s coast. 

Question 7. Do you support seismic air gun blasting that is a precursor to oil and 

gas development? 

Answer. North Carolina is opposed to seismic air gun blasting. Research indicates 

that the proposed seismic surveys off of North Carolina’s coast would harm marine 

mammals. Our state has a higher diversity of marine mammals than anywhere else 

along the East Coast or in the Gulf of Mexico. The disruption of North Carolina’s 

critical marine resources by allowing seismic testing represents a critical threat to 

North Carolina’s coastal communities and economy. 

My administration has taken numerous steps to oppose seismic surveying. I have 

signed onto two letters that include multiple East Coast governors in opposition to 

oil and gas exploration and development in the Atlantic Ocean. The most recent 

letter—dated December 20, 2018, and submitted to the Secretaries of the Department of the Interior and Department of Commerce—was signed by a bipartisan 

group of 10 governors. On July 21, 2017, my administration submitted regulatory 

comments to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration asking that it 

deny applications to incidentally harass marine mammals off the North Carolina 

coast. 

Additionally, after new scientific studies regarding potential impacts of Geological 

and Geophysical (G&G) activities on marine resources were published, the N.C. 

DEQ’s Division of Coastal Management sent letters to four companies on December 

22, 2017, asking them to re-open the consistency determinations pursuant to 15 

CFR 930.66 and submit additional information about proposed seismic surveying for 

offshore oil and gas resource development. On March 13, 2018, N.C. DEQ’s Division 

of Coastal Management sent a letter to the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management asking it to refrain from issuing permits to seismic companies, as the 

requested information for the supplemental consistency determinations was never 

received. 

My administration continues to have concerns about the potential impacts of 

seismic testing on marine resources that could severely impact North Carolina’s 

commercial and recreational fisheries. We cannot afford to endanger the natural resources that serve as the foundation of our tourism industry and coastal economy. 
15 

Question Submitted by Rep. Bishop 

Question 1. Governors, you both stated your opposition to offshore oil and gas 

development in Federal waters. Governors, do you believe that states should have the 

right to control offshore energy development in Federal waters adjoining their coasts? 

Answer. Comments from the governors of coastal states should be of paramount 

importance given that states and communities have the best understanding of the 

environmental, social, and economic implications of offshore energy exploration and 

development and that they are the most likely to be directly affected. Overwhelming 

state opposition to oil and gas exploration and development requires significant consideration under Federal law, namely the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act 

(OCSLA) and the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). 

The OCSLA requires that as part of the 5-year plan review process, the Secretary 

of Interior must solicit and consider comments from the governors of affected states. 

At least 60 days prior to publication of the program in the Federal Register, the 

Secretary must submit the program to the governor of each affected state for further 

comments and for the governor to consult with local government leaders. Additionally, when the Secretary submits the program to Congress and the President, that 

submission must include an explanation for accepting or rejecting any specific 

recommendations made by a governor, per 43 U.S.C. 1344. 

In addition, section 307 of the Federal CZMA affords states an important role in 

decision making regarding offshore energy development based on potential impacts 

to a state’s coastal resources and uses, even when that development activity takes 

place in adjacent Federal waters. 

***** 

ATTACHMENTS 

January 17, 2018 

The Honorable Ryan Zinke 

Secretary 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

1849 C Street NW 

Washington, DC. 20240 

Dear Secretary Zinke: 

We write today to express our joint opposition to the leasing, exploration, development and production of oil and gas in the Atlantic Ocean as proposed by the 2019– 

2024 Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program. We also write to 

request that our states and the Atlantic Coast be exempt from this program. 

Like Florida, each of our states has unique natural resources and an economy 

that is reliant on tourism as an essential driver. We support the notion of energy 

diversity, but the environmental and economic importance of the Atlantic Ocean 

must be weighed against the potential unintended consequences of these types of 

activities. 

More than one hundred and forty (140) local communities passed resolutions 

opposing offshore drilling in the Atlantic. They have also been joined by tourism 

associations, convention and visitors bureaus (CVB’s), businesses, trade groups, and 

legislators from both sides of the aisle. 

Not only are ocean and oceanside resources at risk, but also nearby bays, 

estuaries, coastal communities, iconic natural areas, and ports. The irreversible impact on ecosystems including marine mammals, fish, sea turtles, and other aquatic 

life that inhabit the ocean offshore is gravely concerning, as is potential risk and 

harm to our state’s economies, our natural resources, our military installations, and 

our residents. 
16 

We appreciate the emphasis that you have placed on public input and urge you 

to grant our request to be exempt from this program. 

Sincerely, 

Governor Larry Hogan Governor Dannel P. Malloy 

Maryland Connecticut 

Governor John C. Carney Governor Roy Cooper 

Delaware North Carolina 

Governor Charles D. Baker Governor Gina M. Raimondo 

Massachusetts Rhode Island 

Governor Ralph S. Northam 

Virginia 

***** 

December 20, 2018 

The Honorable Wilbur L. Ross, Jr. 

Secretary 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

1401 Constitution Ave., NW 

Washington, DC. 20230 

The Honorable Ryan Zinke 

Secretary 

U.S. Department of the Interior 

1849 C Street NW 

Washington, DC. 20240 

Dear Secretary Ross and Secretary Zinke: 

As the governors of 10 states on the Atlantic seaboard, we write to reiterate our 

strong opposition to seismic airgun surveys and oil and gas drilling off our coasts. 

These activities pose an unacceptable and unnecessary threat to our coastal ecosystems and coastal economies. We emphatically disagree with the recent decision 

by the Department of Commerce to issue incidental harassment authorizations 

(IHAs) for seismic airgun surveys in the Atlantic Ocean. We urge the Department 

of the Interior to deny permits for seismic airgun surveys in the Atlantic. In addition, we adamantly oppose the inclusion of any Atlantic Ocean region in the final 

2019–2024 National Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing Program. 

The coastal economies in each of our states depend upon vibrant tourism and 

fishing industries. The IHAs would allow five companies to conduct seismic airgun 

surveys in the Atlantic Ocean, despite peer-reviewed evidence portending significant 

harmful impacts to marine mammals and fisheries, including endangered species. 

Seismic airgun surveying can cause acute, cumulative, and chronic negative impacts 

on the ability of marine mammals to send and receive signals that are essential for 

feeding, reproduction, raising offspring, and navigation. The repeated, loud noises 

from airgun blasts also risk diminishing essential fish stocks for commercial and 

recreational fishing communities in our states. 

The seismic survey restrictions in the IHAs do not ensure that such activities will 

have a negligible impact on affected species. These restrictions, for example, fail to 

account for the ability of seismic airgun pulses to travel over long distances, the correct exposure thresholds for changes in species behavior, and the cumulative 

impacts of conducting multiple seismic airgun surveying operations at once. As a result, conducting seismic surveys under these authorizations can lead to mortality 

and permanent injury of fish and marine mammals, including endangered species 

such as the North Atlantic right whale. 

The Atlantic Coast’s ocean economy generates more than $98 billion in gross 

domestic product, an economic impact that would be jeopardized by seismic airgun 

surveys and offshore oil and gas drilling. More than 200 local governments have 

passed resolutions opposing seismic airgun surveying and/or offshore drilling in the 

Atlantic Ocean. Tourism associations, convention and visitors bureaus, businesses, 
17 

trade groups, and elected officials from both sides of the aisle also have voiced opposition to these activities. 

State and local leaders in our states have voiced consistent, bipartisan opposition 

to seismic airgun surveys and offshore drilling. We ask that you respect our request 

and concerns by denying all permit applications and issuing no further IHAs for 

seismic airgun surveys in the Atlantic Ocean. In addition, we request that you exclude the Atlantic Ocean from the 2019–2024 National Outer Continental Shelf Oil 

and Gas Leasing Program for offshore drilling and deny any future activities whose 

purpose is to support offshore drilling in the Atlantic Ocean. 

Sincerely, 

Roy Cooper Henry McMaster 

Governor of North Carolina Governor of South Carolina 

Dannel Malloy Andrew Cuomo 

Governor of Connecticut Governor of New York 

Larry Hogan Charlie Baker 

Governor of Maryland Governor of Massachusetts 

John Carney Ralph Northam 

Governor of Delaware Governor of Virginia 

Gina Raimondo Phillip D. Murphy 

Governor of Rhode Island Governor of New Jersey 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Governor, much 

appreciated. 

Let me now turn to Governor Baker for your testimony. The floor 

is yours, sir. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. CHARLIE BAKER, GOVERNOR, 

STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 

Governor BAKER. Thank you, Chairman Grijalva and Ranking 

Member Bishop, for those warm, welcoming remarks. And I want 

to thank the members of the Committee for being here, as well, 

and inviting me to testify on the approach that Massachusetts has 

taken to deal with the very real challenge associated with climate 

change. 

In Massachusetts, climate change is not a partisan issue. While 

we sometimes disagree on specific policies, we understand the 

science and know the impacts are real because we are experiencing 

them firsthand. 

Shortly after I took office in January 2015, the snow started falling hard. And it didn’t end for months. Last winter, we saw four 

major Nor’easters, setting record flood levels and causing significant damage to natural resources and property. Rising temperatures have led to warmer winters, impacting weather-dependent 

industries like skiing and agriculture. Climate change is also 

warming our coastal waters and threatening some of the Nation’s 

most important commercial fisheries. 

While many of these challenges are not new, they are more 

frequent and more damaging than before. While rising temperatures and warmer winters have impacted weather-dependent 

industries like skiing, local businesses like Berkshire East have 

adapted to these challenges by diversifying their business to 
18 

include non-winter activities, which now account for 60 percent of 

the mountain’s revenue. Berkshire East has also become the first 

ski mountain in the world to be 100 percent powered by renewable 

energy. 

The magnitude of the impacts from climate change requires all 

of us at the Federal, state, and local levels, to work together. That 

is the path we have taken in Massachusetts. Massachusetts, via bipartisan legislation, was one of the first states in the Nation to establish a long-term requirement to reduce carbon emissions by at 

least 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050, while also setting interim targets. We are well on our way to reaching our 2020 goal 

of a 25 percent reduction in emissions. 

The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a cap and trade program encompassing large electric generators across nine northeast 

states, also provides a stable policy to reduce emission and allow 

states to invest in cost-effective energy efficiency programs. The investments from this initiative has saved ratepayers across the 

RGGI states an estimated $8.6 billion. 

We have also developed regional partnerships with New England 

states, the Canadian provinces, and the Federal Government. 

Utilizing the comparative strengths of different regions allows us 

to obtain competitive pricing on projects like hydropower from 

Quebec. 

In 2016, we competitively bid and selected an offshore wind 

project on a Federal lease area that will save ratepayers money 

over the next 25 years. This would not have been possible without 

our partnership with the Federal Government, and I applaud 

Congress for providing a predictable investment tax credit for this 

industry, and also the Trump administration’s Bureau of Ocean 

Energy Management for working with us to quickly review the 

project and build a new industry here in the United States off our 

eastern shores. 

We have also been preparing for the ongoing impact of climate 

change. Our administration recently completed a state hazard mitigation and climate adaptation plan. Leveraging Federal Emergency 

Management Agency money, the plan is the first in the Nation to 

fully integrate Federal hazard mitigation planning requirements 

with a proactive approach to addressing the impacts of climate 

change. 

Our administration has also sought to work closely with our local 

communities. Our municipal vulnerability preparedness program 

provides grants and technical assistance to cities and towns, so 

they can assess their vulnerabilities and plan for and implement 

climate change adaptation projects. Importantly, these program allows communities the flexibility they need to design solutions that 

work for their unique circumstances. 

Based on our experience in Massachusetts, I would like to share 

four themes that I believe will help further reduce greenhouse gas 

emissions and increase resiliency across the country. 

First, states and local communities need support from the 

Federal Government. Many Federal initiatives are only available 

after a disaster occurs. Incentives similar to our MVP program 

would help communities address resiliency issues before the next 

disaster. Expanding programs like FEMA’s new resilient infra-
19 

structure grants and increasing funding available to states would 

accelerate existing efforts and galvanize new ones. 

Bipartisan interest in infrastructure funding also holds tremendous promise to not only repair and modernize our infrastructure, 

but also make it resilient to changes in weather. Federal infrastructure legislation should incorporate consideration of climate 

change emissions, vulnerability, and design standards that reflect 

that changing climate. 

Both state and Federal governments also need to develop publicprivate partnerships to bring private-sector dollars into our communities, while leveraging the knowledge and strategic thinking 

the private sector can bring to this challenge. 

Second, we need strong Federal leadership and a bipartisan 

vision on climate change that prioritizes practical, market-driven, 

and cost-effective solutions, while affording states the flexibility to 

design strategies that work for their unique challenges. We believe 

it is essential for the Federal Government to create a target with 

respect to emission reductions that can vary by state or region. 

In our state’s experience, setting an aggressive target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions provides the foundation for clean 

energy policy, sends a clear message to industry, and enables longrange planning. 

Third, strong Federal leadership should also include making 

impactful investments in research around both emission reductions 

and climate change adaptation. Federal research and development 

gave us the internet and GPS, technology that has changed our 

lives forever. I believe the Federal Government could bring its resources to bear in developing the next breakthrough battery cell or 

other technological advances that could help dramatically reduce 

emissions and radically transform our energy future. 

Fourth, the Federal Government should incorporate climate risk 

and resilience in future Federal spending and planning decisions to 

ensure taxpayer dollars are used wisely. Our own Boston Harbor 

Islands, managed through a partnership between state and Federal 

Government and a non-profit, were already threatened by rising 

sea levels and storm surges. 

Governors around the country are seeing and responding to the 

effects of climate change in our states and communities. This is not 

a challenge any one of us can solve alone. We need collective action 

from Federal, state, and local governments working with the private sector to aggressively reduce our greenhouse gas emissions 

and adapt to the changes that are already in motion. 

I want to thank this Committee for the invitation to speak, and 

I thank my colleague, Governor Cooper, for joining me here today. 

I have submitted written testimony, which goes into more detail 

than my oral remarks. I look forward to working together on this 

challenge, and I am pleased to answer any questions from the 

Committee. 

[The prepared statement of Governor Baker follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHARLES D. BAKER, GOVERNOR OF THE COMMONWEALTH

OF MASSACHUSETTS

Chairman Grijalva, Ranking Member Bishop, and members of the Committee, 

thank you for inviting me to testify today before the House Natural Resources 

Committee on the Commonwealth’s approach to the very real challenge of climate 
20 

1 Horton, R., G. Yohe, W. Easterling, R. Kates, M. Ruth, E. Sussman, A. Whelchel, D. Wolfe, 

and F. Lipschultz, 2014: Ch. 16: Northeast. Climate Change Impacts in the United States: The 

Third National Climate Assessment, J.M. Melillo, Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and G.W. Yohe, Eds., 

U.S. Global Change Research Program, 16–1–nn. 2 NOAA National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI) U.S. Billion-Dollar Weather 

and Climate Disasters (2018). https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/. 

change. Thank you for addressing this issue in a bipartisan manner and for looking 

to the states who, along with cities and towns, are directly taking on this challenge 

by setting bold targets, developing practical and cost effective solutions, and working collaboratively across the country. 

CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES IN MASSACHUSETTS

In Massachusetts climate change is not a partisan issue—while there may sometimes be disagreement on specific policies, we understand the science and we know 

the impacts are real. We know through experience that mitigation to clean up our 

energy supply and transportation system, paired with adaptation strategies to reduce risk and build resilience can foster strong communities, protect residents and 

natural resources, and contribute to strong economic growth and innovation 

throughout the state. 

We have seen firsthand the impacts of a changing climate in Massachusetts. 

Shortly after taking office in January 2015, the snow started falling, hard, and it 

didn’t end until well into April. What was different about those storms was the 

sheer volume of snowfall, with record-breaking amounts in Worcester and Boston. 

Although it seems counterintuitive, climate change is indeed producing higher volume precipitation events. As the air and oceans have warmed, higher concentrations 

of water vapor in the atmosphere lead to more intense rain and snowfall, and what 

we are seeing in Massachusetts is part of this pattern. In fact, the percentage of 

rain and snow falling in the heaviest 1 percent of storms in the Northeast has increased by over 70 percent since 1958.1 The increasing frequency and intensity of 

storms is something of great concern to us in Massachusetts. Last winter we saw 

four major Nor’easters, setting record flood levels in Boston and other coastal communities, and causing significant damage to natural resources and infrastructure as 

well as devastating property loss. We have also seen an increase in intense rainfall 

events, with flash flooding and damage to ageing infrastructure in cities like 

Worcester and Lynn. 

While last fall was the wettest ever recorded in Massachusetts, in the summer 

of 2016, we experienced one of the worst droughts on record. These droughts greatly 

strained public and private water supplies in many communities and led to significant losses in agricultural production, including cranberries, apples, peaches and 

Christmas trees whose growers reported up to 80 percent loss of seedlings. In 

September 2016, the U.S. Department of Agriculture designated all 14 counties in 

Massachusetts as primary or contiguous natural disaster areas due to losses caused 

by the drought, making them eligible for Federal disaster assistance. 

Temperatures have also been rising. On the heels of the warmest 3 years on 

record, last August was the warmest month ever recorded in Massachusetts. This 

overall warming trend is leading to more frequent heat waves that threaten vulnerable population groups, warmer winters that impact weather dependent industries 

like maple syrup and skiing, and increases in Lyme disease and other tick and 

mosquito-borne illnesses. Climate change is also warming our coastal waters and 

threatening some of the Nation’s most important commercial fisheries off the coast 

of New England. Stretching from Cape Cod to Cape Sable Island in Nova Scotia, 

the Gulf of Maine is warming faster than 99 percent of the world’s oceans. Warming 

waters have already led to 80 percent reduction of Atlantic cod habitat over the last 

decade. Further warming is projected to shift lobster populations 200 miles north 

into Canada and enhance the ongoing invasion of green crabs that threaten the softshell clam industry. 

By talking with our farmers and fisherman and touring the damage after weather 

events, one theme has become clear to me—while many of these challenges are not 

new, they are not like they used to be. They are occurring more frequently and they 

are more damaging than they ever were in the past. The science and economic data 

bear this out and we know that these changes are happening all across the globe. 

I am all too aware of the unique challenges other governors are facing, from the 

deadly wildfires in California and Montana, to permafrost and glacial melt in 

Alaska, to severe heat waves last summer across the Southwest. 

These impacts come with a growing cost. Federal data from the National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) shows that 2017 was the costliest year for 

weather and climate disasters with over $300 billion in total spending.2 In New 
21 

3 Burkowski, E., and M. Magnussen. 2012. Climate Impacts on the Winter Tourism Economy 

in the United States. Natural Resources Defense Council. https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/ 

climate-impacts-winter-tourism-report.pdf. 

England, the string of Nor’easters we saw last March cost the region $2.2 billion 

and we lost nine lives. Since 2015, Massachusetts has also seen at least $200 

million in disaster damages to our towns and public agencies, which is only a fraction of the costs our communities face. The 2015 February blizzards alone were 

devastating—lives were lost, and the storms cost our state and local governments 

$35 million, with total losses exceeding an estimated $1 billion. 

In Massachusetts our rural economy and natural resource based industries are increasingly threatened by changing seasons, shorter winters, and less snow. Warmer 

temperatures are hitting the ski industry particularly hard. Just one mild winter 

in 2009/2010 cost the Northeast ski industry 1,700 jobs and $108 million in 

economic value.3 But our ski resorts are responding to this pressure with entrepreneurship to diversify their business model and expand into recreation and tourism 

activities outside of the traditional winter season. 

On the eastern slopes of the Berkshires, Jon Schaefer’s family business Berkshire 

East has become the first ski mountain in the world to be 100 percent powered by 

renewables. Concerned about the unpredictable cost of energy and the impact of 

climate change, Mr. Schaefer invested in wind and solar, using State and Federal 

incentive programs. The cost savings from installing clean energy allowed him to 

invest in more efficient snow-making equipment while also diversifying his business 

to include off-season activities like zip-lining and white water rafting to bring in additional revenue. He reports that 60 percent of the mountain’s revenue now comes 

from non-winter business, resulting in an operation that is much more resilient to 

the changing weather patterns ahead. 

There are stories like this across the country—stories of family businesses, farms, 

large industry and cities and small towns threatened by the changes they are already seeing, but harnessing innovation and ingenuity to take on these challenges. 

But they can’t do it alone. The magnitude of the impacts from climate change requires all of us to put politics aside and act together, quickly and decisively. We still 

have the opportunity to check the severity of future impacts by aggressively reducing greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to the changes that are ongoing. That 

is the path we have taken in Massachusetts. 

A HISTORY OF BOLD LEADERSHIP ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND BREAKTHROUGH

MITIGATION POLICIES

The effort to reduce emissions to a level that avoids the most catastrophic changes 

to our climate clearly requires state, national, and international leadership. At the 

same time, there are aspects of Massachusetts’ own experience in successfully establishing achievable goals, working regionally, and fostering innovative breakthroughs 

that could offer lessons for other states, regions, and the Federal Government. 

With the unanimous, bipartisan passage of the Global Warming Solutions Act in 

2008, Massachusetts became one of the first states in the Nation to establish both 

a long-term requirement to reduce carbon emissions by at least 80 percent below 

1990 levels by 2050, while also setting interim targets every decade. The Act 

requires us to report our emissions annually, track policy effectiveness and develop 

plans for the future. By mid-century this course will yield significant GHG reductions, overhaul our energy structure, and lead to significant economic and societal 

change, while the interim targets will guide the implementation of cost-effective 

policies that reflect current technology. Clearly, this is an enormous undertaking 

but developing ambitious, yet realistic goals is working. Our 2020 goal of a 25 

percent reduction under that baseline was set ambitiously in 2010 and as of 2016 

we have reached a 21.4 percent emissions reduction and are well on our way to 

reach the 25 percent limit. Moreover, far from being an economic burden, we have 

seen close to a 70 percent increase over 1990 levels in our gross state domestic product and clean energy has been one of the strongest job growth sectors in our economy in the last decade. 

The Commonwealth’s aggressive 2020 goal puts the state on track to meet 

emissions reductions of 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025—the nationally 

determined U.S. contribution through the Paris Agreement of the United Nations 

Framework Convention on Climate Change. Shortly after the announcement of the 

intent to withdraw the United States from the Paris Agreement, Massachusetts 

joined with a bipartisan coalition of states committed to fulfilling the tenets of the 

Paris Agreement by implementing policies to reduce emissions, tracking and reporting progress on emissions reductions and accelerating new and existing policies to 
22 

reduce carbon pollution and promote clean energy deployment at the State and 

Federal level. The coalition is now 20 governors strong. 

This 2020 goal has not only provided a focus within Massachusetts, but it has also 

compelled us to develop instrumental regional partnerships with New England 

states, the Canadian provinces and the Federal Government. Specifically, we have 

found that utilizing the comparative strengths of different regions—whether it is 

hydropower from Quebec or offshore wind in Federal waters—allows us to obtain 

cost-competitive pricing. Every region of our country should have the flexibility to 

develop a unique plan that leverages existing resources and economies, but we must 

seize the opportunity to responsibly reduce emissions now. 

The predictability of the regional clean energy market and promotion of clean 

energy development and trade have also been essential to the Commonwealth’s 

success. The Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI), a cap-and-trade program 

encompassing electric generators larger than 25 Megawatts across nine states, provides a stable policy to reduce emissions and allows states to invest auction proceeds 

in cost-effective energy efficiency programs, including nearly $400 million in 

Massachusetts since its inception. While the program marginally increases wholesale electricity pricing, the reinvestment in highly cost-effective energy efficiency 

measures has resulted in $3–$4 in benefits for every $1 of incremental cost. In 

Massachusetts, businesses across sectors are seizing the opportunity to take advantage of energy efficiency programs through our MassSave Program—from optimizing 

efficient cooling technology at the largest data center in New England run by the 

Markley Group, to installing advanced lighting at Hannaford, one of the largest supermarket chains in the state, to removing redundant motors at Cedar’s Mediterranean Foods operations, saving over $100,000 annually in energy costs. Our major 

sports facilities, including Fenway Park, have undergone LED lighting upgrades 

that have reduced the park’s electricity use by 12 percent. Bottom line, we have 

saved billions in avoided electrical costs for all ratepayers by keeping electric load 

basically flat while our economy has grown. The results on New England sports 

fields have been pretty decent as well. 

In total, the region’s greenhouse gas emissions from this sector have fallen 50 

percent since 2005 and the regional investments from the proceeds are estimated 

to have saved ratepayers across the RGGI states a cumulative $8.6 billion. 

Regulated generators see the value in the clarity and the predictability of the program, while businesses support the energy efficiency investments that have earned 

Massachusetts the title of the #1 state for energy efficiency in the Nation for 8 

consecutive years. 

While we have leveraged cost-effective efficiency investments, including the installation of over 24.1 million LED light bulbs, energy innovation opportunities are accelerating. From further advancements in lighting, electrical heating and cooling, 

and advanced insulation improvements that make zero energy consumption for new 

building construction a reality, we now have commercially available efficient technology and materials that are transforming our economy. 

There is no single solution to the challenges we face and we need to take a flexible 

approach that supports the innovations of tomorrow while acknowledging the role 

existing resources like natural gas and nuclear power, have played in our success 

to date. Clean energy innovation, guided by targeted research and development and 

pure entrepreneurial initiative, continues to deliver declining energy costs and new 

disruptive technologies. While deploying the cost-effective technology of today we 

should invest in clean energy research and development. These investments will 

likely produce key components of our energy future. For example, the ARPA-E 

program has partnered with MIT to move forward with advanced nuclear research 

to increase reactor performance. Harvard University is researching a flow battery 

that utilizes organic molecules to store electricity beyond increasingly competitive— 

but still expensive—electric batteries. 

Storage completely alters the value proposition for renewable energy, presents 

unique advantages to reconfigure our electric distribution system, and can target 

reductions in the peak electricity consumption through timely dispatch. Our Department of Energy Resources determined that in Massachusetts, 40 percent of the electrical cost for ratepayers occurs during the top 10 percent of the usage hours of year. 

Storage technology can therefore provide both ratepayer and greenhouse gas reduction benefits. Massachusetts electric utilities are looking to avoid costly upgrades to 

distribution lines through targeted storage deployment, diesel generation on our 

islands are being replaced with storage units, and manufacturers are lowering bills 

through avoided demand charges by curtailing demand with storage during peak demand periods. 

In 2019, we must jettison preconceived assumptions about the costs of clean 

energy and look at the facts. Just 7 years ago, Massachusetts considered moving 
23 

forward with an offshore wind project at a cost of roughly 20 cents per-kilowatt and 

projecting billions in above-market costs for ratepayers. In 2016, acting after passage of the bipartisan legislation, we issued a competitive Request for Proposals and 

Massachusetts selected an offshore wind project on one of three Federal lease areas 

proposed by Vineyard Wind that represents a cost reduction of more than 65 percent 

below the previous proposal and is projected to save ratepayers money. The factors 

that led to these disruptive prices include technology that will increase turbine sizes 

by nearly three times, economies of scale delivered by a larger project, and a competitive solicitation that challenged bidders to deliver the best price. These industry 

advancements would not have been possible without our critical partnership with 

the Federal Government. I applaud Congress for providing a predictable investment 

tax credit for this industry and also the Trump administration’s Bureau of Ocean 

Energy Management for working with us to expeditiously review the project and 

build a new industry in the United States. The Administration has recognized the 

potential economic opportunity of modern offshore wind turbines and last December 

moved forward with lease sales for three additional parcels in Federal waters south 

of Massachusetts. Not only did the auction collectively deliver $405 million for the 

Federal Government, but it attracted traditional companies like BP, Shell, and the 

Norwegian state energy company, Equinor. This is a partnership that can reduce 

emissions, save ratepayers money, and provide critical revenue to the Federal 

Government. 

We can seize this economic opportunity while simultaneously realizing the emission reductions afforded by the best available science and technology. Congress has 

come together in the past to successfully enact meaningful bipartisan energy and 

climate change legislation that resulted in emission reductions and predictability for 

our business community. Just over 4 years ago, Republicans and Democrats came 

together and developed a compromise that included the extension of the renewable 

investment tax credit allowing Vineyard Wind to move forward with an 800 Megawatt project. This credit was imperative to the results: emission reductions by over 

1.6 million metric tons annually, the equivalent of taking 325,000 cars off the road 

and it is estimated that the project will provide over 3,600 local full-time equivalent 

jobs over the life of the project. 

While we have made significant progress to reduce power sector emissions, our 

next challenge will be transportation. In Massachusetts transportation emissions 

represent close to 40 percent of total emissions and continue to climb, while most 

other sectors are declining. In that spirit of regional partnership, this past 

December, we joined eight states and the District of Columbia through the 

Transportation Climate Initiative to work together over the next year to develop the 

framework for a regional program to address greenhouse gas emissions in the transportation sector, building on the strong foundation provided by RGGI. The 

announcement follows the recent release of the report of the Commission on the 

Future of Transportation, which I appointed to help Massachusetts navigate a disruptive transportation future. The report called for the de-carbonization of transportation, including collaborating with regional partners to develop a carbon pricing 

mechanism to cap emissions and invest revenue back within the state. 

BUILDING A RESILIENT COMMONWEALTH

In Massachusetts we have focused first on reducing our contributions to climate 

change and building our clean energy economy, but our experience with severe 

weather and natural hazards has made clear the importance of preparing for the 

ongoing impacts of climate change. In 2016, I signed an Executive Order to, for the 

first time, pursue an aggressive, integrated effort using sound science to prepare 

state government and partner with our local communities to build resiliency for the 

challenges ahead. 

One of the first things we did was to partner with the federally funded Northeast 

Climate Adaptation Science Center at the University of Massachusetts to understand the climate changes we are seeing now and the kinds of changes we will see 

in the future. Our secretaries of Energy and Environmental Affairs and Public 

Safety and Security led a 2-year, government-wide effort to complete a State Hazard 

Mitigation and Climate Adaptation Plan. The plan, which leveraged Federal 

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) money and engaged over 500 stakeholders, 

is the first in the Nation to fully integrate Federal hazard mitigation planning requirements, with a proactive, forward looking approach to addressing the impacts 

from climate change. Throughout the development of the plan, every state agency 

completed a vulnerability assessment of their assets and functions and identified 

initial strategies to increase resiliency. 
24 

The plan will be used to inform policy, management and spending decisions including development of climate change resiliency criteria in our capital planning 

process to ensure that the investments we are making today are designed for changing conditions and do not increase our exposure to climate risk. While we know we 

need increased funding to deal with these challenges, the first step in this process 

is making sure existing spending is climate-smart and cost-effective. 

As I mentioned, our local communities are already experiencing climate change 

impacts and are taking leadership themselves on this issue—our administration 

strongly values our municipal partners and has sought to work closely together on 

this challenge. Our Municipal Vulnerability Preparedness program (MVP), launched 

in 2017, builds on this partnership by providing grants and technical assistance to 

municipalities so they can assess their vulnerabilities, and plan for and implement 

priority climate change adaptation projects to build resiliency and reduce risk. My 

administration worked with partners across the state to develop this communitybased program, including the Nature Conservancy and the Massachusetts Audubon 

Society and has trained over 300 technical service providers from consulting firms, 

regional planning authorities, engineering companies, small businesses and nonprofits to lead municipal planning efforts. In its first 2 years, the MVP program enrolled 44 percent of Massachusetts municipalities, and awarded over $8 million in 

grants. 

These grants are advancing local resilience innovation—like the development of 

the city of Boston’s first ever resilient building code, restoration of an urban floodplain in Arlington, and a town-wide road stream crossing resiliency strategy in 

Belchertown. High participation from Massachusetts communities underscores the 

real need and enthusiasm for a program that maintains and enhances quality of life, 

helps to repair and replace aging infrastructure with climate-smart solutions, and 

promotes strong local economies while reducing risks and future costs. Importantly 

the program allows communities the flexibility to design solutions that work for 

their unique circumstances, are grounded in science and funded by the 

Commonwealth. 

These programs cost money, and in fact over the first 4 years of my administration we have invested over $600 million on climate change mitigation and adaptation actions through our environmental agencies alone without raising taxes or fees. 

Building on this investment, we recently worked together with the Legislature to 

craft an environmental bond bill focused on climate change adaptation, environmental protection, and recreation that authorizes $2.4 billion of investments over 

5 years. 

Now that we have a better understanding of the scope of the challenges ahead 

through our state and local planning efforts, I also filed legislation in January calling for a modest increase in the excise on property transfers to fund a substantial 

and sustained investment in climate change adaptation to protect property. The proposal is estimated to generate $1.3 billion over 10 years that would go directly back 

to cities and towns to invest in climate-smart infrastructure and nature-based 

solutions that protect public health, safety, and property across the Commonwealth. 

Climate-smart infrastructure is resilient to damage caused by climate change and 

extreme weather because it is designed to accommodate the climate conditions it 

will experience over its lifetime, rather than historic conditions which set the standards for the infrastructure we have today. Examples include: 

• right-sizing culverts to accommodate increased streamflow from more intense 

storms; 

• removing underutilized dams and restoring floodplains along rivers and 

streams to prevent flooding; 

• installing resilient energy technologies such as microgrids that pair on-site 

renewables like wind and solar with battery storage to allow a critical facility 

like a hospital or campus to remain on-line during severe weather; 

• employing nature-based solutions such as wetland restoration in urban areas 

to absorb increased runoff during storms; 

• installing artificial oyster reefs and restoring natural coastal habitats to 

buffer against increased storm surge and sea level rise; 

• upgrading combined sewer overflows to separate wastewater from stormwater 

to ensure cleaner water and fewer flooding events involving untreated 

sewage; and 

• ensuring materials used in roads, bridges, train tracks and other heat 

sensitive infrastructure can withstand increasing temperatures over their 

useful life span. 
25 

4 Natural Hazard Mitigation Saves: 2017 Interim Report. The 2017 Interim Report (January 

2018). 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS: COMMONWEALTH PERSPECTIVE

I would like to share some themes I believe will help make progress on reducing 

greenhouse gas emissions and building resiliency across the country based on our 

experience in Massachusetts. 

Support Local Communities and States 

Communities need support in the form of incentives, like our MVP grant program, 

to address resiliency issues before the next disaster. Many of the current Federal 

incentives directed through FEMA are only available after a disaster occurs, yet for 

every dollar spent proactively on resiliency measures, taxpayers save $6.4 One example of this type of funding comes from FEMA’s new resilient infrastructure 

grants which provide large scale funding support to projects that will reduce risks, 

loss of life, and damages from future disasters. Our public and private sector partners are ready to make resilient investments in projects that protect our communities, and these matched funds ensure that construction can get started. Expanding 

programs like this and increasing funding available to states would accelerate 

existing efforts and galvanize new ones. 

Bipartisan cooperation around funding to address the Nation’s ageing infrastructure also holds tremendous promise to reduce climate change vulnerability, help 

transition to a clean energy economy, spur economic development, and build community resiliency. Additional Federal funding cannot only repair and modernize our deteriorating infrastructure but also help make it resilient to changes in weather. 

Consideration of climate change emissions, vulnerability, environmental justice communities, and design standards that reflect a changing climate must be incorporated 

into any infrastructure legislation that is filed. Nature-based solutions hold great 

potential for buffering or replacing existing traditional infrastructure and should be 

explored here. Our environmental bond bill includes these types of strategies that 

conserve, restore or mimic the functions of natural ecosystems to replace or enhance 

traditional infrastructure and provide multiple benefits for communities in the form 

of added resiliency, carbon sequestration and clean water and air. 

These types of combined approaches, utilizing traditional infrastructure but enhancing its resilience with nature-based solutions, are in progress in many places 

now, including Louisiana, following the widespread devastation during Hurricane 

Katrina. First the levees were built higher and stronger, but Louisiana has also 

been incorporating wide-ranging nature-based flooding solutions, including restoring 

wetlands to absorb water, building up barrier islands to reduce wave energy and 

storm surge, and creating oyster reefs to protect against flooding as the seas rise. 

Governments alone cannot sustain the enormous funding needs to support local 

and state resiliency initiatives or the transition to clean energy and transportation. 

Both State and Federal Government need to develop public-private partnerships 

that bring more dollars back to our communities while also leveraging the wealth 

of knowledge and strategic thinking the private sector can bring to this challenge. 

Federal Leadership 

I am proud of our record of climate leadership in Massachusetts, and there is 

much to learn from how states and regions have approached this issue; but states 

cannot solve this problem alone. We need strong Federal leadership and a bold bipartisan vision on climate change that seeks compromise and prioritizes practical 

market-based solutions, while affording states the flexibility to design strategies 

that work for their unique challenges while continuing to grow their economies. 

In Massachusetts setting an aggressive target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions provides the foundation for our clean energy policy, sends a clear signal to industry, and enables us to complete long-range planning. We believe it is essential 

to establish Federal emission reduction targets that can vary by state or region with 

policy flexibility for states to design solutions that work for their unique circumstances. Such targets would level the playing field and send a clear signal to 

business and industry as we transition to a clean energy economy. 

Our transportation sector targets are particularly important now. While predictability and compromise have made cost-competitive renewable energy projects possible, recent proposals to roll back the current Federal fuel economy standards are 

creating uncertainty for the automobile industry and will undermine national and 

state emission progress. Achieving Massachusetts’ 2020 emissions limit assumes a 

strong foundation of Federal fuel economy standards based on harmonization with 

California’s Clean Car Program standards which 13 states including Massachusetts 
26 

5Dahl, K.A., Spanger-Siegfried, E., Caldas, A. and Udvardy, S., 2017. Effective inundation of 

continental United States communities with 21st century sea level rise. Elem. Sci. Anth., 5, p. 

37. DOI: http://doi.org/10.1525/elementa.234. 6Patrick Gonzalez, et al, 2018. Disproportionate magnitude of climate change in United States 

National Parks. Environ. Res. Lett. 13, 104001. 

currently follow; states cannot succeed in reducing transportation sector emission 

without these strong standards. 

Federal Research, Science and Innovation 

Strong Federal leadership should also include making impactful investments in 

research to develop technologies that can reduce emissions and to design strategies 

and tools for adapting to the ongoing impacts of climate change. The congressional 

bipartisan effort to prioritize clean energy research is paying dividends across this 

country and must be measured in years. The research at the Department of Energy 

and our national laboratories around the country continues, and is the key mechanism to release disruptive innovation. It is inspiring to consider what this country 

could accomplish through a sustained commitment to clean energy research, while 

implementing a stable and simple commitment to emission reductions. 

States, communities, businesses, agricultural producers, and natural resource 

managers rely heavily on science, data and management tools developed by Federal 

agencies including NOAA, the U.S. Geologic Survey and the Environmental Protection Agency. For example, the products provided by the NOAA National Weather 

Service, including real-time data that predicts climate variation on the scale of 

weeks to years, is used to inform decisions on national security, crop prices, insurance rates, tourism and recreation, energy, and the transportation sector. The 

Service provides outreach and education to local users across the country. We need 

agencies like NOAA to continue to deliver on their service mission by providing the 

best climate science and data, tracking climate change impacts, and helping states 

and communities develop and implement strategies for adaptation to climate 

change. 

Use Climate Change Science and Data to Inform Planning, Policy-Making, 

and Resource Management 

In the Commonwealth, we strive to set an example by working to incorporate 

climate risk and vulnerability into all of our decisions whether it is through our 

statewide planning, bonding, policy development or grant-making. The Federal 

Government should also take this approach by incorporating climate risk and resilience in all future Federal spending and planning decisions to ensure taxpayer dollars are used wisely on climate-smart investments. Failing to account for climate 

change impacts like sea level rise and inland flooding will put significant assets at 

risk within their serviceable life span and may further expose already vulnerability 

populations and communities to increased risk. Without intervention to adapt over 

$1 trillion of coastal property and assets are vulnerable to as little as 2 feet of sea 

level rise—a level that may be surpassed before the end of the century.5

In 2013, Federal agencies released climate adaptation plans to ensure agencies 

can continue to meet their mission and serve the American public in the face of a 

changing climate. Like our state plan, these plans outlined strategies to reduce the 

vulnerability of Federal programs, assets, and investments to the impacts of climate 

change. Many of our Federal resources across the country are threatened by climate 

change. It is critical that Congress provide oversight to ensure that agencies implement these plans and prioritize actions based on a long-term, positive return on investment for the American taxpayer. 

This is an issue of particular relevance for this Committee in your role providing 

oversight of our rich public lands. A recent study by National Parks Service 

scientists and independent researchers finds that all 417 parks are at risk of significant climate change impacts, including the disappearance of glaciers in Glacier 

National Park and increasing wildfires in Yellowstone that could transform the 

forested ecosystem to grassland within the century.6 Closer to my home, our Boston 

Harbor Islands, managed through a partnership between State and Federal Government and a non-profit are already threatened by sea level rise and storm surge. 

These islands have rich historical and ecological value, provide unique 

recreational opportunities for urban youth, and also offer critical defense for Boston 

Harbor against increasing storm surge. 

Risks are likely to be widespread across many different types of Federal holdings, 

including military installations. A report on climate change impacts from the 
27 

7 Report on the Effects of Climate Change to the Department of Defense, January 2019. 

https://partner-mco-archive.s3.amazonaws.com/client_files/1547826612.pdf. 

Department of Defense this January 7 found that at least 79 military installations 

have significant vulnerabilities from climate change related risk including wildfires, 

drought, recurrent flooding, thawing permafrost or other threats. These bases have 

already experienced extreme weather, including wildfires in 2016 and 2017 at the 

Vandenberg Air Force Base in Southern California, permafrost loss on training 

grounds at Fort Greeley, Alaska, and recurrent flooding at bases in Virginia due to 

sea level rise, land subsidence, and changing ocean currents. 

CLOSING

Governors around the country are seeing the effects of climate change in our 

states and communities, and we know that the decisions we make today will determine our ongoing risk and the well-being of future generations. But we also recognize the significant economic opportunity at hand to build a new clean energy 

industry, transform transportation, spur research advancements, and better design 

the resilient communities of tomorrow. This is not a challenge the Federal Government can solve alone; the severity of the impacts from climate change depends on 

our collective actions as Federal, state and local government, working with the private sector to aggressively reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and adapt to the 

changes that are already in motion. I thank the Committee for the invitation to 

speak and look forward to working together on this challenge. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD TO THE HONORABLE CHARLIE BAKER, 

GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSETTS

Questions Submitted by Rep. Cunningham 

Question 1. Do you support my beforementioned bill, H.R. 291, the Coastal 

Economies Protection Act? 

1a. If yes, why? 

1b. If no, how could we work together to change that? 

Answer. Thank you for your efforts to protect the Atlantic Coast from the hazards 

associated with oil and gas activity and your sponsorship of H.R. 291. As I wrote 

to Secretary Zinke in 2017, Massachusetts does not support the inclusion of areas 

of the North Atlantic in the new Five-Year Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas 

Leasing Program, and I support Congress taking action to protect the Atlantic 

Coast. As Congress considers legislation regarding energy development in Federal 

waters, I recommend including stronger consideration of states’ views in the Outer 

Continental Shelf planning process. I do not believe that the Federal Government 

should move forward with oil and gas activity over the objections of a coastal state, 

and I recommend providing specific authority that oil and gas activity decision 

making be cooperatively managed by the states and the Federal Government. 

Massachusetts has worked successfully with the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management on developing offshore wind in Federal waters and recommend State-Federal 

task forces on identifying where energy development, especially renewable energy, 

may be responsibly sited. 

Question 2. Governor Baker, what does it say about the potential impacts of the 

offshore oil and gas drilling that a Republican such as yourself opposes this type of 

energy development? 

Answer. Massachusetts has long history of managing our commercial fishing 

industry and promoting our state as a tourism destination irrespective of party affiliation. I believe it is imperative that the Department of the Interior and the 

Bureau of Ocean Energy Management review comments from governors, visit the 

coastal states, and meaningfully engage to develop responsible energy development 

that protects existing industries and has the support of the states. As mentioned 

in my written testimony, in Massachusetts, we have focused that partnership on renewable energy development. 

Question 3. Aside from the risks of an offshore oil spill, what other harmful 

impacts might result—either onshore or offshore—from opening the Atlantic Outer 

Continental Shelf to oil and gas development? 
28 

Answer. Massachusetts is particularly concerned about the interaction with our 

commercial fisheries, as well as the potential effects on endangered species, including the right whale. Massachusetts has a historical commercial and recreational 

offshore fishing industry as well as a major tourism industry that relies on the 

health of our ocean and beaches. In addition to the fertile fishing grounds of 

Georges Bank, on our sea scallop fishery—which is responsible for the port of New 

Bedford being the top in the Nation for catch value—would be placed at risk by oil 

and gas development on the Outer Continental Shelf. 

Question 4. Governor Cooper and Governor Baker, while we’re discussing the 

threats and impacts associated with climate change, there’s an obvious connection to 

opening vast new areas of the Atlantic Ocean to oil and gas development. At a time 

when our country needs to confront the reality of climate change, what does the 

Trump administration’s desire to open the Atlantic coast to unfettered fossil fuel 

development tell you about their priorities about environmental protection? 

Answer. As I stated at the hearing, every level of government must accelerate 

efforts to address climate change. Massachusetts will continue to move forward with 

cost-effective greenhouse gas mitigation policies from energy efficiency to clean and 

renewable energy development. Every state and every region should be working 

with the Federal Government to implement individual cost-effective mitigation 

strategies that reflect existing economies and unique opportunities that would collectively lower emissions by the levels required to avoid catastrophic climate change. 

Local, state, and Federal leadership is required to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 

Question 5. Did either of you have conversations with former Secretary Ryan Zinke 

about his decision to unilaterally exempt Florida from offshore oil and gas development, but no other states that have equally as valuable and vibrant fishing and 

tourism industries? 

5a. Why do you think former Secretary Zinke tried to exempt Florida, but no other 

state? 

5b. Do you believe former Secretary Zinke potentially violated Federal laws when 

he made the snap decision to exempt a single state from his oil and gas leasing plan 

without going through the required public process? 

Answer. I conveyed my concerns about the proposed oil and gas activity both in 

a formal letter and in person during a meeting to discuss this issue and the other 

Department of the Interior polices affecting Massachusetts. As stated earlier, energy 

development in Federal waters requires an extensive public process to engage with 

existing industries and ultimately requires a partnership with each coastal state. 

Question 6. Why do your administrations oppose offshore oil and gas development, 

and are your positions in line with your state’s coastal communities and coastal 

businesses? 

Answer. My administration and our coastal communities are strongly aligned in 

working to protect our commercial fisheries and tourism industry, and we seek to 

further develop our partnership with the Federal Government for renewable energy 

development. 

Question 7. Do you support seismic air gun blasting that is a precursor to oil and 

gas development? 

Answer. Last December I joined a letter to Secretary Ross and Secretary Zinke 

alongside nine other governors of Atlantic coastal states to express my firm opposition to seismic air gun surveys and coastal oil and gas drilling. Peer-reviewed 

evidence suggests air gun surveys would have harmful impacts on marine mammals 

and fisheries, which could pose a serious risk to the economies of our coastal communities. I maintain my position outlined in this letter. 

Question Submitted by Rep. Bishop 

Question 1. Governors, you both stated your opposition to offshore oil and gas 

development in Federal waters. Governors, do you believe that states should have the 

right to control offshore energy development in Federal waters adjoining their coasts? 

Answer. There must be a partnership between the Federal Government and the 

states in energy management in Federal waters and as you noted during the hearing this must also apply to Federal land management. Regarding, offshore oil and 

gas development I recommend incorporating stronger consideration of states’ views 

of the Outer Continental Shelf planning process and do not believe that the Federal 

Government should move forward with oil and gas activity over the objections of a 
29 

coastal state. Rather, I would recommend providing specific authority that oil and 

gas activity decision making be cooperatively managed by the states and the Federal 

Government. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. I recognize myself for a 

couple of questions. Governors, let me just get this out of the way. 

First of all, do you believe that there is any legitimate scientific 

debate over whether human-induced climate change is occurring as 

we speak? 

Governor BAKER. No. 

The CHAIRMAN. Both of you. 

Governor BAKER. Well, yes, based on the way you asked the 

question. 

Governor COOPER. No, I do not. There is overwhelming scientific 

consensus that that is the case. 

Governor BAKER. What he said. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Some people argue, though, on that point and on 

that consensus of opinion, that although we know it is happening, 

that humans are a major contributing cause to it, that there is no 

way to stop it, or that it will be far too expensive to even try. It 

is a point of view, it is a reaction that you hear. 

Your comments on that, on those two points. 

Governor BAKER. Well, I guess I would say this. First of all, you 

know, the northeast United States, when I was a much younger 

person, had a huge issue with acid rain, which was mostly coming 

from the Midwest. And that was a big problem, it was an environmental issue. There was a lot of debate and discussion about it. 

But a combination of Federal and state policies, over time, basically 

solved it. 

And if you look at what was done with respect to policy at the 

Federal and state level with regard to the ozone layer, while there 

is still repair going on there, the ozone layer is in far better shape 

than it was 30, 35 years ago: pretty clear indications that you can 

make a difference on big issues with policy. 

And with respect to affordability, I come back to the procurement 

that we just did on offshore wind and the hydropower procurement 

we did, which involves hydropower from Quebec. The price points 

on both of those initiatives, each of which are worth hundreds of 

megawatts of resource to Massachusetts families and businesses, 

both came in at price points that, over time, are going to be more 

cost-effective than it would have been to use traditional resources. 

So, I think the bigger issue here is are you willing to sort of head 

in that direction, be practical, chase cost-effective opportunities, 

and recognize that there are ways to get from here to there? 

And the final thing I will just mention about this, if you have 

farmers or fishermen or resort operators or foresters in your communities and in your districts, I promise you they are worrying 

about climate change all the time. And whether it is the greenhouse gas emission issue, or the resiliency issue, they have major 

challenges that we should all be taking seriously, or we are going 

to put them all in very significant harm’s way over time. 
30 

Governor COOPER. Mr. Chairman, if I might? We can’t afford not 

to take urgent action to fight climate change. It is not too late, but 

it soon may be. That is why we need to take significant action. And 

everyone is concerned about cost, but can we afford not to do this? 

And when you look at cost and profits and jobs, a move to a clean 

energy economy brings with it significant jobs. It brings a significant economic boost. 

People may be surprised to know that North Carolina is Number 

2 in the country in solar energy. How did we get there? Well, we 

forced the utilities to begin using more renewable energy. And we 

set a renewable portfolio standard for our utilities. We also took 

steps to limit our own coal-fired plant emissions in North Carolina. 

So, what has happened is that we have grown this solar energy 

economy and clean energy economy in North Carolina to the point 

where it has political support from both parties because of the jobs 

that it has brought to the area. And now it is competitive in cost. 

A nudge from state government, a nudge from the Federal 

Government, like you have done with tax credits, can move something in the right direction so it becomes part of the economy. And 

I think, at the end of the day, in moving to a clean energy economy, 

we are going to save a lot of money in health care costs. We are 

going to save a lot of money for these billions of dollars that our 

states are asking for the Federal Government to deal with climate 

change effects from flooding and from snow storms. We are going 

to make a positive difference if we do this. 

We have to get moving fast. We have taken some small steps, 

our states are working very hard to do what we can. But this needs 

to be a partnership, and we want to work with you. 

The CHAIRMAN. And with the time I have left, another argument 

people use to excuse the Federal Government from taking action is 

saying that we can innovate our way out of it, that there is a technological fix over the horizon that we need to find, and that, while 

innovation is important, that is an excuse to say we don’t need any 

new laws, we don’t need regulations, we don’t need incentives, we 

are going to technologically innovate our way out of this. 

Do you believe that that innovation in and of itself is enough? 

Governor COOPER. Innovation is happening right now, with battery storage and other technological leaps. But you have to make 

it economically feasible. And state, local, and Federal government 

working together can help to push that along. Yes, it is going to 

require innovation for us to fight climate change and to significantly reduce our greenhouse gases, and it is a process. 

But I think that Federal help, I think stopping the roll-backs 

that are occurring right now at the Federal level, particularly when 

it comes to the clean power plan and automobile emissions, we 

don’t need to go backward in that area. And we need to encourage 

innovation and technology to help move us forward. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Let me now turn to Mr. McClintock 

for any questions he might have for the governors. 

Sir. 

Mr. BISHOP. By the way, Grijalva, it is OK. You can take your 

extra 21⁄2 minutes out of my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. I intended to, sir. 

[Laughter.] 
31 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I noticed in the 

written testimonies, both governors linked climate change with the 

catastrophic fires we have had in the West. My district is just 

southeast of Paradise, California. It encompasses the Sierra 

Nevada from Lake Tahoe past Yosemite Valley and on into Sequoia 

and Kings Canyon National Parks. 

Last year, wildfires burned nearly 2 million acres in California. 

That is nearly eight times the average annual loss of 250,000 acres 

that we experienced during the last half of the 19th century. But 

if you go back farther into the pre-Columbian period, scientists estimate that wildfires destroyed between 41⁄2 million and 9 million 

acres per year. 

The Camp Fire recently burned 153,000 acres. It wiped out the 

town of Paradise and claimed 86 lives. But in 1910, the Big Burn 

in Idaho and Montana burned 3 million acres, wiped out seven 

towns, and killed 87 people among a far smaller and sparser 

population. 

What happened in the intervening time is that the U.S. Forest 

Service was established, and it began actively managing our 

forests, removing excess timber before it could choke off the forests 

and die. And we actively suppressed brush on burned lands and on 

brush lands. 

But in the 1970s, Congress imposed a series of environmental 

laws that subjected Federal land management to endlessly time 

consuming and, ultimately, cost-prohibitive environmental regulations. As a direct result, timber harvested from Federal lands has 

declined about 80 percent, while acreage destroyed by fire has increased proportionately. A typical acre in the Sierra can support 

about 80 mature trees. The current density is over 300. A single 

fully grown tree can draw 100 gallons of water from the soil on a 

hot day. Drought can quickly kill overcrowded forests, and it has. 

And the problem is climate change doesn’t explain the dramatic 

difference between private forests that practice active forest management and the Federal lands that don’t. The boundary lines can 

often be very clearly seen from the air, because of the condition of 

the forests themselves. Green, thriving private forests grow right 

up to the boundary line. And on the other side the forests are morbidly overgrown and dying. I think it is quite clever of the climate 

to decimate only the lands that are hamstrung by these Federal 

environmental laws. 

Now, decaying or burning forests make a mockery of all the laws 

aimed at reducing carbon emissions. Wildfires in the United States 

pump an estimated 290 million tons of carbon dioxide into the air 

every year. 

So, Governor Cooper, if the climate is warming, doesn’t it make 

sense to actively manage our forests so that we can match timber 

density to the ability of the land to support it, so that our forests 

don’t die off and burn? 

Governor COOPER. First, Congressman, we absolutely need to 

take action to fight climate change. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Would you address my question? 

Governor COOPER. But that doesn’t—— 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Governor, please. 

Governor COOPER. Yes, sir. 
32 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. My time is limited, so I have to ask you to be 

responsive. 

Governor COOPER. Yes, sir. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t 

take steps to be more resilient. 

My experience in—— 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. If droughts are becoming more common, 

doesn’t it make sense to provide enough spacing between trees, so 

that snow isn’t trapped in dense canopies, and evaporates before it 

can reach the—— 

Governor COOPER. I think any resiliency action that you take 

needs to be balanced with environmental protection. And I think 

you have to rely on scientists and regulators to determine what 

needs to be done. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Well, we stopped relying on scientists and 

forest management some time ago. We have let our forests go to 

benign neglect. And we are finding out the results aren’t very 

benign. 

When I visited the Detwiler Fire that forced the evacuation of 

Mariposa almost 2 years ago, the firefighters bitterly complained 

that they couldn’t get environmental permits to cut preventative 

fire breaks. 

Governor, shouldn’t we be actively suppressing brush buildup 

and free our firefighters to establish containment breaks before a 

fire starts? 

Governor COOPER. Congressman, I think if you would join us in 

our fight against climate change, we could join in finding ways to 

make our environment more resilient and make our forests more 

resilient. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. I mean if we agree on at least these commonsense steps, why can’t we move forward together with them to 

properly manage our forests, so that they are resilient against 

climate change. 

Governor COOPER. I think—— 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Governor Baker, you waxed eloquently over 

the use of wind power in Massachusetts. But just yesterday the 

Wall Street Journal published a scathing editorial on the experience of Falmouth, Massachusetts that spent $10 million on wind 

turbines, and it has been a disaster. 

That small town went deeply into debt to finance them. The 

townspeople couldn’t bear the noise, the constant flickering light as 

400-foot windmills turned. Property values plunged 20 percent. 

And I wonder how that squares with the bright picture that you 

painted. 

The CHAIRMAN. Governor, a brief answer. The time has run out, 

if you don’t mind. 

Governor BAKER. The question you raise, Congressman, is a good 

one, and I will tell you why. 

I deliberately used the words ‘‘practical’’ and ‘‘cost effective’’ in 

my remarks on purpose. The fact that I believe there are things we 

need to do with respect to mitigation, adaptation, and resiliency because of what is going on with climate means I also believe we 

ought to do things well. 

My father always used to say that there are two things. There 

is doing the right thing, and then there is doing the thing right. 
33 

And just doing the right thing, doing it wrong, doesn’t necessarily 

solve the problem. And there are a whole series of issues associated 

with a well-intended effort. 

In Falmouth, in many respects, that failed because they didn’t 

make a lot of the decisions with respect to where they sited them 

and how they sited them that would have made sense. And I think, 

to some extent, the success that we had with our Deepwater Wind 

procurement was in part our ability to learn from a previous experience that we had had in Massachusetts on a project that never 

got developed, where people gave a sole-source agreement to a single provider in the middle of Nantucket Sound at a very high price, 

because everybody said that was what the market would bear. 

We put the thing out as a competitive procurement. We said we 

weren’t going to pick anybody unless we got competitive bids. We 

spent a ton of time with our colleagues in the legislature, making 

sure that the statute that was written gave us the ability to do 

something that we thought would work. And then we took our time 

in making sure that the procurement we put out there was a procurement that would give us the answer we were looking for. And 

we made clear that if we didn’t get a good bid, we wouldn’t take 

it. 

And one of the things we did in our statute that made a big difference was we framed it as a long-term lease. So, instead of having a type of contract that typically exists in this environment, 

where people are constantly having to renew it over and over 

again, we said, ‘‘If you win, you are going to have the time you 

need to amortize the cost of actually making the investment in the 

project returned.’’ 

And because of that consistency in the way we bid it, and the 

fact that it was competitive, we got a great price. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Governor. 

Governor BAKER. I think sometimes when something doesn’t go 

the way it should go, everybody blames the concept. Well, sometimes we just screw up the way we actually implement it. And it 

makes the concept look bad. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Governor. And before I get admonishment on my time management abilities here, if we could, keep 

the questions and the response to that 5 minutes so that everyone 

that is here will have an opportunity to ask questions. 

Mrs. Napolitano. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Welcome, Governors. 

Governor Cooper, congratulations on your executive order to fight 

climate change. And there is tremendous information that can 

probably be given out to the general public to have them be part 

of the solution, not just the government, because sometimes we rely 

everything on government. 

One of the things I am looking at is, you stated removing underutilized dams and restoring flood plains. That is a great point that 

we need here in Congress, especially funding for recycled water 

and conservation, education to the public, to have them understand 

that we need more water to fight fires and to generally provide for 

the public, for the communities that we serve. 

However, there is reticence in this Committee to fund recycled 

water projects. There used to be 37 million for 17 western states. 
34 

I am asking for 500 million for the future, because we have to 

prepare for ongoing drought and ongoing fires and everything else. 

Suggestions? How can we improve public-private partnerships? 

Two of you. 

Governor COOPER. Well, I think in North Carolina we are already doing that. We know that we have a lot of areas that are in 

danger of flooding. We have put advanced flood mapping in place. 

So, now that we know what to evacuate and where areas are going 

to be flooded, we are taking significant mitigation steps where we 

are using buy-outs, elevations, and even strategic retreats. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Do you inform the general public of your plan, 

so they can be supportive of what you are doing? 

Governor COOPER. Yes, we incorporate what happens with our 

municipalities. They have to make these tough decisions, particularly about strategic retreat, because we have come to the realization that these floods are going to continue to occur, they are going 

to be fierce. We need to take our—— 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. How about your aging infrastructure? 

Governor COOPER. Aging infrastructure, and particularly waste 

water treatment plants that are extremely vulnerable to flooding. 

Helping local governments make sure that they are rebuilt and 

built in a resilient way. 

I have established the North Carolina Office of Resiliency and 

Recovery. And what we are doing is working with local municipalities on catch basins, trying to figure out ways to prevent what 

happens in the future. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Right. 

Governor COOPER. In addition to our efforts to fight climate 

change. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. OK, thank you. 

Governor Baker, what policies can states and city governments 

put into place to build an inclusive green economy? 

Governor BAKER. Well, to just sort of piggyback a little bit on 

your previous question to Governor Cooper—I am a former local 

official. And I get the reason why it is really important to have 

local representation and local voices involved in discussions with 

respect to what happens in their communities. And that is why the 

vulnerability planning effort that we put together is a municipal 

vulnerability planning effort, because we want our colleagues in 

local government and local community leaders to be part of those 

conversations. 

And as I have said before, you have 351 cities and towns—and 

in Massachusetts, they all have different issues with respect to resiliency and adaptation. And we want to make sure whatever it is 

we do is supported at the local level. Because if you don’t have local 

support for it, it is not going to succeed, whatever it is you are 

pursuing. And it won’t be sustained over time. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Yes. 

Governor BAKER. I agree completely with him on that one. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Part of what a discussion on the forest fires 

also leads to the fact that we don’t fund the agency with enough 

money to do it. And what—with the future threat of more fires, we 

should have enough funding there to be able to help them do the 

job they are meant to do. Do you agree? 
35 

Governor COOPER. I agree completely. We spend a lot of money— 

and we are grateful for it—on recovery. Not enough of that money 

that is dedicated to states and local governments is allowed to be 

used for mitigation and resilience. 

And when you look at a flooded area and see homes that have 

been elevated, or areas that have already been bought out and now 

are simply catching flood water, you see the money that we are 

saving from the action that we have taken. 

So, I would encourage the Congress to give states more flexibility 

to use this recovery funding as we rebuild smarter and stronger, 

as we are trying to do in North Carolina, because we know it is 

coming again. I am going to keep saying we have to fight this emission of greenhouse gases, and to fight this overall climate change 

issue here. But we know in the next few decades, if we are going 

to continue to deal with this severe weather, we need to be smart 

about how we rebuild. And us being able to use that funding for 

mitigation and resilience is a positive thing. 

Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Thank you, Governor. I think we have to cut, 

because the Chairman is going to gavel me out. But I tell you 20 

years ago I tried to put climate change in one of my bills, and I 

lost it because nobody wanted to deal with climate change. Thank 

you. 

Mr. BISHOP. Thank you. I appreciate, once again, you being here. 

Governor Baker, I appreciate you being here. 

Now, look, Ed Markey used to be part of this Committee, so at 

some point off the record I would like you to tell me how you got 

rid of the Rs at the end of your vowels. You are doing that very 

well. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BISHOP. And just as a hint, if you try to do Ski 

Massachusetts on your license plates, we have already done that 

in Utah. We got copyrighted on that. Don’t try to go there. 

I do want to ask a question of Governor Baker. You talked a 

great deal about working together in a collaborative process, the 

very essence of federalism. And also, you mentioned how some of 

the local people who work these issues on the ground know exactly 

what they are doing. I found in the state of Utah some of my best 

commissioners in rural Utah are those who used to work for BLM, 

and they are extremely pragmatic about what can and cannot be 

done. 

This is one of those areas that actually is the jurisdiction of this 

Committee, and that is how can we actually increase collaboration 

between the Federal Government and the states. And you guys got 

to figure out state and local government, you are on your own, that 

is your jurisdiction. How do we actually increase that collaboration? 

Or is that significant, to increase that collaboration? 

Governor BAKER. I do think on this vulnerability planning effort, 

which the Federal Emergency Management Agency has created, a 

program where states and locals can get together and start to work 

with the Feds around doing sort of what I would describe as highrisk analytics and making investments in resiliency and adaptation 

to deal with places that people are concerned about, so that the 

next time there is a storm, the next time there is a surge, we don’t 

end up having to deal with the same cleanup that FEMA dealt 
36 

with the time before, I think that is, in some respects, one of the 

best ways for the Federal Government to work with states, and 

with locals. 

Mr. BISHOP. Let me kind of zero in on that. Once again, this is 

our area of jurisdiction. There are statutes on the books that say 

we have to collaborate with you. There is nothing in that statute 

that says what our collaboration actually is. 

Would there be a benefit of actually trying to list what steps 

need to be taken in the collaborative process so indeed the states 

and the Federal Government are working on the same page, as 

opposed to you just groveling before us? 

Governor BAKER. Absolutely. 

Mr. BISHOP. All right. 

Governor BAKER. I think that would be a great idea. 

Mr. BISHOP. And that is within our jurisdiction. However, I realize the Appropriations Subcommittee is having a hearing on the 

Anti-Deficiency Act, which has nothing to do with the appropriations process. So, eventually I think we will get jurisdictional 

issues worked out in this particular area. 

Let me talk specifically once again about the concepts that were 

just brought up—and Mrs. Napolitano, she mentioned it before she 

left—this idea of forest fires and what they need. And maybe when 

Mr. Westerman has a chance to talk, he can exemplify on this. 

One of the things that both the Obama and the Trump administrations told us is it is not necessarily an issue of funding that 

makes it difficult, it is an issue of what kind of powers they have 

to actually do management practices before the fire season takes 

place. 

And the other big issue they also dealt with was cost of litigation, ever-increasing litigation by special interest groups, for which 

they either backed off what they were attempting to do in order to 

minimize that litigation, or they were forced to spend their money 

defending themselves on the litigation. So, what they were asking 

for is greater flexibility in actually managing the land, and help in 

defending themselves. Again, this litigation. 

I am making the assumption that when we are dealing with you 

on the state level, that those issues are also significant. And indeed, the experts on the ground who ask us for this kind of help 

would be saying that same type of thing. 

Governor BAKER. I actually made a note to myself to ask the 

folks who manage our lands. We have significant land that we 

manage, both actively and passively. 

Mr. BISHOP. The nice thing is most of your land is state land, 

and that is great. 

Governor BAKER. What I don’t want to do is, I don’t want to answer this question having not talked to my own people about it, but 

I will do that and make sure we get back to the Committee about 

it. 

Mr. BISHOP. And I appreciate that. And actually, Mr. Grijalva— 

because I won’t ask you another question, I am running out of time 

with that. But if we can go to the point in future where Utah has 

as much Federal land as Massachusetts and North Carolina have, 

I will be tickled pink. 
37 

Governor BAKER. I would love that, as long as I get the same 

amount of skiing that you have in Utah. 

Mr. BISHOP. And we will take some of our extra mountains and 

put them in there, so you can actually ski. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. BISHOP. And that will include our airflow, so we don’t have 

crappy air in the winter. Perfect. 

I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Bishop. 

Mr. Costa. 

Mr. COSTA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Ranking 

Member. It sounds like the Governor and the Ranking Member 

have an opportunity to get great things done here, East-West. 

But I think this is an important hearing for a lot of reasons. And 

clearly, the impacts of climate change are one of the most significant challenges we face in the 21st century around the world, in 

this country, and in our respective states. 

I know the San Joaquin Valley that I represent has had significant impacts as it relates to the drought conditions, the feast or 

famine with too much rain and water, and trying to balance our 

needs. 

We think about the planet we live in: 200 years ago we had 1.7 

billion people, today we have a little over 7 billion. And by the middle of this century it is expected that we will have over 9 billion 

people. And sustainability and the impact that people have on all 

of our resources is the challenge that we face today. 

We have people living in areas in which people didn’t live before, 

where they are impacted by these fires, these floods, and these 

other natural conditions that include hurricanes and tornadoes and 

other weather events. 

We, in California, have done a lot, I think, to try to address the 

future here in renewable and sustainable sources, as have other 

states—Governors, as you have recommended and told us of your 

own efforts. 

I think the earlier comment about better coordination between 

the state, local, and Federal efforts needs to be done. We talk a lot 

in kind of broad, general terms. We don’t, I think, focus enough on 

how we can coordinate together in actually getting something done 

on the impacts of climate change. And a multi-pronged approach, 

I think, is critical to that success. 

Both governors, let me ask you a few questions here. And I am 

looking this way because, Mr. Chairman, the clock is blocked here. 

So, for those of us who watch it, make sure we get our time in. It 

is a little bit of a handicap. 

As we continue to see, as you testified, the trends on intense 

weather changes and the impacts there, we have an aging infrastructure. We have been talking about a bipartisan infrastructure 

measure. Where do you think the best channeling of that funding 

in transportation and in water infrastructure would best be spent 

in your respective states? 

Governor BAKER. Well, with respect to the issue we are talking 

about today, which is resiliency, I think the biggest and best opportunity would be around all of the infrastructure that we have that 
38 

is designed to deal with storms. And much of that infrastructure 

is nowhere near as significant as it needs to be—— 

Mr. COSTA. When FEMA comes—as they have in various parts 

of the country and they provide support and recovery efforts. We 

were just in Puerto Rico last month, and under the—I am trying 

to remember—Stafford Act, or whatever—they are only allowed to 

spend money to what the previous conditions were of that infrastructure. 

Governor BAKER. Right, right. 

Mr. COSTA. That makes no sense. I mean we have to be—and if 

we are repairing—guess what? More hurricanes are going to come, 

more tornadoes are going to come, more floods are going to come, 

and wildfires. We ought to do state-of-the-art restoration, don’t you 

think? 

Governor BAKER. Yes. We should be thinking about infrastructure going forward, in terms of what the consequences will be for 

bridges, for coverts, for dams, for all of that stuff, based on what 

people anticipate the significant issues they will be dealing with 

will look like. And those are different than the ones people were 

dealing with 100 years ago, absolutely. 

Mr. COSTA. Governor Cooper? 

Governor COOPER. And, Congressman, there is a lot of money 

that comes to states in the wake of disaster. But in the wake of 

disaster is time to talk about that resilient infrastructure. 

People were driving around the state of North Carolina for 3 or 

4 days after Hurricane Florence because Interstate 95 was under 

water. 

Mr. COSTA. OK, I appreciate the examples. I have 30 seconds 

left. 

To both of you, if you can quickly—there is a call, obviously, to 

provide less stringent environmental regulation in an effort to review and rewrite common-sense policies in the light of climate 

change based on sound science. Is that reasonable to ask? 

Governor BAKER. I didn’t understand—— 

Governor COOPER. I didn’t understand what you said, sir. 

Mr. COSTA. There is a sense that maybe we need to rewrite environmental regulations in the sense of dealing with these impacts 

of climate change. Is that reasonable to ask, based upon new 

science? 

Governor BAKER. I think we should continually be updating our 

rules and our regulations with respect to new discovery and new 

science. We do it in health care, which is the space I came out of 

in the private sector. We do it in all sorts of areas. Yes, I would 

say definitely here, yes. 

Governor COOPER. But I would say we don’t want to roll back 

environmental safeguards that are helping us to reduce greenhouse 

gas emissions, and therefore fighting climate change, while we are 

doing that. 

Mr. COSTA. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Westerman. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Thank you, Chairman Grijalva, and thank you, 

governors, for being here today. I have had the opportunity to 

spend quite a bit of time in both of your states. You have beautiful 

states with beautiful forests and clean water there. 
39 

I get accused sometimes of getting too far into the weeds when 

I start talking about climate, environmental policy. So, taking a little bit of a different approach today, I was going to submit this to 

the record, but I haven’t got a hard copy yet. But this is a Dilbert 

cartoon. And they are sitting around the table, and Dilbert says, 

‘‘I have invented a cost-effective product to harvest CO2 from the 

air and turn it into construction material,’’ and his colleague says, 

‘‘So . . . you invented a tree.’’ And it goes on from there. 

But you know, when we look at the climate and how we all want 

to be good stewards of it, we know that trees are one of the best 

things on earth to clean the air, to clean water, and provide good 

habitat. 

Governor Cooper, I am from Arkansas and did a lot of work in 

your state before I got into Congress. I actually did a comparison 

one time of the forested area in Arkansas versus North Carolina. 

And both states are almost exactly the same, 17 to 18 million acres 

of forested land in both states, almost the same breakdown of hard 

wood versus soft wood. 

There is a difference there, though. North Carolina has one of 

the most vibrant forest products industries in the country. Even 

though we have basically the same land mass and the same 

amount of forest, you all produce a lot more wood products than 

we do in Arkansas, although our forest products economy is growing and thriving there. 

So, as we look at this issue of cleaning the air, I would like to 

get your take on how important the forest products industry and 

forest management is in North Carolina to keeping your forest 

pristine, which also helps your water quality and your wildlife 

habitat, and the different kinds of products that are made there, 

and how they may affect the environment. 

Have you had a chance to get out—I am sure you have—to see 

all of the varied forest products industries in your state? 

Governor COOPER. Yes, we do have a strong forest product industry in North Carolina. I think we have to be careful about going 

too far with it. And I know that our department of environmental 

quality is looking at additional safeguards that we may need in 

order to make sure that our forests are protected. 

I do know, though, that it is an important industry in our state, 

and we are working hard to make sure that our forests are managed properly, because we know that those natural resources are 

critically important, not only to clean air, but to our tourism, as 

well, in North—— 

Mr. WESTERMAN. I believe about 68 percent of your forest land 

is privately held and managed by private owners who are doing 

that, just using good science. And you obviously have a sustainable 

forest there to be able to continue with a strong forest products 

industry. 

I know also that North Carolina is one of the leading states in 

producing wood pellets. Those pellets were driven by the fact that 

Europe put a tax on carbon coming out of some of their big coalfired plants, so that drove them to come to the United States to 

buy renewable pellets. How do you think that is affecting the 

health of the forest in North Carolina, and then the global climate 
40 

as well, being able to use those renewable wood pellets to replace 

coal in Europe? 

Governor COOPER. There is a concern about the increase of the 

use of wood pellets in North Carolina. There is a concern about 

that, yes. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. But that was all driven by a mandate from a 

government saying you had to get the coal out of the plants. So, 

they wanted to replace that with a bio-fuel. And North Carolina, 

obviously being on the East Coast and having the abundant forests 

they have, were a really good supplier to help in Europe to offset 

carbon emissions over there. 

Governor COOPER. I don’t know about that, Congressman. I don’t 

know about that. 

Mr. WESTERMAN. Are we going to get a second round of 

questions? 

Real quickly, Governor Baker, the Quabbin in Massachusetts is 

a great example of how to manage forests and get clean water. 

Boston relies on that. It is a wonderful system, and I wish we could 

mimic that other places around the country. 

I yield back. 

Governor BAKER. So, just two things. We have planted thousands 

and thousands and thousands of trees since we took office for exactly the reason you just raised. And we have about 4 million acres 

of forest in a state with 61⁄2 million acres, overall. And about a 

million acres are managed by the Commonwealth. 

Planting trees is one of the best—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Governor BAKER. Give us some money to plant trees, we will 

plant trees. They also help with soil runoff and a whole bunch of 

other things, as well. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Sablan. 

Governor BAKER. And the most interesting thing about it has 

been that the relationship between the sportsmen community and 

the environmental community over the importance of forest and 

wildlife habitat. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Sablan. 

Mr. SABLAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Governor Baker and Governor Cooper, welcome. Thank you for 

being here. Thank you for your leadership on climate change you 

are both demonstrating in your states. 

Getting to the question, a little history, background, is in 2016, 

our bureau of environmental and coastal quality developed a 5-year 

strategy that noted that although the development surge in Saipan, 

one of the islands in the Northern Marianas, would result in dramatic loss of green space and permeable natural surface, particularly in shore land locations, the political leadership were calling 

for even less regulatory oversight and for expedited permit processing. And that leads me to no longer be hopeful that my political 

leadership would join your U.S. Climate Alliance. 

But having said that, and someone mentioned earlier about people being displaced from their homes. Over the past 2 years alone, 

hundreds of thousands of Americans have been forced from their 

homes, some of them as recent as Puerto Rico, Irma and Maria. 

And in the future we will see many more people who need to 
41 

permanently move because their homes will become uninhabitable, 

either by rising sea levels or hurricanes and typhoons. The people 

of the Northern Marianas will be especially hard hit. 

So, what can states and the Federal Government do in order to 

more effectively address displacement due to climate change? 

Governor COOPER. Congressman, in North Carolina I think we 

have seen it just as you have, that the people who can afford it the 

least often get hit the hardest in these natural disasters. And one 

of our problems that we have right now is the issue of affordable 

housing, being able to find safe, affordable places for people to live. 

In the wake of this disaster, I think it is helping us put together 

a plan on affordable housing across the state. That is something 

that is going to require public-private partnerships, and investments, and trying to get developers into making sure that more affordable housing is constructed in areas that are not in flood plains 

and in danger of being destroyed during these disasters. It is a 

human tragedy. 

And I look forward to your ideas. And we certainly can provide 

you with some of ours on how we do that. 

The CHAIRMAN. And Governor Baker? 

Governor BAKER. I would just get back to the question Congressman Costa asked about rebuilding to the standard of what it was 

before. I mean, clearly, we need to be taking a much more forwardlooking approach to the way we handle that stuff, because building 

to the standard that existed before will be nowhere near as resilient as you need to be to deal with many of those issues. 

Mr. SABLAN. Right, and I agree with you, Governor Baker, because where I come from, the Northern Marianas, we just had a 

super-typhoon, I think the second-largest in U.S. history. And we 

are not actually a wealthy community. 

So, what took people years to build as their homes were destroyed, demolished. And FEMA has inspections. Some of them got 

awarded $6,000. So, they were made an offer: ‘‘We can take you 

and move you to another location away from the Northern 

Marianas until you can get your structure rebuilt.’’ The $6,000 is 

going to take care of 20 percent, maybe, of the cost of the building, 

if at all. 

So, that person, this family, will move and probably never come 

back. And from a case where our population is hardly, very little 

over 50,000, we need all our people to remain at home. But it is 

not. So, yes, I agree. FEMA encourages this relocation. 

And my time is up. Thank you very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Graves. 

Mr. GRAVES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the time. 

Governors, I want to thank you very much for being here. 

Governor Cooper, I know that—I am from Louisiana. We sent 

many volunteers and rescue teams to your state—— 

Governor COOPER. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. GRAVES [continuing]. Following—I am trying to remember— 

Chris, Matthew, Florence, Michael, a number of storms you have 

had in recent years. I have been praying for you all and working 

closely with your delegation. 

Two things, real quick. 
42 

You mentioned some of these resiliency measures on—I think it 

was October 3, the President signed the Disaster Recovery and 

Reform Act into law. That law that we worked closely with your 

delegation in putting together does provide some additional flexibility and dollars on more resilient reconstruction, to where we are 

not rebuilding the same things over and over again, and I urge you 

to take a look at that. 

Next, on the duplication of benefits letter you sent to the White 

House, in regard to your recovery we are working closely—our 

governor has done the same thing—we are working closely—— 

Governor COOPER. Have you gotten an answer yet? 

Mr. GRAVES. Blood pressure is going up a little bit, potentially 

filing a lawsuit, but we will be working closely with you all on that. 

Governor COOPER. OK. 

Mr. GRAVES. I also spent a good bit of time in Pisgah, Linville, 

Bent Creek, a lot of your real jewels over there. You have a great 

state. 

Governor Baker, reading about some of the things that your state 

has done in regard to emissions reduction and climate change, it 

is interesting. Our states, again, south Louisiana, Massachusetts, 

very different. I heard you in your testimony talking about ski 

slopes. And, of course, the Ranking Member was discussing that, 

as well. We would love to have that. We have some resource issues. 

Ski slopes aren’t really conducive to south Louisiana. 

Some of the top industries in Massachusetts, it is technology patents, venture capital, computing technology. Some areas that aren’t 

necessarily licensing, aren’t necessarily energy or emissions intensive. My home state of Louisiana, we are one of the top energy producers in the Nation, one of the top refiners in the Nation, one of 

the largest petrochemical industries in the Nation, one of the largest industrial corridors in the Nation. It is a very different 

economy. 

Your home state of Massachusetts, according to the EIA, part of 

the Department of Energy, they indicated that your state has virtually no oil and gas production. Yet, just within the last few years, 

your state has averaged over 1 quadrillion BTUs of fossil fuels 

being used to just operate your state, over 1 quadrillion BTUs of 

fossil fuels being consumed for everything going on in the state of 

Massachusetts. 

In Revere, you have one of the three home heating oil reserves. 

Much of your, if I remember right, coal and natural gas, approximately 70 percent of the energy production in your state is from 

coal and natural gas. That comes from Louisiana, it comes from 

other states. 

My home state of Louisiana, we are blessed with natural resources. We are blessed with port systems and have a big industrial corridor. How do you reconcile what you are able to do based 

on your economy, versus the challenges in Louisiana based on what 

our economy is founded on? 

Governor BAKER. Well, our view on this issue for the better part 

of the past decade has been to make the kinds of investments that 

can either reduce our draw on energy when we produce productivity, or continue to redefine our source points for energy, 

generally. 
43 

And if you look at the last 10 years, or even go back before that, 

maybe the last 20, we have had significant increase in our gross 

state product. We have had modest population growth. We have 

had modest increase in the number of vehicle miles driven, and a 

20 percent reduction in our greenhouse gas emissions over that 

same period of time. And the energy draw generally has been flat 

over the same period, because we have gotten more productive 

about how we actually use energy. 

And I think in some respects that is one thing that we haven’t 

really talked about at all today. One of the biggest and best opportunities we all have with respect to climate change and greenhouse 

gas emissions, generally, is energy efficiency. Our Mass Save 

program—— 

Mr. GRAVES. And, Governor, I agree. I need to reclaim my time 

because I am about—— 

Governor BAKER. We have installed 24 million LED lights—— 

Mr. GRAVES [continuing]. To run out right now, but I do appreciate that you all have taken steps, I do. But I also think it is important to recognize that states in some cases are fundamentally 

differently. 

Governor BAKER. Agreed. 

Mr. GRAVES. Years ago I calculated the amount of energy that 

Massachusetts consumed, and I think it was 24 times more energy 

than they produced. So, you built three LNG terminals, a lot of 

energy is coming in from Louisiana and other states. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask to insert in the record two things. 

First, and it is interesting, it is a letter asking the President to 

increase global oil production—to increase global oil production. 

And that letter is signed by Senators Cantwell, Schumer, 

Menendez, and Markey. 

Second, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to include in 

the record a statement that shows the average electricity prices for 

each state, indicating the state of Massachusetts has electricity 

prices that are usually the top or the second top in the continental 

United States, more than double that of the state of Louisiana. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. Without objection. 

[The information follows:] 

UNITED STATES SENATE

WASHINGTON, DC 20510 

May 23, 2018 

The President 

The White House 

Washington, DC 20500 

Dear Mr. President: 

World crude oil prices increased over 75 percent in the past year, with some 

market analysts expecting prices to approach $100 per barrel in the coming months. 

Elevated fuel prices are a burden on every family, business, and farm and threaten 

our nation’s continued economic growth and global competitiveness. Today, we call 

on you to use all of your authority to take timely action to pressure the 

Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and cooperating countries to increase world oil supplies in order to lower prices at the pump during the 

upcoming summer driving season. 
44 

The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) attributes current increases in 

crude oil prices to ‘‘falling global oil inventories, heightened market perceptions of 

geopolitical risks, and strong global economic growth signals.’’ Indeed, global oil supplies have been relatively flat over the last two years, despite record U.S. crude oil 

production, because of an agreement between the OPEC and non-OPEC countries 

like Russia to decrease their oil production by around 1.7 million barrels per day 

starting in January 2017. Since the agreement has been in place, those countries 

have actually reduced production by over 2.4 million barrels per day. 

Surging oil prices have made gas station fill-ups more expensive. According to the 

EIA, gasoline prices will average $2.95 per gallon this summer, 61 cents higher than 

last year. That means the average U.S. household will be forced to pay $167 more 

in fuel costs this summer driving season as compared to the same period last year. 

Diesel fuel, essential for transporting American goods to market, will average 64 

cents more per gallon than last summer, and prices could top $4 per gallon in some 

states. 

The impact of rising fuel prices on our economy and on family budgets is significant and widespread. According to a recent analysis by Goldman Sachs, the run up 

in oil prices will roughly cancel out the effects from tax reductions this year, with 

the greatest impact on households that can least afford it. 

Last month, you said it was unacceptable for OPEC to artificially inflate oil 

prices. We agree and urge you to work with our international partners to take the 

following actions to make sure OPEC does not continue to suppress world crude oil 

supplies, and to protect domestic policies that help consumers: 

• Leverage your personal relationship with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammad bin 

Salman to urge Saudi Arabia to use their swing capacity to increase world 

oil supplies. 

• Send Energy Secretary Perry to the June 22, 2018, OPEC meeting in Vienna, 

Austria to personally communicate the importance of maintaining stable 

crude oil prices. 

• Initiate World Trade Organization dispute proceedings against countries 

engaged in anticompetitive practices that artificially inflate world oil prices. 

• Work with our European allies and China, which last year surpassed the 

United States as the world’s largest oil importer, to put pressure on oil 

exporting nations. 

• Direct the Federal Trade Commission, Commodities Futures Trading 

Commission, and the Department of Justice to exercise vigorous oversight 

over oil markets. 

• Maximize the use of more environmentally friendly and domestically 

produced biofuel alternatives by protecting the Renewable Fuel Standard. 

• Abandon your Administration’s stated plan to roll back fuel economy standards that otherwise will save the average car owner more than $6,000 over 

the life of the car and cut the nation’s oil consumption by over two million 

barrels per day by 2025. 

The current run up in world oil prices is effectively a tax on every American 

family’s discretionary budget, except that the money goes to the OPEC cartel rather 

than the U.S. Treasury. Adding to our constituents’ pocketbook concerns is their un-
45 

derstanding that our nation’s continued dependence on oil is at the heart of many 

of our nation’s greatest economic, environmental, and national security challenges. 

Sincerely, 

Maria Cantwell Robert Menendez 

Washington New Jersey 

Charles Schumer Edward J. Markey 

New York Massachusetts 

Submission for the Record by Rep. Graves 
46 

Mr. GRAVES. Thank you. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Also insert in the record—NOAA just released 

their recap today for the U.S. and Global Climates for 2018. A couple of highlights in that release, in that report: 2018 was the fourth 

hottest year on record for our planet, falling behind only 2015, 

2016, and 2017; in 2018 the United States was warmer than average, and the wettest in 35 years; in 2018 there were 14 weather 

and climate disasters, each with damages over $1 billion, total cost 

$91 billion. And this is a report that was released as of today by 

NOAA. And we want that entered into the record, as well. 

Mr. BISHOP. Are you asking for objections? 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objections, I hope. 

[The information follows:] 

Submission for the Record by Rep. Grijalva 

Just now, NOAA released their recap for U.S. and global climate for 2018. A 

couple highlights from this report: 

• 2018 was the 4th hottest year on record for our planet, falling behind only 

2015, 2016, and 2017. 

• The 2018 Arctic sea ice extent was its second smallest since recordkeeping 

began, only behind 2017. 

• In 2018, the United States was warmer than average, and the wettest in 35 

years. 

• In 2018, there were 14 weather and climate disasters each with damages over 

$1 billion, total cost was $91 billion. 

NOAA: 2018 was 4th Hottest Year on Record for the Globe 

U.S. Experienced $14 Billion Disasters in a Warmer- and Wetter-Than-Average Year 

2018 Global Temperature and Sea Ice 

• For 2018, the average temperature across global land and ocean surfaces was 

1.42°F (0.79°C) above the 20th century average. This was the fourth highest 

among all years in the 1880–2018 record,.behind 2016 (highest), 2015 (second 

highest), and 2017 (third highest). Nine of the warmest years have occurred 

since 2005, with the last 5 years (2014–2018) ranking as the five warmest 

years on record. 

• In a separate analysis of global temperature data, released today, NASA 

scientists also determined 2018 to be the fourth warmest year on record. 

Analyses from the United Kingdom Met Office and the World Meteorological 

Organization ranked 2018 among the top four warmest years on record. 

• Sea Ice: Average annual sea ice extent in the Arctic was approximately 4.00 

million square miles, just edging 2017,as the second smallest annual average 

in the 1979–2018 record. The annual Antarctic sea ice extent was 4.20 million 

square miles. This was the second smallest annually averaged value on 

record, about 77,000 square miles larger than the previous record set in 2017. 

2018 Annual U.S. Temperature and Precipitation 

• Much of the contiguous U.S. was warmer than average, particularly west of 

the Rockies and across the coastal Southeast, which were characterized by 

much-above-average temperatures, within their warmest 10 percent of the 

record. Fourteen states across the U.S. had annual temperatures among the 

10 highest on record. Arizona: second highest; New Mexico: third highest; and 

California: fourth highest. Most of the Northern Plains and Upper Midwest 

experienced near-normal temperatures. South Dakota and Nebraska, respectively, observed annual average temperatures 0.4°F and 0.1°F below their 

20th century averages, marking the first year since 2014 that any state observed a temperature nominally cooler than its 20th century average. 
47 

• The 2018 nationally averaged precipitation for the contiguous U.S. was 34.63 

inches. This total was 4.69 inches above average, the wettest in the past 35 

years, and third wettest since record keeping began in 1895. The total was 

largely driven by record and near-record annual precipitation across much of 

the eastern United States. Nine eastern states—Delaware, Maryland, 

Massachusetts, New Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, 

Virginia and West Virginia—experienced their wettest year on record. Much 

of the West and Pacific Northwest experienced a drier than normal year. 

2018 Weather Events 

• There were 14 weather and climate disasters with losses each exceeding $1 

billion during 2018. These disasters included: two tropical cyclones 

(Hurricanes Florence and Michael), one western wildfire disaster comprised 

of several constituent fire complexes over several months, eight instances of 

severe convective storms (hail, tornado, and/or damaging winds), one large 

drought episode, and two winter storms. The 14 events, in total, claimed at 

least 247 lives and cost $91 billion. About $73 billion of this total was attributable to three events: Hurricanes Michael ($25 billion) and Florence ($24 

billion), and the complex of western wildfires ($24 billion). 

• In other notable extremes, during a 24-hour period spanning April 14–15, 

2018, a rain gauge at Waipa ̄ Garden, near Hanalei on the Hawaiian island 

of Kauai, observed 49.69 inches of rainfall. This is the largest verified amount 

of precipitation observed in 24 hours in the United States. The previous 

record of 43 inches was set at Alvin, Texas, in July 1979. 

January 2019 U.S Temperature, Precipitation and Drought 

• January 2019 average temperature for the contiguous U.S. was 32.7°F, 2.6°F 

above average and ranked among the warmest third of its historical record. 

Near-normal temperatures generally prevailed in the eastern half of the 

country, while the West was above average for the month. Although shortlived, a cold outbreak near the end of the month gripped much of the Midwest 

and Northeast, where many daily cold records were set. 

• The contiguous U.S. precipitation total for January was 2.49 inches, 0.18 inch 

above average. Large portions of the Northeast recorded much-above-average 

precipitation. Rhode Island and Vermont each had their eighth wettest 

January on record. This was the sixth consecutive month with nationally 

averaged precipitation categorized as above average or much above average. 

• According to the January 29 U.S. Drought Monitor report, 16.5 percent of the 

contiguous U.S. was in drought, down more than five percentage points since 

the end of December. Drought improved across much of the Southwest and 

California. 

For More 

• A more complete summary of climate conditions and events can be viewed at: 

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/ and http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/national/ 

Summary of 2018 Billion Dollar Weather and Climate Events 

• There were 14 weather and climate disasters with losses each exceeding $1 

billion during 2018. These disasters included: two tropical cyclones 

(Hurricanes Florence and Michael), one western wildfire disaster comprised 

of several constituent fire complexes over several months, eight instances of 

severe convective storms (hail, tornado, and/or damaging winds), one large 

drought episode, and two winter storms. 
48 

• The 14 events, in total, claimed at least 247 lives and had total losses 

estimated at $91 billion. About $73 billion of this total was attributable to 

three events: Hurricanes Michael ($25 billion) and Florence ($24 billion), and 

the complex of western wildfires ($24 billion) 

• 2018 marked the eighth consecutive year with eight or more billion dollar 

disasters, exceeding the long-term average of 6.2 per year. This was 4th highest total number of events, behind the years 2017 (16), 2011 (16) and 2016 

(15). It was also the eighth year in the period of record (1980–present), and 

seventh since 2008, with at least 10 billion-dollar disasters. 

• 2018 also had the 4th highest total costs ($91 billion) behind the years 2017 

($312.7 billion), 2005 ($220.8 billion) and 2012 ($128.6 billion) when adjusted 

for inflation. 

• 2018 experienced a historically damaging wildfire season ($24.0 billion), a 

new U.S. annual record, exceeding the previous $18.0 billion wildfire cost 

record set in 2017. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Huffman. 

Mr. BISHOP. No, Mr. Westerman has something for the record, 

too, maybe. 

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. 
49 

Mr. WESTERMAN. While we are submitting for the record, I would 

like to submit this Dilbert cartoon to the record. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. WESTERMAN. It explains the photosynthetic process. 

[The information follows:] 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Mr. Chairman, that is one of the more 

substantive submittals I have seen from the other side. 

The CHAIRMAN. That one will be framed. 

Mr. Huffman. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for having 

this hearing. It is so important that we have an honest conversation about climate change. And while Ranking Member Bishop 

wondered where this is heading—obviously, it is too early to say 

which policy prescriptions and solutions this Committee may eventually support, but you have to begin with the kind of conversations, science-based, fact-based, policy-based that we are having in 

this room. 

And what better way to have it than this bipartisan duo of 

governors? I am struck, in listening to your testimonies, that when 

honest people simply listen to the facts, listen to the science, and 

try to solve problems for those they represent, the party labels kind 

of melt away and we just become problem solvers. That is 

refreshing. 

This Committee and this Congress need to hear more of that. 

This country needs to hear more of that. Because, frankly, I think 

America is tired of the shrill, fact-free partisan food fight that has 

tended to be what they see when we talk about climate change. So, 

thank you both so much for being here. 

Governors, I want to ask you about offshore drilling. You know 

that the Trump administration has proposed issuing new leases for 

offshore drilling that would potentially affect each of your states. 

You might say that they want to make your states’ economies look 

a little more like my friend, Garret Graves’ economy in Louisiana, 

which is still reeling in many respects from the BP oil spill. 

What does new offshore drilling represent, from your perspective? Is it a threat? What would it do to the coastal economies of 

your states? 
50 

Governor COOPER. North Carolina says not off our coast. We oppose seismic testing. We oppose offshore drilling. We have too 

much invested in our tourism economy and our commercial and 

recreational fishing economy and our ports. We cannot tolerate a 

disaster of epic proportions which could occur. 

We have continued to file comments, we have stated our opposition, we have met with Federal authorities, and will continue to 

oppose it in North Carolina, just like over 200 bipartisan local governments have passed resolutions opposing offshore drilling off of 

the North Carolina coast. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Governor Baker? 

Governor BAKER. It is pretty unanimous support for not drilling 

off the coast of Massachusetts, as well, for many of the same reasons. We have one of the most important fisheries in the United 

States. The New Bedford scallop fishery is more than $1 billion. I 

think it is the largest, from a dollar basis, of any fishery in the 

United States. 

We also have demonstrated that the best and biggest opportunity, we believe, for offshore energy activity is around Deepwater 

Wind. And just to put a point on that, we put our bid out, we took 

the best of the bids that we got. Rhode Island took one of the bids, 

Connecticut took one of the bids. And New York, New Jersey, 

Virginia, and Delaware all of a sudden got very interested in 

Deepwater Wind when they saw the price points on the procurement that we had negotiated. 

And the Federal Government, the Bureau of Ocean Energy 

Management, put a series of Federal leases out on Federal waters 

to see what kind of bids they would get on those, and they got tremendous bids on that. And I think if we are looking for a way to 

grow energy resources on the East Coast, my view would be let’s 

do the Deepwater Wind, which I believe has huge potential. 

But the tourism industry, the fishery industry, there are a lot of 

really good reasons not to be doing offshore drilling off the 

coast—— 

Mr. HUFFMAN. We have never heard of a catastrophic wind spill 

off our coast. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. HUFFMAN. So, that seems like a prudent course. 

Governor Baker, you referred a little bit to this when you talked 

about climate change impact on your fisheries, and this is something you do very much have in common with Louisiana. You have 

a thriving and very vibrant commercial fishing industry. 

But I understand that the Gulf of Maine is one of these hot spots 

for ocean warming. It is warming much faster than most other 

parts of the ocean. Could you speak to what that is doing to the 

movement of these fish that have historically been there, how that 

might impact the seafood industry that you represent, and coastal 

fishing communities? 

Governor BAKER. Well, if you think particularly about cod and 

lobster, which are probably two commercial fishing industries that 

are as identified with Massachusetts and Maine as any you are 

going to find—in fact, there is a cod that is actually hanging on the 

wall in our State House of Representatives chamber, because that 

is considered to be kind of the—— 
51 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Sacred. 

Governor BAKER. Yes, exactly. And that cod fishery is moving 

north. And the lobster fishery is moving north, as well. We are all 

very concerned that, as the water continues to warm in the Gulf 

of Maine, it could have huge implications for the shellfish industry, 

as well. 

It is a very big problem, and it is one that you don’t have to 

project out. It is already happening, and it is there, and you can 

see it in the data. And you can see it when you talk to any of the 

folks who are part of those fishing communities. 

Mr. HUFFMAN. Thank you both for your leadership. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Lowenthal. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you. And I want to thank the panelists, 

both—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Lowenthal, I just want to be respectful of the 

governor’s time. We probably have him for the rest of my 

colleagues—they are gracious enough for an additional 10 minutes. 

Maybe if we can—and then we will have to end at that point. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. I apologize—— 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. In my 10 seconds, I would like to talk about the 

speed by which we move toward zero carbon economies. In your experience, and you both have stated in your testimony that you set 

targets for the reduction of greenhouse gases. Can you share with 

us some of your thoughts about what we can do at the Federal 

level in setting targets? And what are the obstacles you received, 

or you found in doing this? How far can we go? 

Because I am leaning toward what is the balance between a regulatory approach and an incentive, market-driven approach? Can 

they complement each other? Or should we just have one versus 

the other? 

Governor COOPER. We have set a goal in North Carolina of a 40 

percent reduction by the year 2025. And one thing we know, it is 

going to take a balanced approach. For example, our renewable 

portfolio standard, we are making requirements of our utilities to 

increase their renewable energy production, while at the same time 

we are doing things to encourage zero-emission vehicles, energy efficiency. I mean it has to be a combination of all of the above. 

One thing I do know is that the United States needs to be a 

world leader again in this issue. And anything that you can do 

from a Federal perspective to make that happen, we would appreciate it. Our 20-state Climate Alliance represents about 47 percent 

of the population of the United States, and a little over half of the 

gross domestic product. So, we do have a strong voice that we want 

the United States to be a leader in this again. And anything that 

you can do, legislatively from your bully pulpit to make that happen is greatly appreciated. It is absolutely necessary. 

Governor BAKER. And I would just say a couple things. One is 

I do think the most important thing is to establish long-term goals 

and objectives, because that helps the private sector plan. The 

second thing I would say is that the goals and objectives can vary 

from region to region. And I think that, back to the Louisiana 

versus Massachusetts issue, that is a legitimate issue. 
52 

The regional greenhouse gas coalition that we put together with 

the northeastern states around electricity and energy production 

has been incredibly effective at reducing greenhouse gases through 

energy production. 

And we are currently talking to the same states about doing 

something in transportation, which I believe will have similar implications for nudging people and encouraging people to move to 

zero-emission-type vehicles over time. And as I said in my remarks 

before, our economy has continued to perform, even as our actual 

energy use has stayed completely flat, and our greenhouse gas 

emissions have gone down. 

I think one of the things that is important here is, we have 

created state-based incentives to encourage our utilities and to encourage our businesses to head in this direction. And we have 

about 100,000 jobs now in Massachusetts that are related to the 

green economy, getting back to the point that Governor Cooper 

made previously, which is even in Massachusetts the solar industry 

has been very successful at finding a path forward. 

And we are now pairing solar investments with storage, and that 

is another area where the Federal Government can play a big role. 

I mean storage has tremendous potential, and it has tremendous 

potential on both price and on environmental issues. 

The time we typically burn the most environmentally dangerous 

fuels at the highest price is when it is really cold out, or really hot 

out, and we are paying a ton for what we get, and most of the time 

it is our most environmentally dangerous sources. And I think storage is a big opportunity to do something about that, and that is a 

place where the Feds could really play a big role. 

Dr. LOWENTHAL. I just want to say one thing. Thank you for 

that. I represent the port area of Long Beach, Los Angeles. We are 

the largest complex. We have reduced our greenhouse gas effect by 

80 percent and had the greatest economic growth because of that. 

So, there are a lot of models out there. 

The last thing is, I think that there are regional differences. I am 

glad that Representative Graves mentioned it, the difference between Louisiana and Massachusetts. You pointed that out. I think 

the transition to a green economy, which we are doing, and green 

energy, is going to have to deal with that, the transition in workers 

and resources to different regions. And I think it is important that 

he at least mentioned it, even though I think we have differences 

of opinion on how we reach that goal. 

Governor BAKER. I mean I have always been—Texas is a very big 

oil and gas state. It also is a very big wind and solar state. It is 

a big energy state. And I wonder if that is one of the ways we could 

think about some of these issues, going forward. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Cox. 

Mr. COX. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank Governor Cooper, 

Governor Baker for being here today. 

Every day, when I come to work for the people of California’s 

Central Valley, I think about how what we do is going to affect 

their lives, particularly in these rural communities that I represent. And while it is clear as day that climate change is real, according to the National Climate Assessment, rural communities in 

particular face more challenge obstacles responding to climate 
53 

change, because they are so highly dependent on our natural 

resources. 

And, certainly in California, we have seen those direct impacts, 

the heat waves, the fires, the droughts. And we all know it is only 

going to get worse unless we do something about it. 

But my particular concern and interest—and to you, Governor 

Baker, because I know that you worked in the healthcare industry—is really the linkage between climate change and public 

health. And particularly public health, how it is going to affect our 

rural communities. 

Governor BAKER. I think the two things I would speak to on that, 

the first is, obviously, the air quality issue, which Congressman 

Bishop mentioned before. There are definitely air quality issues associated with climate, and those air quality issues translate into 

issues around asthma, emphysema, and other both acute and 

chronic conditions that are associated with that. 

The second thing I would say with respect to the rural piece is 

the rural communities generally have difficulty not just with 

climate, but with access to what I would describe as sort of modern 

and sort of standard operating procedure technology that you see 

in other places. 

I mean one of the biggest things we have been working on in 

western Massachusetts, which has many hill towns and many rural 

communities, is broadband, which is a really big issue, in terms of 

economic development and sort of just future capacity to support 

and serve the people who live in those communities, and provide 

jobs and economic opportunity. And I think, in many ways, the 

strategy around rural communities needs to be about a lot of 

things, one of which relates to energy and the climate. 

But there are a lot of things we should be doing with rural communities, because they have very different issues that they need to 

worry about. 

Mr. COX. Yes, thank you, I appreciate the comments regarding 

the air quality. San Joaquin Valley is the worst air quality basin 

in the Nation. And it is not getting any better. It is such a shame 

that we get to see the mountains once or twice a year, right after 

a nice rainfall. 

And Governor Cooper, I don’t know if you had—— 

Governor COOPER. When we, in North Carolina, forced the 

Tennessee Valley Authority to significantly reduce coal-fired plant 

emissions, there was a demonstrable positive effect on public 

health. That matters a great deal. 

And from the rural perspective, farmers are getting hit hard by 

the effects of climate change. And they know it. And you hear from 

them, because in North Carolina now we have made significant 

state appropriation to get some immediate help to our farmers, 

many of them hit by flood after flood, storm after storm, who are 

now beginning to make the decision this is just not worth it. It is 

not worth it to be in this business. That should be a frightening 

result, not only for my state, but for the rest of the country and 

the world, for that matter. 

Mr. COX. Amen. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the rest of my time. 
54 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, and to the governors, our appreciation. Thank you very much for your testimony. Members have up 

to 3 days to submit questions that we will forward to you. And if 

you would be gracious enough to respond to them, particularly the 

Members that didn’t have an opportunity today to ask questions or 

make comments and have a dialogue with you. 

Governor BAKER. Thank you for that, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BISHOP. Can I just say one last thing? I will be actually asking some questions, as well, to you, specifically on Mr. Huffman’s 

response or questions on offshore drilling, that if you think the governors or the states have a right or at least a say on what happens 

in Federal waters off your shores. 

And if your answer is yes, then I am going to wonder why my 

governor doesn’t have a right and a say on Federal lands within 

my state. Anything short of that is hypocritical, and that issue is 

something that is the jurisdiction of our Committee. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, governors. 

Governor BAKER. Thank you, I appreciate it. 

The CHAIRMAN. And we very much appreciate it and thank you 

for initiating this very important discussion and solution seeking 

here in this Committee. 

With that, let me invite the second panel up and we will begin 

then. And I will begin the questioning with the Members that 

didn’t have an opportunity for the second panel. OK, senior 

Members? 

[Pause.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me resume the meeting and welcome the 

second panel. Let me introduce the second panel. 

We have Ms. Elizabeth Yeampierre, the Executive Director of 

UPROSE; Ms. Nadia Nazar, Co-Founder and Co-Executive Director 

of Zero Hour Movement; Dr. Kim Cobb, Professor of Earth & 

Atmospheric Sciences and the Director of the Global Change 

Program at the Georgia Institute of Technology; Ms. Paula 

DiPerna, Special Advisor, CDP North America; Reverend Lennox 

Yearwood, President and CEO of Hip Hop Caucus; Mr. Derrick 

Hollie, President of Reaching America; and Dr. Judith Curry, 

President of Climate Forecast Applications Network. 

As with the first panel, all statements are limited to 5 minutes. 

Your entire statement will be part of the hearing record. 

I explained the lights. Yellow means you have 1 minute. Red— 

for the sake of everybody having their questions and additional 

time to engage with the witnesses today, we would hope that you 

would stop at that point. 

Let me begin with Ms. Nazar. Your 5 minutes—thank you for 

being here. I appreciate it, and I am looking forward to your 

comments and your perspective. 

STATEMENT OF NADIA NAZAR, CO-FOUNDER, CO-EXECUTIVE 

DIRECTOR, AND ART DIRECTOR, ZERO HOUR MOVEMENT; 

CO-ORGANIZER OF THE YOUTH CLIMATE MARCH, PERRY 

HALL, MARYLAND 

Ms. NAZAR. Thank you for inviting me to be here today. I would 

first like to acknowledge that we are on the land of the Piscataway 

Indian Nation, an indigenous tribe. My name is Nadia Nazar. I am 
55 

16 years old, and I am a junior in high school in Baltimore, 

Maryland. I am an artist and environmentalist. I have dedicated 

my time and efforts to the community and animals on this planet 

since I was 12 years old. I am a founder of the youth-led climate 

organization Zero Hour. 

We say this is Zero Hour because this is zero hour to act on 

climate change. In fact, Zero Hour will soon launch a nationwide 

campaign for youth to educate their peers about climate justice. 

Climate change has already impacted my future. Scientists say 

we will be at irreversible climate chaos by the year 2030 if we don’t 

drastically reduce our emissions right now. I will be 28 years old 

in 2030. 

Our world is already experiencing the impacts of global warming, 

and living conditions will only get closer and closer to the extremes. 

Humanity has pushed this planet to the edge. And, from my view, 

it seems that few in the policy and political world are paying attention to the consequences of our actions over the generations. 

The climate crisis exasperates problems that are already prevalent, especially in developing nations. Clean water, a vital element 

to life, is becoming even more scarce. Extreme weather and natural 

disasters are now the norm, creating new crises against vulnerable 

populations. 

The United States is historically the largest emitter of greenhouse gases. But those who are facing the most severe consequences are the people in developing countries and those in 

lower-income communities. People in poverty have less access to 

resources needed to survive when climate extremes take place. 

Marine life, such as sea turtles and whales and other species are 

facing a mass extinction, because of the warmer ocean waters that 

we humans have caused. My community in Baltimore depends on 

the Chesapeake Bay. These warming waters will not only harm 

future generations of my community, but it will also harm generations around the world that rely on bodies of water for their 

livelihoods. 

It seems here in Washington the policy makers have for far too 

long put the interests of fossil fuel corporations and other carbonemitting industries over the health and prosperity of the people, 

the wildlife, and this planet. The lives of my generation have been 

disregarded for far too long. 

You should put the interests of your future generations first, not 

just because it is the right thing to do, but because many of us 

have the right to vote in just a couple of years. We care about clean 

air and clean water, and we will be voting for those who want to 

address climate change head on. 

Some of my friends say they don’t want to have children, because 

they are worried about the kind of lives they would have to live on 

a warming planet. In the future, asthma rates will be higher, there 

will be less access to food, and more extreme natural disasters in 

weather will occur, all due to climate change. 

Climate change not only threatens the future of my generation, 

but it continues to displace and kill people. My family in Kerala, 

India experienced the floods that occurred there this past summer. 

These floods displaced approximately 800,000 people and killed 483 

people. Around the same time my friends in Ellicott City, Maryland 
56 

experienced floods that caused landslides and infrastructural 

damage in a historical city. 

Climate change has been happening. Climate change is 

happening. Climate change will continue to happen. Climate 

change is my future, unless you do something about it right now. 

My generation includes your children and your grandchildren. 

I see climate change as an issue that connects everyone and everything on our planet. This is not just about changes in the 

weather. It is about these changes that will impact and harm populations all around the world. If there is no food because plants can’t 

grow due to extreme drought, that can cause war. And the most 

vulnerable populations oppressed by racism, the patriarchy, colonialism, and more will be the ones who suffer. 

These are the people who are so often left out of conversations, 

conversations about the quality of the air and water, about energy, 

and about how we treat this land. We at Zero Hour believe that 

not only have the voices of the Nation’s youth been ignored, but 

others, as well: women, people of color, indigenous communities, 

and some of our most vulnerable populations. 

How can we progress toward an equal and equitable society of 

justice if we can’t listen to those who make up our country? 

I believe that everyone must work together, united and with 

compassion, on this issue. Those who hold the most power and influence in our society should work with those working in our local 

communities. I ask of you, Congress, to work with the grass roots 

climate movement, including the youth, and listen to them in order 

to bring sustainable change swiftly in time for my generation and 

I to be able to enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Nazar follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF NADIA NAZAR, CO-FOUNDER, ZERO HOUR MOVEMENT

Hello, my name is Nadia Nazar. I am 16 years old and I am currently a junior 

in high school. My SATs are in 2 months, and even though I’m swamped with my 

academic studies and obligations, climate change is so important to me that I’m 

here to talk to you about this crisis and the impact it will have on me and my peers’ 

future. I need your help to solve this crisis that is taking away my future. 

I live near Baltimore, Maryland. I was born and raised there. Both of my parents 

are immigrants from Kerala, India. I have been surrounded by nature for as long 

as I can remember, and I’m sure you have too. My mother is a marine biologist and 

every year she would take me to the National Aquarium. I would stare at the stingrays, sharks, turtles, jellyfish, and seahorses as they swam by my tiny self. The 

beauty of life in the ocean was absolutely mesmerizing. As I got older, people would 

tell me about how humans kill these animals. I’d always wonder why, and I still 

do. 

I have been studying climate since I was in the 8th grade and I have become increasingly troubled by the dangerous impact of climate change to people, wildlife, 

and the planet. 

That is why I co-founded Zero Hour, a youth-led organization, with three friends 

online. We were youth who just wanted a livable planet. This organization became 

Zero Hour, a youth led climate organization. We organized the Youth Climate 

March on July 21, 2018. We had a Youth Climate Lobby Day, where 180 youth from 

across the country lobbied for the Zero Hour Platform and the No Fossil Fuel Money 

Pledge. We also had a Youth Climate Art Festival where we brought together art, 

music, and climate action. I love my work with Zero Hour because we push for 

change on all levels. Change starts from the ground up; we must work locally, 

nationally, and globally. One of the key aspects of Zero Hour’s platform is that it 

provides a variety of solutions systematically, and for individuals. Climate change 
57 

is an issue that needs to be fought on a global and at a household level in order 

to achieve a livable planet. 

Zero Hour will soon be launching a campaign that will educate youth across the 

country about climate justice and how systems of oppression intersect with the climate crisis. 

I am the Co-Executive and Art Director of Zero Hour. I wake up early to go to 

school. Send out e-mails on the school bus, during lunch, and on the school bus 

home. I do my homework and then work for Zero Hour for hours. I stay up till 1 

a.m. almost every night, sometime 3 a.m., doing calls, e-mails, and homework for 

my AP classes. That’s how important this issue is to me. 

This lifestyle is something I’d never imagine myself pursuing. I always saw myself 

having a normal high school experience with my friends. But I had to act on climate 

because it just didn’t seem many of the adults were. We are spending our teenage 

years, which you only have once, are being spent organizing for something we didn’t 

choose to happen to us. None of us wanted this burden to be passed down onto us. 

Why do we have to clean up the mess that past generations, and YOUR 

GENERATION, has left us? 

People always ask if I have hope. As a young climate activist, people look to youth 

like me and see hope. Every time that happens I lose hope, because the adults are 

looking for us to solve the problem. But how can we solve it if many people doing 

nothing. My hope is equal to the time we have left. We have such little time left, 

so we must act upon that hope, not just stare at it ignorantly from a distance. 

Adults are glad that we are taking action, but we need YOU adults to take action 

too. We, the youth, need everyone to act in order to solve climate change, before it 

is too late. 

According to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

report, that time is in 11 years. We have until 2030 to kick our addiction to fossil 

fuels if we want to have a chance at keeping warming below 1.5C. I will be 28 years 

old in 2030. The rest of my life, then, will depend on the decisions we make today. 

As the latest National Climate Assessment shows, I’ve already lived my whole life 

in a changed climate. 

My peers have similar worries. 

Youth all over the world have held strikes from school to bring attention to 

climate change, and its effect on my generation. On March 15, youth from all across 

the United States will be on strike to protest and demand climate action. Specifically, Zero Hour and the youth striking will be asking you, Members of Congress, 

to support the Green New Deal and act on climate. Please, listen to the youth of 

this country. 

Climate change may not have affected you personally yet, but many individuals 

all around the world are already coping with the effects from the suffocating and 

deadly wildfires in California to the massive flooding from the most vicious 

hurricanes our United States has ever seen. 

The magnitudes of natural disasters will only continue to increase as climate 

change grows stronger. There will be more floods. Deserts will be drier. This past 

summer’s heatwave has already shown that summer is getting hotter. These irregular weather patterns are from the changing climate. Climate is different than 

weather, but climate has a significant impact on the weather. 

Here are some more natural disasters from just the past 3 years: 

Nov. 8, 2018 Paradise, CA Camp Fire 79 

Sept. 13, 2018 Carolinas Hurricane Florence 42+ 

Sept. 9, 2018 Guam, Marshall Islands, 

Philippines, and 

southern China 

Super Typhoon 

Mangkhut 

69+ 

July 23, 2018 Redding California The Carr Fire 8/1,604 homes 

destroyed 

July, 2018 Japan Japan Flooding and 

Mudslides 

122+ 

May 2, 2018 Western and Northern 

India 

India Dust Storms 125+ 

Jan. 9, 2018 Southern California Montecito Mudslides 21/129 homes 

destroyed 
58 

Aug. 14, 2018 Sierra Leone, West 

Africa 

Sierra Leone floods 

and landslides 

1000+ 

Aug. 17, 2017 Houston, Texas Hurricane Harvey 68 

Aug. 30, 2017 Hurricane Irma 52 

July 2017 Indian Subcontinent 2017 South Asian 

floods 

1,300+ 

Sept. 16, 2017 Puerto Rico and Virgin 

Islands 

Hurricane Maria 2,975 

Jan. 23, 2016 U.S. Northeast Winter Storm Jonas 49 

Sept. 28, 2016 Atlantic Ocean Hurricane Matthew 603 

Systems of oppression have magnified the effects of climate change. Systems 

including—racism, patriarchy, colonialism, homophobia, ableism—have made the 

effects of climate change disproportionately affect certain groups of people. 

People of color are disproportionately incarcerated, with black people incarcerated 

at more than five times the rate of white people. Prisoners were forced to clean up 

toxic areas after the BP oil spill. They’re also fighting wildfires, and cleaning up 

after hurricanes and floods. In the event of a natural disaster, prison protocol (in 

some prisons) is to lock prisoners in their cells while the staff evacuates the building, leaving prisoners to die if the prison is hit. Example, when Hurricane Katrina 

hit New Orleans. This past weekend, the inmates at the Metropolitan Detention 

Center in Brooklyn were left without heat during the frigid temperatures of the 

polar vortex, that was linked to climate change. 

Often, the majority of industrial fossil fuel projects are constructed around or near 

minority neighborhoods, impacting the health of those peoples. 

And climate change’s impacts are even more dire in developing countries. 

Colonialism refers to control over a piece of land and its people by a more dominant power. One example on the negative impact climate change has with colonialism, patriarchy, and racism is the impact on girls of color in the United States 

who are the missing and murdered Indigenous girls. Fossil fuel companies hire land 

men to build pipelines carrying crude oil through Indigenous lands. Some of these 

men rape native girls on their land. Monica Jack, Aielah Saric-Auger, and Cheyenne 

Begay are some of the Indigenous women that have been assaulted on their land. 

These are just a few of the girls that were endangered. And trans-native girls are 

more likely to be victim to sexual assault by some of these men that build the pipelines. Sometimes pipelines leak crude oil into the water source. This pollutes 

drinking water for the Indigenous people. 

Homophobia, the hate against the LGBTQIA community, has led transgender 

people to be two times more likely to be homeless. Just last week, many homeless 

people passed away due to the extremely cold temperatures. Many homeless people 

don’t have access to the resources to survive when climate extremes take place. 

Many people’s voices in the climate crisis who make up our country have been 

ignored. The Indigenous communities have been ignored. People of color have been 

ignored. Women have been ignored. The LGBTQIA community have been ignored. 

Disabled people have been ignored. The Youth have been ignored. To solve climate 

change, we must work with the people, the wildlife, and nature. 

I was given the honor and opportunity to speak at the United Nations for International Day of the Girl last October 11. I spoke about climate change’s effect on 

girls around the world. Climate change’s effects are intruding on a successful life 

filled with happiness for many girls in developing countries. After natural disasters, 

sexual violence in the area increase. Girls are more likely to be raped in disaster 

struck areas. 

I stood next to a girl from the Philippines at the International Day of the Girl 

event. I will never forget her story. Her name was Hani. Her community in the 

Philippines was hit with a typhoon. She lost many things including important legal 

documents and more. But she also lost her best friend. 

I don’t want to lose my best friend. 

I don’t want to lose my brother. 

I don’t want to lose my family in India. 

I don’t want to lose myself. 
59 

The youth who fight day and night for you to take action on climate change don’t 

want to lose out on their future. That is why we fight, and why we will continue 

to fight. 

One cause of climate change that many people overlook is industrial animal 

agriculture. This industry has contributed to between 14.5 and 18 percent of the 

greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere. 

What disappoints many other youth and I, is that there are elected officials 

prioritizing money from fossil fuel corporations over the lives of my generation. I 

hope you aren’t one of them. 

Our relentless greed, our relentless thirst for things that don’t make us happy, 

has taken away our connection from earth. Basic necessities—food, shelter, air, 

water—have been critically endangered because we are in a mass extinction. It is 

surreal that profit is being put above the people. Adults have been compromised by 

greed. 

Not only are these actions of these corporations hurting people, but it is also 

harming the wildlife of this planet. Earth is now in the 6th mass extinction in all 

of history. More species are reaching extinction. The last mass extinction was the 

one that killed all the dinosaurs. Humanity’s legacy on earth will be that we killed 

a significant amount of species on this planet. As Elizabeth Kolbert said, if you look 

closely in your backyard you can see species going extinct at this moment. 

Humanity cannot survive without the biodiversity of the environment. 

I have to take an inhaler multiple times a week, sometimes multiple times a day. 

Clean air is a necessity of life. How can ‘‘Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of 

Happiness’’ be pursued when clean air and clean water is harder to have? 

The United States’ inaction on climate change is violating my right to life, liberty, 

and the pursuit of happiness as a citizen of the United States. 

I ask that you push your efforts into climate legislation, for the sake of my generation. I ask that you believe in science. I ask that you make sure the sacrificed 

time and efforts of the youth are not ignored. I ask that you recognize climate 

justice. 

I ask that you listen to my voice. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Yeampierre, Executive Director, UPROSE, the floor is yours. 

STATEMENT OF ELIZABETH YEAMPIERRE, EXECUTIVE 

DIRECTOR, UPROSE, CO-CHAIR OF THE CLIMATE JUSTICE 

ALLIANCE, BROOKLYN, NEW YORK 

Ms. YEAMPIERRE. Buenos dias. My name is Elizabeth 

Yeampierre. I am the Co-Chair of the Climate Justice Alliance, an 

inter-generational alliance of more than 68 front-line community 

organizations, movement networks, and movement support groups 

rooted in Indigenous, African-American, Latinx, Asian-Pacific 

Islander, and poor white communities living on the front lines of 

climate change, as well as the dig, burn, drive, dump industries 

causing the climate crisis. 

I am also Executive Director of UPROSE. It is a woman-of-colorled inter-generational organization founded in 1966 dedicated to 

environmental and social justice. We are home to the largest gathering of young people of color and climate justice, the Climate 

Justice Youth Summit. We are located in Sunset Park, Brooklyn, 

a diverse community of color made up predominantly of people of 

color and immigrants. We have a poverty rate of nearly 26 percent 

above the city average, and far above the national average. 

From a climate perspective, we are an industrial waterfront community exposed to flooding from hurricanes and storm surges, as 

was the case in 2012 when Superstorm Sandy hit. 

Like climate change, the conditions of our communities are the 

consequence of a long history of extraction. We share legacies of 
60 

fighting colonialism, as well as race, class, and gender oppression, 

while advocating for environmental justice. Our communities are 

the first and most impacted by the storms, fires, floods, and 

droughts, and are disproportionately burdened by the pollution, 

poverty, and systemic violence associated with the multi-national 

corporations driving these ecological crises. 

Puerto Rico is the most recent and drastic example of a land ravaged by corporate extraction, with people left to fend for themselves after years of colonialism, austerity, and neglect. The double 

disasters of Hurricanes Maria and Irma created an opportunity for 

disaster capitalists to profit from people’s suffering in a time of social and economic devastation. The same thing took place in the 

Gulf South for black and indigenous communities after Hurricane 

Katrina. 

Climate change solutions must honor human rights and respect 

front-line leadership through the solutions that are proposed. 

Elsewhere, the extractive economy continues to harm entire communities, as is the case with uranium mining in New Mexico, 

which affects over 60 indigenous nations. The southwest United 

States was declared a national sacrifice zone in the Federal energy 

policy of the 1970s. 

This means that environmental safeguards were not enforced, 

thus endangering human life. Drinking water is tainted with uranium and arsenic, and there is a high rate of cancer, heart disease, 

and lung disease. Uranium mining is a key element of nuclear 

energy, which is considered renewable energy in most Federal 

clean energy policy initiatives. 

You can understand why we do not support the use of large-scale 

bio-fuel, bio-mass, mega-hydro dams, nuclear energy, or energy derived from burning waste. They are usually developed in our backyards, where we live, work, play, and pray, and they do not reduce 

emissions at the source of extraction, only prolonging any real solutions to the climate crisis. 

To effectively tackle climate change, we must invest in a just 

transition. A just transition will not be smooth, but must be just, 

leaving no worker or community behind. Front-line communities 

and an economic framework that moves us away from extraction 

must be at the center of any effort to address climate change. 

All around the country there are examples of front-line communities developing projects that engage in innovative infrastructure, 

further control, and create jobs. Some are at the early stages, while 

others are ready to be scaled up and replicated. They will benefit 

more people and communities if there is political will, public investment, and incentives to do so. 

The fossil fuel industry receives millions in subsidies. Imagine 

what communities are already forging comprehensive solutions to 

the climate crisis could do with a reallocation of these subsidies. 

My organization, UPROSE, just recently partnered with the New 

York City Economic Development Corporation, Solar One, and CoOp Power, to create the first community-owned solar cooperative in 

the state of New York. 

On a larger scale, we advocate for turning the area’s industrial 

sector into an economic engine able to build for the region’s climate 

adaptation future. Offshore wind alone can deliver power to New 
61 

York City, displacing the need for dirty power plants. But just as 

importantly, it would position the city at the center of this emerging industry, driving local economic development. 

For years in another part of the country, the residents of 

Highland Park, Michigan suffered high energy costs and blackouts, 

along with massive flooding. When the municipality was in a financial crisis, the local energy company repossessed 1,000 street lights, 

leaving the residents in the dark. Soulardarity, a local environmental justice group and a CJA member stepped in and designed 

a system for installing solar power lights. 

Soulardarity created a bulk purchasing program that is training 

residents in the solar installation and weatherization, readying 

them to step into clean energy jobs. They are using education and 

organizing to literally make light of a dark situation. 

Front-line communities know what is at stake. The question is, 

will legislation aid our communities’ future survival, or hinder it? 

I hope, for all of our sakes, it will be the former. The bottom line 

is that our communities are not sacrifice zones, and they have been 

for too many years. Gracias. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Yeampierre follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ELIZABETH YEAMPIERRE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, UPROSE; 

CO-CHAIR, CLIMATE JUSTICE ALLIANCE

My name is Elizabeth Yeampierre. I am Co-Chair of the Climate Justice Alliance, 

a national organization that links 68 organizations across the United States and 

Puerto Rico. I am also Executive Director of UPROSE, Brooklyn’s oldest Latinx 

organization. Founded in 1966, UPROSE is dedicated to environmental and social 

justice and part of the national frontline climate justice movement representing 

those most impacted by climate change. 

UPROSE is located in Sunset Park, Brooklyn. It is a diverse working-class 

community where over half of the residents are People of color/immigrants, mostly 

of Latinx descent. We have a poverty rate of nearly 26 percent, above the city average and far above the national average. Housing affordability is a major crisis, with 

nearly half of my neighbors being rent-burdened and the city undergoing extreme 

gentrification that will only worsen with the expansion of Opportunity Zones. 

From a climate perspective, we are an industrial waterfront community exposed 

to flooding from hurricanes and storm surges, as was the case in 2012 when 

Superstorm Sandy hit. As a poor and working-class community, housing displacement and disruption of services due to storms and other severe weather affect our 

people much more acutely compared to residents of affluent communities with more 

resources. Further, on a day-to-day basis, disproportionate exposure to fossil fuel 

pollution and other climate change impacts, such as extreme heat, is built into New 

York City’s policy fabric, transportation planning, and economic development, all 

arising from racism that compounds the pollution impacts with socioeconomic inequities. The oppression of low wages and underfunded schools in our community 

is exacerbated by high rates of asthma and other pulmonary diseases, heart disease, 

and lung cancer, which further restrict my neighbors’ economic and educational 

potential. 

THE CLIMATE JUSTICE ALLIANCE

The Climate Justice Alliance (CJA) is an alliance of more than 68 frontline community organizations, movement networks, and movement support groups rooted in 

Indigenous, African American, Latinx, Asian Pacific Islander, and poor white communities living on the frontlines of climate change, as well as the ‘‘dig, burn, drive, 

dump’’ industries causing this crisis. 

Like climate change, the conditions of our communities are the consequence of a 

long history of extraction. We share legacies of fighting colonialism, as well as race, 

class and gender oppression, while advocating for environmental justice. And we 

share vision, values and principles that guide our environmental, economic, and social justice organizing. Our communities are the first and most impacted by the 

storms, fires, floods and droughts, and are disproportionately burdened by the 
62 

pollution, poverty and systemic violence associated with the multi-national corporations driving these ecological crises. 

Puerto Rico is the most recent and drastic example of a land ravaged by corporate 

extraction, with people left to fend for themselves after years of colonialism, austerity and neglect. The double disaster of Hurricanes Irma and Marı ́a created an 

opportunity for ‘‘disaster capitalists’’ to profit from people’s suffering in a time of social and economic devastation. The same thing took place in the Gulf South for 

Black and Indigenous communities after Hurricane Katrina. Climate change 

solutions must honor human rights and respect frontline leadership through the solutions that are proposed. 

Elsewhere, the extractive economy continues to harm entire communities, as is 

the case with uranium mining in New Mexico, which affects over 60 Indigenous 

nations. The southwest United States was declared a ‘‘National Sacrifice Zone’’ in 

the Federal Energy Policy of the 1970s. This means that environmental safeguards 

were not enforced, thus endangering human life. Drinking water is tainted with 

uranium and arsenic and there is a high rate of cancer, heart disease, and lung disease. Uranium mining is a key element of nuclear energy which is considered renewable in most Federal clean energy policy initiatives. You can understand why 

we do not support the use of large-scale biofuel, biomass, mega-hydro dams, nuclear 

energy, or energy derived from burning waste. They are usually developed in our 

backyards, where we live, work, play and pray and they do not reduce emissions 

at the source of extraction, only prolonging any real solutions to the climate crisis. 

TOWARD A JUST TRANSITION

To effectively tackle climate change, we must invest in a Just Transition toward 

specifically local, living economies of scale. 

Just Transition is a vision-led, unifying and place-based set of principles, 

processes and practices that build economic and political power to shift from an extractive economy to a regenerative economy—not just for workers but for whole communities. This means approaching production and consumption cycles holistically 

and waste-free. 

This transition away from fossil fuels itself must be just and equitable, redressing 

past harms and creating new relationships of power for the future through reparations, living wage jobs and economic and social development that aims to address 

historical harm and discrimination. If the process of transition is not just, the outcome will never be. 

It is clear from the scientific data that we must move away from fossil fuels. It 

will not be smooth but the transition must be just, leaving no worker or community 

behind. Frontline communities and an economic framework that moves us away 

from extraction must be at the center of any effort to address climate change. 

Climate change demands that we live with what we need instead of what we 

want. Everywhere people are learning to do this, and frontline communities are 

leading the way and reclaiming their traditions. 

NEW YORK’S FIRST SOLAR COOPERATIVE IS COMMUNITY OWNED

All around the country there are examples of frontline communities developing 

projects that engage innovative infrastructure, further local control, and create jobs. 

Some of these projects are in the early stages. Others are ready to be scaled up and 

replicated in ways that will benefit more people and communities if there is public 

investment and incentives to do so. The fossil fuel industry receives millions in subsidies. Imagine what communities already forging comprehensive solutions to the 

climate crises could do with the reallocation of those subsidies. 

My organization, UPROSE, partnered with the NYC Economic Development 

Corporation, Solar One and Co-op Power to create the first community-owned solar 

cooperative in New York State. 

On a larger scale, we advocate for turning the area’s industrial sector into an economic engine able to build for the region’s climate-adaptable future. Offshore wind 

alone can deliver power directly to New York City, displacing the need for dirty 

power plants. But just as importantly, it would position the city at the center of this 

emerging industry, driving local economic development. 

This industry will revitalize our working waterfront and create thousands of bluecollar industrial jobs. The Department of Energy expects 40,000 new jobs in the sector by 2030. Those jobs will be located wherever the ports and the work force are. 

This could move our region away from the fossil fuels that threaten our climate 

while blunting the forces of real estate speculation that are disrupting our communities. An offshore wind hub in Sunset Park would serve as an innovative model 

of economic development that would transform our energy system and provide 
63 

pathways to a middle class income for workers. It would act as a bulwark against 

extractive real estate interests and position the city as a leader on climate change 

solutions at the national level. From the very local to a much larger scale, frontline 

communities like ours are working to operationalize creative solutions that address 

local needs. 

EDUCATING FOR THE FUTURE, SOLVING PROBLEMS NOW

For years, in another part of the country, the residents of Highland Park, 

Michigan suffered high energy costs and energy blackouts along with massive 

flooding. When the municipality was in financial crisis, the local energy company 

repossessed 1,000 streetlights, leaving the residents in the dark. Soulardarity, a 

local environmental justice group and a CJA member, stepped in and designed a 

system for installing solar-powered street lights. They have installed 7 solarpowered streetlights and created a proposal for the City to finance and install a full 

1,000, re-lighting the streets and providing affordable internet and civic engagement 

tools. Building on its commitment to energy democracy and community empowerment, Soulardarity created a bulk purchasing program that is training residents in 

solar installation and weatherization, readying them to step into clean energy jobs 

as they become available, and has deployed $30,000 of solar lighting and other products in Highland Park and neighboring communities. They are using education and 

organizing to literally make light of a dark situation. The group is shortly releasing 

a Blueprint for Energy Democracy, a plan to make Highland Park a global model 

of sustainability and democracy, and collaborating with a diverse array of stakeholders to advance the plan, and advocating for state and Federal actors to provide 

financial resources and technical assistance to bolster community plans. 

EXPANDING SOLAR WHILE GROWING COMMUNITY JOBS

In Chicago, CJA member Little Village Environmental Justice Organization 

(LVEJO), which is based in a low-income, mainly Latinx immigrant neighborhood, 

worked hard to directly represent environmental justice communities in the state 

of Illinois’ Future Energy Jobs Act (FEJA) by insisting that it focus on health, environmental justice, and economic justice opportunities. With unprecedented funds directed to low-income environmental justice communities, LVEJO developed access 

to a solar panel training program delivered in communities across the state that 

prioritizes community members that were formerly incarcerated or had aged out of 

the foster care system. FEJA programs were designed to bring the benefits of solar 

energy to low-income communities, whether or not they are able to install the panels on their homes, including energy sovereignty opportunities for low-income 

communities to build ownership of solar systems. The group is also at the center 

of a plan to repurpose a closed down coal-fired power plant, with the goal of using 

it for community-run projects. 

These are but a few examples of how our communities are developing concrete 

projects to address the climate crisis. There are many more that look at the different tipping points and sectors needed to halt the climate crisis and if we want 

to ensure a healthy future for future generations we must start prioritizing and 

scaling them now. 

FOLLOWING THE LEAD OF THE FRONTLINES AND ACTING NOW

Today, we are at the tipping point with little time to waste. We urgently need 

a Just Transition to be centered in community-driven Climate Action Bills, coupled 

with a commitment to Just Recovery and Rebuilding Infrastructure. Simply put, we 

must have legislation that clearly prioritizes investments in scalable projects like 

those mentioned today that reduce emissions at the source and address the historical harm and discrimination communities like mine have faced for centuries. 

Investment in just development plans around the Nation through block grants 

earmarked for community-based organizations and community development funds 

would go even further to repair historical harm and center community innovation 

for water, land, air, and energy resources, in both urban and rural areas, as well 

as Indian Country. 

Frontline communities know what is at stake, the question is: will legislation aid 

our communities’ future survival or hinder it. I hope for all our sakes it will be the 

former. 
64 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY REP. HAALAND TO MS. ELIZABETH

YEAMPIERRE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, UPROSE 

Ms. Yeampierre did not submit responses to the Committee by the 

appropriate deadline for inclusion in the printed record. 

Question 1. Can you share with us some of the disproportionate impacts climate 

change has on underserved and underrepresented communities? Are there ways that 

climate change impacts indigenous peoples to an even greater extent? 

Question 2. The Tohono O’odham Nation is having an especially difficult time 

securing the Federal funding it needs to respond to the devastation of Hurricane 

Rosa. This systemic breakdown follows a pattern set by Hurricanes Katrina, Maria, 

and so many others, in which underrepresented groups bear the brunt of natural 

disasters. 

2a. Can you speak to the financial burden climate change puts on underserved 

communities? 

2b. Why it is so important that the government work to fund adaptation, 

mitigation, and response efforts in these areas? 

Question 3. We’ve seen the dire reports from the international scientific community, 

and even from the current Administration about the need to act on climate to avoid 

disastrous long-term outcomes. However, it’s important we recognize that some communities are reliant on fossil fuel investments as a revenue base for their schools, 

hospitals and other essential services. How can we invest in those communities to 

ensure they are not left behind in a clean energy transition? 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

We will turn Kim Cobb. 

STATEMENT OF KIM COBB, GEORGIA POWER CHAIR, DIRECTOR, GLOBAL CHANGE PROGRAM, ADVANCE PROFESSOR, 

EARTH AND ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES, GEORGIA INSTITUTE 

OF TECHNOLOGY, ATLANTA, GEORGIA 

Dr. COBB. Thank you. I thank Chairman Grijalva and Ranking 

Member Bishop for allowing me to contribute to this important conversation about our Nation’s future. My message today is simple: 

the data and the science could not be more clear. It is time to act. 

There are many no-regrets, win-win actions to reduce the growing cost of climate change. But we are going to have to come together to form new alliances in our home communities, across our 

states, and, yes, even in Washington. 

I know I speak for thousands of my colleagues when I say that 

scientists all over the country are willing and eager to assist policy 

makers and the design of data-driven defenses against both current 

and future climate change impacts. 

As a professor at the Georgia Institute of Technology for the last 

15 years, my research uses samples collected from the remote 

Pacific to reconstruct past climate variations. Our records are consistent with countless other records indicating that the rate in 

magnitude of recent climate change dwarf natural climate variability over the last millennium. 

I love my work, but 3 years ago, I witnessed something that 

would change my life forever. In 2015, we received funding from 

the National Science Foundation for a series of field expeditions to 

document the evolution of a strong El Nin ̃ o event projected that 

winter. I had waited 15 years for this scientific opportunity. However, little did I know that warming ocean temperatures 6 degrees 
65 

Fahrenheit warmer than average would kill up to 90 percent of the 

coral at our study site. And I had a front-row seat to that carnage. 

And 2016 would go on to become the worst global-scale coral 

bleaching and mortality event on record, and the warmest year on 

our planet since records began. Personally, 2016 was my wake-up 

call. Unfortunately, the last years brought a number of devastating 

wake-up calls much closer to home. Hurricanes Harvey, Lane, and 

Florence decimated entire communities, delivered record-breaking 

rainfall, while Hurricanes Maria and Michael decimated entire 

communities with their force, including many in my home state of 

Georgia. 

The National Climate Assessment, released this last November 

by a consortium of 13 Federal agencies, documents how climate 

change loads the dice in favor of extreme precipitation events, and 

how warmer oceans fuel larger tropical storms. On the other side 

of the country, record-breaking wildfires raged across California, 

linked to prolonged drought and warmer temperatures. 

The economic toll of these disasters can be measured in the hundreds of billions of dollars. However, their real toll, the vast human 

suffering left in their wake, is immeasurable. And beyond these 

deadly extremes, a host of additional climate change impacts represent a growing threat to ecosystems and communities alike. Sea 

levels are rising with up to 6 feet of global sea level rise projected 

this century. Drought threatens water supplies across the western 

United States with no end in sight. The oceans are becoming more 

acidic, as excess carbon dioxide reacts with sea water. And, as of 

today, 2018 will officially take its place as the fourth warmest year 

on record behind 2016, 2017, and 2015. 

Climate change impacts are now detectable all across America, 

and they will get worse. That is the bad news. I am sure you are 

ready for some good news, and there is plenty to go around. 

The good news is that science can help inform measures to help 

protect communities, as well as our oceans, forests, parks, waterways, and wildlife from the most devastating impacts of climate 

change. Here, early action is essential to the success of these approaches delivering vast returns on investment. 

Many jurisdictions, from the local to the Federal, have developed 

a suite of climate adaptation measures informed by rigorous 

science, stakeholder engagement, and cost benefit analysis. But we 

must accelerate these efforts. Toward that end, a national climate 

assessment provides an actionable blueprint for such adaptive 

measures, including an in-depth assessment of climate impacts on 

ecosystem structure, function, and services. 

The other good news is that it is not too late to avoid the most 

damaging impacts of future climate change. We have the tools we 

need to dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions. And in 

doing so, we will enjoy cleaner water, cleaner air, and healthier 

communities. 

The rapid expansion of renewable energy across the Nation demonstrates a strong appetite for carbon-free, clean power. Even so, 

U.S. greenhouse gas emissions were up 3 percent last year. 

The bottom line is that we are running out of time. Comprehensive Federal policies are needed to speed the transition to lowcarbon energy sources. Top on the list must be a price on carbon 
66 

to reflect the true cost of continued fossil fuel emissions and to 

incentivize consumers, companies, and the market to find the 

cheapest, most effective means of reducing emissions. 

With or without a price on carbon, increased energy efficiency is 

a win-win strategy that can deliver energy cost savings, while reducing harmful air pollution. 

Last, there is a strong case you made that we can deploy our 

vast forests, grasslands, and coastal marshes in service to natural 

carbon sequestration. At its most basic level, this means designing 

strategies to safeguard these environments with their rich carbon 

reserves in the face of continued climate change. 

As a climate scientist, I have to wonder how bad will it have to 

get for us to recognize that climate change represents a clear and 

present threat, and to act decisively to protect ourselves. I am 

heartened by recent polls showing that nearly three in four 

Americans are concerned about global warming and support a 

range of policy options to address it. As a mother to four young 

children, I am inspired by the sea of young people demanding that 

we not squander their chances for climate stability. 

I urge this Committee to capitalize on the vast trove of climate 

science findings by: (1) protecting our natural resources and the 

communities that depend on them from known climate change impacts; and (2) using Federal lands to advance climate solutions, 

rather than expanding the scope of the climate change problem. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Cobb follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. KIM COBB, PROFESSOR, EARTH & ATMOSPHERIC

SCIENCES; DIRECTOR, GLOBAL CHANGE PROGRAM, GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF

TECHNOLOGY

I thank Chairman Grijalva and the rest of the Committee for allowing me to contribute to this important conversation about our Nation’s climate future. My 

message today is simple: there are many no-regrets, win-win actions to reduce the 

growing costs of climate change, but we’re going to have to come together to form 

new alliances, in our home communities, across our states, and yes, even in 

Washington. I know I speak for thousands of my colleagues when I say that 

scientists all over the country are willing and eager to assist policy makers in the 

design of data-driven defenses against both current and future climate impacts. It 

is not too late to alter the damaging trajectory of inaction. There are plenty of prizes 

for early, meaningful action. These include cleaner air and water, healthier, more 

resilient communities, a competitive edge in the low-carbon 21st century global 

economy, and the mantle of global leadership on the challenge of our time. I’m confident that through respectful discourse, we will recognize that our shared values 

unite us in seeking a better tomorrow for all Americans. 

My own journey began 20 years ago, at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, 

where my research focused on extracting records of past climate variability and 

change from far-flung, remote islands in the deep tropics. At the time, I never 

thought that I would ever find myself testifying to Congress about climate change. 

I was a passionate and dedicated student of our earth system, eventually settling 

into a rewarding academic career at the Georgia Institute of Technology, where I 

teach courses on energy and climate change, and manage a lab full of instruments 

and student research assistants. Over the last 15 years, I have published over 60 

peer-reviewed articles, been awarded a Presidential Early Career Award for 

Scientists and Engineers, and am currently a Lead Author for the Sixth Assessment 

Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Together with my students and collaborators, I work to advance the tools and approaches of in my chosen 

field of paleoclimatology, in part by generating more and better records of past 

climate change. Such records help us peer into the distant future by quantifying the 

response of the climate system to past climate forcings, including greenhouse gases. 

I’ve led over 20 expeditions to the middle of the Pacific, SCUBA-diving on abundant, 
67 

diverse reefs where the largest corals are 10-ft tall and contain 100 or more years 

of past climate data. 

But 3 years ago, I witnessed something that would change my personal and 

professional life forever. 

In 2015, we received funding from the National Science Foundation for a series 

of field expeditions to document the evolution of a strong El Nin ̃ o event projected 

that winter. I was giddy with the expectation of scientific discovery. After all, I had 

waited 15 years for this opportunity. What I could not have predicted was that 

ocean temperatures 6 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than usual would kill up to 90 

percent of the coral at our study site over 9 months. And I got a front-row seat to 

the carnage. By early 2016, even the largest corals would succumb—corals that had 

lived through record-breaking El Nin ̃ o’s in 1983 and 1998. And the carnage was 

global—scientists report that by 2017, up to 75 percent of global reefs had experienced bleaching-level heat stress and for up to 30 percent of reefs, heat stress 

reached lethal levels (Eakin et al., 2018). Reefs in Hawaii and Florida were not 

spared. It will take decades for our study site to recover, but with ocean warming 

accelerating (Cheng et al., 2019), we know that the next ocean heat wave is lurking 

around the corner. 2016 was my wake-up call. 

Unfortunately, 2017 and 2018 brought a number of devastating wake-up calls 

much closer to home. As a physical climate scientist, I am trained to focus on data, 

and their uncertainties, but let me cut to the chase: many of the natural disasters 

in past years bear the unmistakable signature of climate change. Hurricanes 

Harvey, Lane, and Florence delivered record-breaking rainfall (National Weather 

Service) while Hurricanes Maria and Michael decimated entire communities with 

their force, including many in my home state of Georgia. The National Climate 

Assessment (hereafter NCA, 2018)—released this last November—documents how 

climate change loads the dice in favor of extreme precipitation events, and how 

warmer oceans fuel larger tropical storms. On the other side of the country, recordbreaking wildfires raged across California, linked to prolonged drought and warmer 

temperatures (Abatzoglou and Williams, 2016). The economic toll of these disasters 

can be measured in the hundreds of billions of dollars. However, their real toll— 

the vast human suffering left in their wake—is immeasurable. 

And beyond these deadly extremes, a host of additional climate change impacts 

represent a growing threat to ecosystems and communities alike. Sea levels are rising, with 6-ft of global sea level rise projected this century (Sweet et al., 2017; NCA, 

2018). Drought threatens water supplies across the western United States (NCA, 

2018), with no end in sight. The oceans are becoming more acidic as excess atmospheric carbon dioxide reacts with seawater (NCA, 2018). A warming ocean holds less 

oxygen, increasing the risk for deadly coastal hypoxia events (NCA, 2018). All of 

these trends are expected consequences of climate change—most through fairly 

straightforward physics and chemistry—and all have been borne out by repeated 

sets of observations. 

The National Climate Assessment outlines the region-by-region and sector-bysector impacts of ongoing climate change. The report makes clear that climate 

change is already impacting the lives of many Americans, with outsize impacts to 

those who can least afford it. The report singles out indigenous communities as 

uniquely vulnerable, given their economic and cultural dependence on natural resources. But there’s plenty of threats to go around—America’s farmers, fishermen, 

coastal residents, children, the elderly, and low-income families sit squarely in the 

crosshairs of climate change. As a resident of the southeastern United States, I am 

particularly concerned about the high concentration of vulnerable populations in our 

region, given that studies predict a pile-on of escalating climate impacts in our region (e.g. Hsiang et al., 2017). 

Climate change also represents a major threat to national security, a ‘‘threat 

multiplier,’’ in the words of a 2015 Department of Defense report (DOD report Ref 

ID 8–6475571). In the last month, a new Department of Defense report highlights 

the risk that current and future climate change poses to its infrastructure (DOD 

report Ref ID 9–D30BE5A). It notes that 53 installations are currently subject to 

recurrent flooding, growing to 60 at risk over the next 20 years. 

Climate change impacts are now detectable all across America. And they will get 

worse. That’s the bad news. I’m sure you’re ready for some good news, and there 

is plenty to go around. 

The good news is that science can help inform measures to protect communities, 

as well as our oceans, forests, parks, waterways, and wildlife, from the most devastating impacts of climate change. Here, early action is essential to success, 

delivering vast returns on investment. 

Many jurisdictions—from the local to the Federal level—have developed a range 

of adaptation measures informed by the best science, stakeholder engagement, and 
68 

rigorous cost-benefit analysis. But the adaptation portfolio is still spotty, and nowhere near the scale justified by the set of well-established climate impacts. Toward 

that end, The National Climate Assessment provides an actionable blueprint for 

such adaptive measures, including an in-depth analysis of climate impacts on ecosystem structure, function, and services. For example, the report highlights a key 

role that our Nation’s natural resources, such as coastal wetlands, which can protect 

communities from rising seas while delivering a range of other valuable ecosystem 

services. The National and Regional Climate Adaptation Science Centers (https:// 

casc.usgs.gov) provide a mechanism to accelerate adaptation planning and implementation to protect our Nation’s natural resources and safeguard the critical 

services that they provide. 

And there is plenty of room for innovation and advanced technology to assist communities in quantifying their unique risks and vulnerabilities to specific climaterelated threats. At Georgia Tech, teams of scientists and engineers are teaming up 

with city and county officials in and around Savannah, Georgia to design and deploy 

sensors for monitoring water levels and air temperatures in real time, from neighborhood to neighborhood (see https://www.sealevelsensors.org). 

The other good news is that it’s not too late to avoid the most damaging impacts 

of future climate change. We have the tools we need to dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions. And in doing so, we will enjoy cleaner water, cleaner air, and 

healthier communities. 

The rapid expansion of renewable energy across the Nation demonstrates a strong 

appetite for carbon-free, clean power on the part of private homeowners and large 

utilities alike. Even so, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions were up 3 percent last year 

(Rhodium Group, 2019). The bottom line is that we are running out of time. 

Comprehensive Federal policies are needed to speed the transition to low-carbon 

energy sources. Top on the list must be a price on carbon, to reflect the true costs 

of continued fossil fuel emissions, and to incentivize consumers, companies, and the 

market to find the cheapest, most effective means of reducing emissions. 

As much as we need to ramp up low-carbon energy production, we also have a 

huge opportunity to dramatically reduce emissions in the near term through energy 

efficiency, while delivering energy cost savings to consumers and corporations alike. 

It’s worth noting that efficiency gains come with significant health benefits, largely 

from reduced air pollution, and are effective even without a price on carbon. A 2018 

energy efficiency scorecard by the American Council for an Energy Efficient 

Economy (ACEEE) reports state-by-state gains in energy efficiency, with the winners providing a wide range of policy instruments to achieve large-scale gains. In 

general, southeastern states like Georgia rank near the bottom of the list, despite 

high energy burdens that leave many low-income families struggling to afford their 

monthly energy bills (ACEEE, 2017). In this case, policies that promote energy efficiency will improve living conditions for many of the most vulnerable members of 

society. And of course, improved energy efficiency will be critically important going 

forward, as demand for cooling increases across many areas of the country. 

I became a passionate spokesperson for energy efficiency after Georgia Tech 

undergraduates showed me what could be achieved by partnering with local businesses as part of the ‘‘Carbon Reduction Challenge’’ (http:// 

carbonreduction.gatech.edu). In one semester, 30 students routinely design and implement strategies to save their organizational partners energy, simultaneously 

banking carbon reductions and cost savings. During one Challenge, student teams 

brought 12 million lbs of CO2 reductions to fruition, simply by identifying lowhanging interventions to champion with their large partner organizations. That’s 

the CO2 equivalent of 20 homes going 100 percent solar for 20 years, except this 

CO2 savings didn’t cost money. It made money. 

Last, there is a strong case to be made that we can deploy our vast forests, grasslands, and coastal marshes in service to natural carbon sequestration, in a variety 

of forms. At its most basic level, this means designing strategies to preserve our mature forests, grasslands, and wetlands, with their rich soil carbon reserves, in the 

face of continued climate change. 

Listening to the stories of those whose lives have already been destroyed by 

climate change I have to wonder: How bad will it have to get for us to recognize 

that climate change represents a clear and present threat, and to act decisively to 

protect ourselves and the natural resources that we all depend on? 

As a climate scientist, I’m heartened by recent polls showing that nearly 3 in 4 

Americans are concerned about global warming, and support a range of policy options to address it (Leiserowitz et al., 2018). 72 percent of Americans think that 

global warming is happening, 62 percent understand that it is mostly humancaused, and 72 percent of Americans think that global warming is important to 

them personally. On policy options, 68 percent of Americans support a carbon tax, 
69 

and 82 percent support tax rebates for energy efficiency and solar panels. The path 

forward is clear. 

And as a mother to four young children, I’m heartened by the sea of young people 

demanding that we not squander their chances for climate stability. 

I urge this Committee to center the robust findings of climate science in making 

critical policy decisions about our Nation’s natural resources by: 

1) moving to protect these resources, and the communities that depend on them, 

from the suite of ongoing, well-established climate change impacts; and 

2) ensuring that our use of Federal lands is geared toward advancing climate 

solutions, rather than expanding the scope of the climate change problem. 

REFERENCES AND RESOURCES (LISTED IN THE ORDER THAT THEY APPEAR)

2014–2017 coral bleaching event: 

Eakin, C.M., et al., Unprecedented three years of global coral bleaching 2014–17. 

Sidebar 3.1. [in State of the Climate in 2017]. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 99(8), S74–S75, 2018. 

https://coralreefwatch.noaa.gov/satellite/analyses_guidance/global_coral_bleaching_ 2014-17_status.php 

Hughes, T.P. et al., Spatial and temporal patterns of mass bleaching of corals in 

the Anthropocene. Science, 2018. 

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/unprecedented-3-years 

-global-coral-bleaching-2014-2017 

Ocean warming: 

Cheng, L., et al., How fast are the oceans warming? Observational records of ocean 

heat content show that ocean warming is accelerating. Science, 363. doi: 10.1126/ 

science.aav7619, 2019. 

Hurricane records: 

https://www.weather.gov/lch/2017harvey 

https://www.weather.gov/mhx/Florence2018 

https://weather.com/storms/hurricane/news/2018-08-28-lane-hawaii-tropical-cyclonerainfall-record-one-year-after-harvey 

Fourth National Climate Assessment: 

USGCRP, 2018: Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United States: Fourth 

National Climate Assessment, Volume II: Report-in-Brief [Reidmiller, D.R., C.W. 

Avery, D.R. Easterling, K.E. Kunkel, K.L.M. Lewis, T.K. Maycock, and B.C. Stewart 

(eds.)]. U.S. Global Change Research Program, Washington, DC, USA, 186 pp. 

On wildfires and climate change: 

Abatzoglou, J.T. and A.P. Williams, Impact of anthropogenic climate change on wildfire across western US forests. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 

2016. 

Sea level rise: 

Sweet, W.V., R.E. Kopp, C.P. Weaver, J. Obeysekera, R.M. Horton, E.R. Thieler, and 

C. Zervas, 2017: Global and Regional Sea Level Rise Scenarios for the United States. 

NOAA Technical Report NOS CO-OPS 083. NOAA/NOS Center for Operational 

Oceanographic Products and Services. 

Regional impacts of climate change: 

Hsiang, S., et al., Estimating economic damages from climate change in the United 

States. Science, 2017. 

Climate Impact Lab (http://www.impactlab.org/research/estimating-economicdamage-from-climate-change-in-the-united-states/) 

DOD reports on climate change: 

https://archive.defense.gov/pubs/150724-congressional-report-on-nationalimplications-of-climate-change.pdf?source=govdelivery 

https://partner-mco-archive.s3.amazonaws.com/client_files/1547826612.pdf 

Energy efficiency scorecards by state: 

https://aceee.org/sites/default/files/publications/researchreports/u1808.pdf 
70 

Energy burdens in the low-income southeastern U.S. households: 

https://aceee.org/fact-sheet/southeast-low-income-series 

U.S. greenhouse gas emissions for 2018: 

https://rhg.com/research/preliminary-us-emissions-estimates-for-2018/ 

Climate polling results: 

http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/visualizations-data/ycom-us-2018/ 

http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/climate-change-in-the-americanmind-december-2018/ 

Leiserowitz, A. et al. Climate change in the American mind: December 2018. Yale 

University and George Mason University. New Haven, CT: Yale Program on 

Climate Change Communication, 2018. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY REP. HAALAND TO DR. KIM COBB, 

PROFESSOR, SCHOOL OF EARTH & ATMOSPHERIC SCIENCES, GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF

TECHNOLOGY

Question 1. This Committee has frequently discussed and will continue to discuss 

wildfire safety and forest management. Can you please explain the role that climate 

change plays in altering wildfire patterns? 

Answer. Data are now clear—the frequency and extent of western U.S. wildfires 

are increasing. The U.S. National Climate Assessment (specifically Chapter 6: 

Forests; https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/chapter/6/) lays out the compound hazards 

that climate change poses to our nations forests, particularly in the vulnerable 

western United States. Most of these risks are directly associated with increased 

fuel loading linked to warmer temperatures, either directly or indirectly. For one, 

pine bark beetles have increased their geographic range as winters have become 

more mild, killing hundreds of millions of trees in the last decade, and creating an 

abundance of dead trees to fuel wildfires. Prolonged drought has also played a key 

role, weakening forest resistance to the pine bark beetles and drying out the landscape to add to the available fuel load. Severe drought in the western United States 

is directly linked to climate change, as warmer soil temperatures drive evaporation 

while decreased snow pack leaves mess water available for summer streamflow. 

These trends are expected to continue to exacerbate the risk of wildfires across the 

western United States. Regionally specific trends in wildfires call out the extreme 

vulnerability of the southwestern United States to wildfire, noting impacts to water 

quality and quantity that have profound societal impacts (Chapter 25: Southwest; 

https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/chapter/25/). The National Climate Assessment 

notes a number of potential mitigation strategies to minimize the losses associated 

with wildfires, including maintaining the health of forest ecosystems by minimizing 

habitat fragmentation by human land use decisions. The report also highlights the 

role for data-driven forest wilderness management strategies such as allowing 

naturally ignited fires to burn where safe to do so, as well as pre-emptively setting 

low-intensity prescribed burns in reducing wildfire risk. 

Question 2. For over a decade, Congress has struggled to extend meaningful protections to important American landscapes—landscapes that protect wildlife habitat 

and provide valuable economic, ecological, and recreational benefits. 

2a. Do protected landscapes play any role in helping humans and wildlife adapt 

to climate change? 

2b. What do we risk when we fail to extend these protections? 

2c. How do policies that encourage energy extraction on public lands impact the 

climate? 

Answer. Protected landscapes play a vital role in increasing the ‘‘adaptive 

capacity’’ of natural systems, the communities that live in them and/or depend on 

them for a variety of ecosystem services. The 2018 National Climate Assessment defines ‘‘adaptive capacity’’ as ‘‘the ability of human and natural systems to prepare 

for, adjust to, respond to, and recover from experienced or anticipated climate 

impacts’’ (Chapter 28: Adaptation; https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/chapter/28/). 

This is perhaps most clear along the coasts, where salt marshes and mangroves 

serve as important natural barriers to reduce the risks of coastal flooding while delivering a range of additional ecosystem services to support local fisheries, tourism, 

and recreational activities. However, protected corridors across the nation’s interior 
71 

are cited as a critical mechanism to allow wildlife to migrate to more hospitable 

climatic zones as temperature and rainfall patterns shift. Most obviously, continued 

warming will place acute stress on temperature-sensitive species that might be mitigated by a northward or upslope shift in the range of those species to cooler 

temperatures. Habitat fragmentation represents a significant barrier to such natural redistributions of terrestrial species as they adapt to climate change. In the 

previous answer, I referred to the importance of maintaining forest health through 

habitat protection in bolstering our defenses against wildfires fueled by weakened 

forests. Wherever possible, data-driven forest management practices are also effective tools to aid local communities in reducing the risk of wildfires under continued 

climate change. 

The National Climate Assessment outlines a number of specific threats to ecosystems, ecosystem services, and biodiversity in Chapter 7 (https:// 

nca2018.globalchange.gov/chapter/7) for your further review. The health of our 

nation’s ecosystems is inextricably tied to human welfare in the following areas, 

especially through freshwater quality and availability, and economic and cultural 

dependence on specific species. When we fail to deploy data-driven defenses to protect ecosystems, we are putting American health, welfare, and prosperity at risk by 

reducing our capacity to adapt as a society to continued climate change. At the same 

time, we would be forsaking the important role that our ecological systems are playing in sequestering carbon—a critical climate service. 

Continued expansion of fossil fuel extraction across our nation’s public lands represents a serious risk to current and future generations of Americans, who will face 

a warmer world characterized by increasingly severe climate change impacts. 

Increased fossil fuel production drives increased consumption, increasing emissions 

during a time when we must move aggressively to stem the most dangerous impacts 

of climate change. The National Climate Assessment details the dozens of specific 

risks that are now detectable across every community in America, and highlights 

the compounding risk of unmitigated climate change for every year that we fail to 

curb our emissions growth. The data could not be more clear. The many benefits 

of early action could not be more clear. Instead of using our precious public lands 

to compound the climate change problem, we should be using these precious 

national resources in the design of data-driven strategies to protect communities 

from climate change, assist key species in their efforts to adapt to climate change, 

expand our portfolio of low-carbon energy, and enhance our nation’s natural carbon 

sinks. 

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. DiPerna? 

STATEMENT OF PAULA DIPERNA, SPECIAL ADVISOR, CDP 

NORTH AMERICA, NEW YORK, NEW YORK 

Ms. DIPERNA. Thank you for the opportunity to testify here 

today. And no doubt disclosure information on our CDP platform 

touches all the states represented on the Committee, and I thank 

you for your service to the Nation. 

CDP North America, formerly known as the Carbon Disclosure 

Project, is a non-profit that operates for the public good. Today, 

roughly 500 companies in the United States, including 70 percent 

of the S&P 500, disclosed to us and through us their quantitative 

and qualitative information about their environmental performance, and the imperatives they perceive. 

Our standardized annual information request is signed off on by 

roughly 500 investor enterprises, represent over $94 trillion in 

cumulative assets and most of the financial service sector of the 

world. Our signatories use disclosure as a gauge on corporate strategic advantages and vulnerabilities, and a reference for making 

investment decisions. 

If you stroll through our data, you would find there more than 

15 years of evidence of the doability, desirability, and necessity of 

reducing greenhouse gas emissions to address climate change 
72 

expressed voluntarily by companies themselves, many of whose 

shareholders are public pension funds, and thus relevant to much 

of the American people. 

As for me, you have my full resume. But suffice it to say here 

that I have seen the climate change issue from 360 degrees, from 

coral reefs to carbon markets, literally, working closely with both 

economist Richard Sandor to help him design the world’s first 

integrated cap and trade, the pioneering Chicago Climate 

Exchange, and with oceans explorer Jacques-Yves Cousteau, seeing 

the first President Bush twice at the Oval Office to discuss climate 

change. 

President Bush signed the United States to the landmark United 

Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, to which the 

United States remains a signatory, even if the United States has 

pulled out of the Paris Agreement. And we now stand alone among 

nations outside the global consensus, and also likely missing out on 

opportunities to use coherent policy, state and local and Federal, to 

maximize jobs creation and future-proof our crumbling infrastructure. 

Sometimes it is said that American companies are concerned that 

strong policies will hurt business. On the contrary, companies are 

quite concerned about climate change itself. And following I will 

share with you a few examples from almost all of your districts and 

states—probably all—and refer you to my written testimony and 

other materials of CDP for further details. 

In Arizona and Colorado, for example, Arizona Public Services, 

6,300 new employees serving 1.2 million customers, has said, 

‘‘Risks associated with forest fires are not new. But scientists have 

indicated that as the global temperatures increase, there is a greater risk of drought and a correlated increase in risk and intensity 

of forest fires. Potential threat is very real.’’ 

Of course, we have heard very much today about the burning in 

California. It is not only the trees. The downgrade of most of the 

utilities in California directly affects American people. The credit 

rating downgrade is very, very significant, rating companies from 

stable to negative by Moody’s and S&P and Fitch’s. 

In Connecticut, Stanley Black and Decker, an employer of nearly 

60,000 Americans, has stated, ‘‘Climate change can have potentially devastating impacts on our supply chain, should drought or 

flood occur.’’ 

In Ohio, American Electric Power, which has 17,500 employees 

and 5 million customers across 11 states, including Texas, 

Louisiana, Kentucky, and West Virginia, in their SEC filing has 

said, ‘‘Climate change risk is considered a major and material issue 

for AEP.’’ 

And on the issue of regulatory uncertainty, AEP is on the record 

as saying, ‘‘Additionally, in recent years legal challenges to almost 

every major EPA rulemaking have added additional uncertainty 

and cost. While environmental regulations mentioned will have a 

large impact on our operations, the uncertainty regarding climate 

change regulation or legislation is a more challenging risk to 

manage.’’ 
73 

In Texas, companies such as Chevron, Dupont, and Total have 

described risks in their disclosure pertinent to the need for storm 

barrier protection for oil facilities. 

Florida, Harris Corporation, with close to 17,000 employees, is 

worried that their data centers will be affected as temperatures 

rise and they lose ‘‘ambient cooling potential.’’ 

On the supply chain front, Johnson and Johnson, based in New 

Jersey with 134,000 global employees, is worried about climate 

change, extreme weather disrupting not only demand for products, 

but disruptions in manufacturing and distribution networks of vital 

medicines, and afraid that it will affect the overall design and integrity of our products and operations. 

Atlanta, Coca Cola, 90,000 companies, is worried about agricultural products, including sugar cane, corn, and citrus. Coca Cola 

has said, ‘‘The affordability of our products and, ultimately, our 

business could be negatively impacted.’’ 

In Nevada, even Caesar’s Palace is not immune from climate 

change. Its parent has said they are virtually certain to see shortterm increase in cost, due to a shortage of precipitation. 

Even before the Paris Agreement, we were getting risks on supply chain. And if it wasn’t from soup to nuts, it is soup to tomatoes. 

For example, Campbell’s Soup cited water risks and climate change 

as very significant and of concern. And ConAgra has said, ‘‘they 

have seen delayed tomato harvesting due to unseasonably cool 

weather.’’ 

Dr. Pepper, of course, is worried about water. It is one of their 

main ingredients, and has said, ‘‘A portion of our cost of sales, or 

$2.5 billion, could be at risk through increased costs to our supply 

chain.’’ 

I could go on and on. I will not. I know my time is up, and I will 

be happy to answer any questions. 

Thank you again. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. DiPerna follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PAULA DIPERNA, SPECIAL ADVISOR, CDP NORTH AMERICA

Thank you for the opportunity to testify here today on climate change and the 

recognition of its economic importance among businesses, investors, and consumers—all, of course, constituents. No doubt the CDP Platform has a touch point 

with all the states represented here on the Committee and I thank you for your 

service to the Nation. 

A word about CDP: CDP-North America, formerly known as the Carbon 

Disclosure Project, is a non-profit organization that operates for the public good. 

Today, roughly 500 companies in the United States disclose to us and through us 

quantitative and qualitative information about their environmental performance 

and imperatives they perceive. Our annual request for this information is standardized and signed by roughly 550 institutional investors, asset owners and asset managers, our signatories, who represent over $94 trillion in cumulative assets, and 

most of the financial services sector of the world. They use our disclosure as a reference on corporate environmental performance, strategic advantages and 

vulnerabilities, and a gauge for making investment decisions. 

The CDP disclosure platform also provides companies with information needed to 

benchmark to their peers, and we make this information available to the general 

public. 

If you took a stroll through our data, in sum, you would find more than 15 years 

of evidence of the do-ability, desirability and necessity of addressing climate change, 

expressed by companies themselves, as well as evolving corporate, investor and consumer attitudes on the topic. 

In short, we are the ‘‘go to’’ platform for companies to disclose how climate change 

is affecting their businesses. And what affects business affects average Americans 
74 

directly—floods, power outages and disrupted supply chains means people can’t get 

to work—who pays them for that time missed? Climate change is, in sum, a here 

and now issue that will hurt the poor and disenfranchised most of all. 

A word about me: My resume is part of my written testimony but suffice it to 

say here that I have seen the climate change issue from 360 degrees, from coral 

reefs to carbon markets, literally, having helped spearhead, with renowned economist Richard Sandor, the world’s first integrated cap-and-trade system, the pioneering Chicago Climate Exchange, also known globally as CCX; as well as with 

oceans pioneer Jacques-Yves Cousteau to visit the first President Bush in the Oval 

Office and his Cabinet to discuss these issues, resulting in the United States signing 

the landmark Framework Convention on Climate Change, to which the United 

States remains a signatory even if the United States has pulled out of the Paris 

Agreement. This withdrawal has left the United States the only nation on Earth to 

stand outside the circle of consensus that climate change must be addressed, not 

only because of the risks it poses, but the extraordinary opportunities that addressing it represents as we redesign, retool, rebuild and refit almost all our critical infrastructure, generating jobs and helping the United States regain dominance of 

21st century technological innovation and manufacturing. For example, in 

Maryland, Lockheed Martin Corporation, which has more than 590 facilities in 50 

U.S. states and employs approximately 100,000 people worldwide, in our disclosure 

identified the use of lower-emission energy sources as a $21 billion opportunity. 

The International Labour Organization (ILO) forecasts that ‘‘24 million new posts 

will be created globally by 2030,’’ with the caveat that, ‘‘the right policies to promote 

a greener economy must also be in place for this to happen, along with better social 

safety nets for workers. 

Sometimes it is said that American companies are worried about regulation on 

climate change hurting business. On the contrary, companies are quite concerned 

about climate change itself, and what they do need, above all is the certainty level 

playing field established by public policy, especially as all the other nations in the 

world enact rules that could hamper the ability of a U.S. company to compete as 

they struggle to smooth out uneven legal and operational requirements across global 

operations. 

I will share with you here a few examples of what key companies are doing or 

have disclosed about risks they face, and climate change related losses and costs 

they have incurred already. I refer you to my written testimony and CDP itself for 

further details and examples. 

In Arizona and the Colorado River Basin, Arizona Pinnacle West Capital Corporation, which owns Arizona Public Services, with ∼6,300 employees and serving 1.2 

million customers, identified catastrophic fires as an enterprise top risk in 2017– 

2018, with a potential financial risk of over $50 million. The company said ‘‘Risks 

associated with forest fires are not new, but scientists have indicated that as the 

global temperatures increase, there is a greater risk of drought and a correlated increase in risk and intensity of forest fires,’’ they state. ‘‘Forest fires could threaten 

not only communities that APS serves, but also our vast network (35,000+ miles) 

of electric transmission lines and facilities . . .. The potential threat is very real.’’ 

In Connecticut: Stanley Black and Decker, employer of nearly 60,000 Americans, 

stated, ‘‘Climate change can have potentially devastating impacts on our supply 

chain should drought or flood occur.’’ It estimated a potential loss of $118 million 

associated with supply chain disruption of primary materials and minerals used in 

their products from droughts in Chile and droughts and floods in Western Australia 

alone. SBD lists suppliers in USA, Israel, Brazin and Mexico as being potentially 

affected by drought. 

In Ohio, American Electric Power Company, responsible for employing 17,500 

people, and serving 5 million customers across 11 states, including Texas, West 

Virginia, Louisiana, and Kentucky, has disclosed: 

‘‘Climate change risk is considered a major and material issue for AEP,’’ 

adding ‘‘AEP has invested to ensure its system is reliable and resilient over 

more than a century. However, as the generation fleet transitions to lower 

carbon and intermittent resources and other infrastructure ages, additional 

capital investment is needed for resiliency. Additionally, public discourse 

about climate-related weather events has also prompted public interest in 

resiliency investment.’’ And in 2017, about regulatory uncertainty, AEP 

said, ‘‘Additionally, in recent years, legal challenges to almost every major 

EPA rulemaking have added additional uncertainty and cost. This uncertainty can lead to uneconomic decisions being made during the planning 

process as the ultimate goals are subject to change. These uneconomic decisions will lead to increased capital and operating costs. While general 
75 

environmental regulations mentioned above will have a large impact on 

AEP operations, the uncertainty regarding climate regulation or legislation 

is a more challenging risk to manage.’’ 

In Texas, companies such as Chevron, Dupont, and Total described risks in their 

CDP disclosure pertinent to the need for storm barrier protection for oil facilities. 

In Florida, Jacksonville-based Harris Corporation, with close to 17,000 employees, 

identifies increased severity of extreme weather events such as storms, cyclones and 

floods risks as a current and direct risk to its operations. Their disclosure states, 

‘‘For data centers, reduction in operational efficiency and increased component failure rates as increases in average temperatures and associated humidity will affect 

baseline design parameters. For example, the loss of ambient cooling potential. 

Changes in humidity may also lead to changes in patterns and rates of equipment 

corrosion. Higher humidity levels may also lead to new requirements to maintain 

internal environments within system tolerance ranges, as excess condensation can 

cause short-circuiting or water ingress.’’ Harris also said it will, ‘‘expand the scope 

of events we consider in our planning to include more frequent and unusually disruptive storms in these locations, as well as the impacts of increased/more severe 

winter storms on our operations in the Midwest and Northeast.’’ 

Also of general interest, in 2017, 96 companies disclosing to CDP disclosed that 

they have set an internal carbon price, indicating that they accept and understand 

that greenhouse gas emissions carry a hidden cost to their business which they seek 

to make visible using a projected surrogate cost, an internal carbon price. 245 

companies have stated they would disclose their internal carbon pricing by 2019. 

And many companies using this internal mechanism indicate they do so because 

they wish to be better prepared for eventual regulation and/or are operating in a 

jurisdiction where they already face mandatory requirements, such as in the EU or 

in China. 

Among the companies using an internal carbon is Oklahoma Gas and Electric, 

which employs 2,500 people and serves more than 800,000 electricity customers. 

Citing opportunities ahead, OG&E also disclosed that it ‘‘has leveraged its advantageous geographic position to develop renewable energy resources and completed 

transmission investments to deliver the renewable energy. The Southwest Power 

Pool (SPP) has begun to consider and authorize the construction of transmission 

lines capable of bringing renewable energy out of the wind resource area in western 

Oklahoma, the Texas Panhandle and western Kansas to load centers by planning 

for more transmission to be built in these areas.’’ 

In fact, given the links between drought and water availability, and anticipated 

scarcities in predictable water supply, 88 companies have also begun using internal 

water prices to better gauge rising costs and risk. 

Also, of general interest, far from denying the science of climate change, companies are bending over backward to establish reduction targets that are in line with 

the demand of climate change science on the scope and rate of emissions reductions, 

known as Science Based Targets or SBTIs. As of the end of 2018, 150 disclosing 

companies disclosed they had or were in the process of setting SBTs, as compared 

to 128 companies in 2017 and 88 in 2016. 

With regard to disruption of supply chains due to extreme and unpredictable 

weather, some may question whether there is a direct link between changing 

climate and the increases in extreme or unpredictable weather we have been experiencing of late, but the preponderance of scientific evidence establishes a strong likelihood. Some examples of what companies anticipate follow: 

Johnson and Johnson, headquartered in New Jersey and employing 134,000 

people, states ‘‘changes to global climate, extreme weather and natural disasters 

could affect demand for our products and services, cause disruptions in manufacturing and distribution networks, alter the availability of goods and services within 

the supply chain, and affect the overall design and integrity of our products and 

operations.’’ 

Michigan based GM, employing 180,000 people, has an ‘‘active’’ crisis center that 

‘‘watches the weather 24/7’’ and begins contacting suppliers when extreme weather 

events are forecasted, the system was partly developed in reaction to the Tohoku 

earthquake and the Thai floods in 2011. ‘‘People felt pretty good because none of 

our production or manufacturing facilities were in the way,’’ but those events impacted both GM’s direct suppliers and the suppliers of its suppliers. 

In Georgia, Atlanta-based Coca-Cola Company employs over 90,000 Americans. 

Coke and its bottling partners use many key ingredients in the manufacture and 

packaging of their beverage products. that are derived from agricultural commodities such as sugarcane, corn, sugar beets, citrus, coffee and tea. Coca-Cola has 

stated, ‘‘Increased demand for food products and decreased agricultural productivity 
76 

in certain regions of the world as a result of changing weather patterns may limit 

the availability or increase the cost of such agricultural commodities and could impact the food security of communities around the world . . . the affordability of our 

products and ultimately our business and results of operations could be negatively 

impacted.’’ 

In Nevada, even Caesar’s Palace is not immune from climate change impacts. Its 

parent company, Caesar’s Entertainment in Las Vegas, foresees increased operating 

costs as ‘‘virtually certain’’ in the short-term due to increasing temperatures and reduced precipitation in areas where water resources are more limited such as the 

U.S. southwest and their properties in Southern Africa and Egypt. Caesar spends 

‘‘approximately $15 million per year on water utilities, a 10 percent increase in 

water prices due to increasing temperature causing water supply issues would represent a cost increase of up to $1.5m.’’ Rising mean average temperature will impact 

Caesars supply chain. ‘‘Caesars requires a steady stream of fresh produce and other 

food sources to stock our restaurants and kitchens. Our supply chain has been impacted by temperature fluctuations that have cause us to source from alternative 

suppliers. The relative magnitude has thus far been low on our total business operations. However, if enough suppliers face major climate related impacts the future 

magnitude could be substantial.’’ 

In fact, this very day in Las Vegas, we are conveying a conference on protecting 

supply chains and other related issues in Las Vegas co-sponsored by Caesar’s, to be 

attended by concerned large procurement entities as Walmart, Los Angeles Department of Water and Power, Johnson & Johnson and JBS, a $28 billion meat 

packaging and distribution company with 78,000 employees or so. 

With regard to supply chain disruption, the source of risk is eclectic and widespread, and many U.S. companies have acknowledged this likelihood as credible for 

some time. 

For example, as early as 2014, the year before the Paris Agreement was signed, 

we issued a report specifically focused on these disruptions and risks cited literally 

ranged if not from soup to nuts, soup to tomatoes. 

For example, Campbell’s Soup cited water risks and climate change for all its 

products due to threats to agriculture and Con Agra told us literally, ‘‘we have 

experienced weather-related sourcing challenges, such as delayed tomato harvesting 

due to unseasonably cool weather.’’ 

Gap and the VF Corporation told us that both drought and its opposite, increased 

precipitation, had reduced cotton production in India and China, and were contributing factors in the rise of global product prices. Sears, ill-fated, told us as early as 2011 that it faced more than $14 million in 

expenses just from repairing and replacing buildings and goods that were the direct 

or indirect result of extreme weather, as well as another $8.7 million due to flood 

damage that year alone. 

Dr. Pepper Snapple Group said, ‘‘water is the main ingredient in substantially all 

of our products and climate change may cause water scarcity and a deterioration 

of water in areas where we maintain operations . . . a portion of our cost of sales, 

or $2.5 billion, could be at risk through increased costs to our supply chain.’’ 

Concerns about water issues laced through the disclosures of Pepsi Co and other 

beverage companies as well. 

And, after Superstorm Sandy in the New York area, the venerable utility Con 

Edison reported that the costs of restoration in just two counties, Orange and 

Rockland, were $431 million and $90 million respectively. 

Obviously, events such as these affect the lives of people directly in myriad ways 

we have seen, from blackouts to hospital patients having to be evacuated in their 

beds to costs passed on to consumers, loss of work days, etc. 

As to investors and the capital markets, of substantial recent note, Moody’s, which 

by its own wording ‘‘strives to be the rating agency of choice,’’ issued just recently 

in January this year its General Principles for Assessing Environmental, Social and 

Governance Risks, to better inform its users in this evolving field cited the bankruptcy filing by PG&E, which employs 20,000 people, related to the catastrophic 

forest fires in California. Moody’s said ‘‘. . .From a climate-related time horizon perspective, it could [also] be argued that the effects of climate change crystallized into 

event risk more rapidly than PG&E expected, adding, ‘‘We highlighted this in 2018, 

when we noted that ‘long term climate change risks like droughts and wildfires are 

manifesting faster than regulators and legislators can react to protect [PG&E] from 

exposure.’ ’’ 

Also just last month, Standard and Poor’s ratings stated, ‘‘we lowered our credit 

rating on Edison International and its subsidiary Southern California Edison . . . 

and placed all of our ratings on the companies on Creditwatch with negative implications’’ which ‘‘reflects the increased likelihood that Edison will continue to 
77 

experience catastrophic wildfires due to climate change.’’ S&P similarly downgraded 

San Diego Gas and Electric Company, for the same reasons. Subsequently, Fitch 

Ratings also revised its rating outlook for Edison International, from stable to negative adding ‘‘given the unprecedented size of recent wildfires, future multi-notch 

downgrades cannot be ruled out.’’ 

These credit ratings changes may seem far from the American people, but in fact 

they reflect a drain on financial stability and borrowing power of key employers and 

infrastructure providers, not so much linked to the longer term impact climate 

change but the here and now impact of related unpredictable and extreme weather 

events—causing hardship and heartbreak for the ordinary Americans who suffer 

loss of life and property. 

Yet, on the other hand, recognizing that addressing climate change is essential 

to long term financial value creation, mainstream investors are also recognizing the 

significant upside of shifting capital to companies that take environmental and 

social factors into strategic account in their business management. According to the 

Sustainable Investment Forum of the United States, for example, which tracks 

relevant data: 

‘‘Sustainable, responsible and impact (SRI) investing in the United States 

continues to expand at a healthy pace. The total U.S.-domiciled assets under 

management using SRI strategies grew from $8.7 trillion at the start of 2016 

to $12.0 trillion at the start of 2018, an increase of 38 percent. This represents 

26 percent—or 1 in 4 dollars—of the $46.6 trillion in total U.S. assets under 

professional management.’’ 

And, in a basic core indication of how integrated low carbon efficiency has become, 

the S&P 500 carbon efficient index, which overweights carbon efficient companies 

and underweights carbon intensive companies, is now tracking virtually to a T with 

the venerable classic S&P500, an alignment that indicates if nothing else that it 

does not cost mainstream companies or their shareholders, if low carbon intensity 

and energy efficiency are prioritized. On the contrary. 

And as for constituents and consumer preferences, CDP disclosure can also shed 

light. 

Minnesota headquartered Best Buy reported that by promoting ENERGY STAR 

certified products, Best Buy U.S. helped its customers realize utility bill savings of 

more than U.S. $45 million in 2018. ENERGY STAR is a response to the increased 

demand for low-carbon products. 

And Ohio-based American Electric Power Company states: ‘‘AEP has increasingly 

seen customers look to deploy low or no-carbon generation resources as a means of 

supplanting, replacing, or offsetting electricity provided by AEP. AEP is actively 

pursuing deploying utility-scale and community scale distributed resources which 

provide our customers with a more cost-effective solution in utilizing low and nocarbon energy.’’ 

PepsiCo says: ‘‘Any negative perception (whether valid or not) of PepsiCo’s 

response to climate change or water scarcity could result in adverse publicity and 

could adversely affect PepsiCo’s business, financial condition or results of operations. Changes in consumer preference, for example, due to a negative reaction to 

PepsiCo’s reputation relative to the environment could adversely affect PepsiCo’s 

business, for example, a 1-percent impact on PEP’s market value (defined as our 

market capitalization) would equate to ∼$1.6 billion.’’ 

I could go on and on, but will not. In sum, climate change is present and costly 

to companies and average Americans, and the United States has made itself more 

vulnerable, not less. Thank you and I will be glad to answer any questions. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Reverend Yearwood, the floor is yours, sir. 

STATEMENT OF LENNOX YEARWOOD, JR., PRESIDENT AND 

CEO, HIP HOP CAUCUS, WASHINGTON, DC 

Rev. YEARWOOD. Thank you to Chairman Grijalva and the entire 

Committee for having me here today. And thank you to the other 

panelists for your commitment to solving climate change. I especially love Zero Hour and UPROSE. 
78 

My name is Reverend Lennox Yearwood, Jr. I am the President 

and CEO of the Hip Hop Caucus. And all of you, Republicans and 

Democrats, are invited to be part of the Hip Hop Caucus—a little 

joke there to start off the testimony. 

[Laughter.] 

Rev. YEARWOOD. But let me get right to it. As Americans, we face 

challenges head on. Climate change is not a Democrat issue or a 

Republican issue; it is a human issue. This crisis is complex. It impacts all of us and future generations, and those with the least resources are impacted first and worst. But we know how to solve 

this crisis. We must make a just transition off of fossil fuels to a 

100 percent clean, renewable energy economy that works for all. 

Many communities, cities and states across our country, are leading the way on climate solutions. I urge every member of this 

Committee to visit places and people who have gone through 

climate disasters, and visit communities, projects, and businesses 

that are implementing clean energy and climate solutions. When 

you visit these communities, it will become very clear that climate 

change is a civil and human rights issue. 

In 1960, four African-American college students sat at the 

Woolworth’s lunch counter in Greensboro, North Carolina to desegregate the South. They were courageous beyond belief in standing 

up for equality. Today, young people like Nadia across the table 

from me and across this country are courageously standing up not 

only for equality, but for our existence. Climate change is our lunch 

counter moment for the 21st century. 

Young people are organizing, marching, and coalition-building, 

and they are leading the call for solutions like a Green New Deal. 

They are doing it because they know that the science on climate 

change is undeniable. But also because, like all of us here today, 

they have watched as people have died in Hurricanes Harvey, 

Maria, Irma, Katrina, and Superstorm Sandy. They have seen the 

families who have lost everything to fires that have ripped across 

the West. They have been part of peaceful movements opposing 

fossil fuel developments led by Lakota people at Standing Rock and 

the Gwich’in people in the Arctic Refuge. 

So, the question is what are you, as members of this Committee, 

going to do? It is my prayer that you call up at least as much courage as young people standing up around the country, and that you 

act now, and you act boldly and courageously. If this Committee 

and bold chambers of Congress don’t urgently come together, put 

the people of this country first, put God first, and put your political 

party to the side to solve climate change, we don’t make it beyond 

12 years from now without huge amounts of death, destruction, 

and suffering. 

As an officer in the U.S. Air Force Reserve Chaplain Corps, I had 

to ponder the unique relationship between military and faith. In 

the military we need our faith, not only to strengthen us in battle, 

but we need our faith to guide us to do what is right. We need you 

to use your faith to guide you to do what is right. 

If you are approaching climate change as a partisan, political 

issue, your faith is leading you astray. We, the American people, 

need you to have courage to do what is right. It is your courage 
79 

that can put our country and the world on the path of solving 

climate change. 

In the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., ‘‘We must learn to 

live together as brothers or perish together as fools.’’ 

Thank you, and may God be with you and with us all. 

[The prepared statement of Rev. Yearwood follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REV. LENNOX YEARWOOD JR., PRESIDENT & CEO, HIP HOP

CAUCUS

Thank you to Chairman Grijalva and the entire Committee for having me here 

today. 

And thank you to the other panelists for your commitment to solving climate 

change. 

My name is Rev. Lennox Yearwood Jr. I am the President and CEO of Hip Hop 

Caucus. 

As Americans we face challenges head on. Climate change is not a Democrat issue 

or a Republican issue. It is a human issue, and therefore, we must look to God and 

our faith to guide us. 

This crisis is complex. It impacts all of us and future generations, and it’s those 

with the least resources that are and will continue to be impacted first and worst. 

But we know how to solve this crisis. We must transition off of fossil fuels to a 

just 100 percent clean energy economy that works for all. 

Many communities, cities, and states across our country are leading the way on 

climate solutions. I urge every member of this Committee, if you have not yet, to 

visit places and people who have gone through climate disasters, and to visit communities, projects, and businesses that are implementing clean energy and climate 

solutions. 

The fossil fuel industry receives billions of dollars of taxpayer subsidies. You are 

subsidizing an industry that is killing Americans with their pollution and climate 

disasters. Further, the Trump administration’s attacks on basic public health and 

environmental safeguards mean even more death sentences, particularly for the 

poor. Clean air, clean water, and solving climate change are inextricably linked. 

In 1960 four college students sat at the Woolworth’s lunch counter in Greensboro, 

North Carolina to desegregate the south. They were courageous beyond belief in 

standing up for equality. 

Climate Change is our lunch counter moment for the 21st century. 

Today, like those brave students, young people across this country are courageously standing up not only for equality, but for our existence. Young people are 

organizing, marching, and coalition building, and they are calling for a Green New 

Deal. 

And they are doing it because they know that the science on climate change is 

undeniable. But also because, like all of us here today, they have watched as people 

died in Hurricanes Harvey, Maria, Irma, Katrina, and in Superstorm Sandy. They 

have seen the families who have lost everything to fires that have ripped across the 

West. They have been a part of the peaceful movements opposing fossil fuel developments led by the Lakota people at Standing Rock and the Gwich’in people in the 

Arctic Refuge. 

The question is, what are you, as members of this Committee, going to do? It is 

my prayer that you call-up at least as much courage as the young people standing 

up around the country, and that you act, you act now, and you act boldly and 

courageously. 

We do not make it beyond 12 years from now without huge amounts of death, 

destruction, and suffering, if this Committee, and both chambers of Congress don’t 

urgently come together, putting the people of this country first, putting God first, 

and putting your political party to the side, to solve climate change. 

As an officer in the U.S. Air Force Reserve Chaplain Corps, I had to ponder the 

unique the relationship between military and faith. What I realized is that in the 

military we need our faith not only to strengthen us in battle, but we need our faith 

to guide us to always do what is right. 

We need you to use your faith to guide you to do what is right. If you are approaching climate change as a partisan, political issue, your faith is leading you 

astray. We, the American people, need you to have the courage to do what is right. 

It is your courage that can put our country and the world on the path to solving 

climate change. 

May God be with you. Thank you and God bless. 
80 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Hollie, the floor is yours, sir. 

STATEMENT OF DERRICK HOLLIE, PRESIDENT, REACHING 

AMERICA, BENNSVILLE, MARYLAND 

Mr. HOLLIE. Greetings, Chairman and members of the 

Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is 

Derrick Hollie, President of Reaching America, an organization I 

developed to address complex social issues that are impacting the 

African-American community. 

We are focused on solutions not based on right- or left-wing 

views, but what makes sense for a more united America. One of the 

issues that we do the most work on is addressing and reducing energy poverty. 

What is energy poverty? Energy poverty exists when low-income 

families or individuals spend upwards of 30 percent of their total 

income on their electric bill. And when that happens, it puts people 

in tough situations and having to make tough choices, like do I eat 

today, or do I pay the electric bill? Do I get this prescription filled, 

or do I fill up my gas tank? I can’t even give the kids a couple of 

dollars today because I have to pay the electric bill. 

And for many Americans, particularly in the minority community, we face these challenges every single day. And the AfricanAmerican community, we don’t have the luxury to pay more for 

green technologies. We need access to affordable energy to help 

heat our homes, power our stoves, and get back and forth to work. 

And through Reaching America, I have had the opportunity to 

reach and talk to thousands of African-Americans who all talk 

about one thing: the question of rising costs of energy, along with 

the fees and subsidies that they have to pay that they don’t benefit 

from, and how they struggle to keep up with it. 

My passion for energy is deeply rooted. When I first graduated 

from college, I worked for Norfolk Southern Railroad as a brakeman. And I can couple the cars, I could switch the tracks, I knew 

how to tighten up the brakes and everything. I worked at Lamberts 

Point in Norfolk, Virginia. Our job and responsibility was loading 

coal ships that transported coal all around the world. So, I have always asked myself the question. If our natural resources are good 

enough for other countries, then why is it not good enough for us 

right here at home? 

And in addition to that, my grandfather was a black coal miner 

in southwest Virginia. So, it is safe to say if it wasn’t for the energy 

industry, I wouldn’t be here to talk to you all today. 

When the government creates policies, its first priority should be 

the welfare of the people, especially those impacted the hardest, 

rather than big business and special interest groups looking for a 

handout. 

I am also a member of Project 21, a national black leadership organization. And in our blueprint for A Better Deal for Black 

America, we focus on 10 key areas for reform, including minority 

impact assessments for new regulations. This would be a major 

step toward increasing economic opportunities and having input 

from governors and community leaders, much the same way that 
81 

qualified opportunity zones were developed and will create a level 

of trust in communities that never existed before. 

After all, the government requires environmental impact studies 

and statements to estimate the effects of projects like roads and 

buildings on nature. Shouldn’t the government act similarly when 

it comes to how regulations impact the population, or a particular 

market segment? 

A minority impact assessment would create a list of all positive, 

all negative impacts a proposed regulation would have, and the factors including employment, wages, consumer prices, home ownership, job creation, et cetera. The regulatory impact would then be 

analyzed for its effect on minorities, in contrast to the general 

population. 

The bottom line: any policy that contributes to energy poverty is 

a bad one for low income and minority communities. 

Fortunately, our Nation has an abundant supply of natural gas 

that is the solution to our Nation’s energy questions. 

Recent polar vortex temperatures last week dropped so low in 

some areas that windmills couldn’t even turn. We have to have a 

Plan B. Natural gas is clean. The U.S. Energy Information 

Administration reports that almost two-thirds of the CO2 emissions 

from 2006 through 2014 came from the fuel shifting toward natural 

gas. 

Natural gas is reliable. It is efficient. And it meets the needs of 

our Nation’s grid. And natural gas is also affordable. And for many 

Americans, this allows them not to have to choose to keep the 

lights on or feed their families. 

In closing, I am all for protecting the environment. I am a 

licensed captain, had the opportunity to take my boat to Florida 

and back, and the coastal waterways are beautiful. So, I am all for 

the environment. However, until we figure out a way to harness 

the sun and the wind to sustain ourselves, we need to use what we 

have, especially if it could lower energy costs, create jobs, and boost 

the economy. 

That is my time. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hollie follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DERRICK HOLLIE, PRESIDENT, REACHING AMERICA

Greetings Chairman Grijalva, Ranking Member Bishop and members of the 

Committee. Thank you for this opportunity to speak. 

I’m Derrick Hollie, president of Reaching America, an education and policy organization I developed to address complex social issues impacting African American 

communities. 

We’re focused on solutions not based on right- or left-wing views but what makes 

sense for a more united America. 

One of the issues Reaching America does the most work on is reducing energy 

poverty across the board. 

Energy Poverty exists when low income families or individuals spend up to 30 

percent of their total income on their electric bill. And when this happens, people 

have to make tough choices like, do I eat today or pay the electric bill? Do I get 

this prescription filled or fill up my car with gas? We all know someone who faces 

these choices every month. 

For members of the African American community, Energy Poverty is a reality. 

Members of our community don’t have the luxury to pay more for green technologies. We need access to affordable energy to help heat our homes, power our 

stoves and get back and forth to work each day. 
82 

Through Reaching America I’ve had the opportunity to speak with thousands of 

African Americans in several states who question the rising cost of energy along 

with fees and subsidies they don’t benefit from and how they struggle to keep up. 

My passion for energy is deeply rooted, after graduating from college I worked as 

brakeman for Norfolk Southern Railways at Lambert’s Point in Norfolk, Virginia. 

Our job and responsibilities was loading coal ships that transported coal all around 

the world and I constantly ask the question, ‘‘If our coal and natural resources are 

good enough for other countries—why is not good enough for us here at home. My 

grandfather was also a black coal miner in southwest Virginia. It’s safe to say if 

it weren’t for the energy industry, I wouldn’t be here to speak with all of you today. 

When the government creates policy, its first priority should be the welfare of the 

people, especially those impacted the hardest, rather than big businesses and 

special interests looking for a handout. 

I’m also a member of Project 21, a National Black Leadership Organization. In 

our Blueprint for A Better Deal for Black America we focus on 10 key areas for reform including ‘‘Minority Impact Assessments’’ for new regulations. This would be 

a major step toward increasing economic opportunities. And having input from 

governors and community leaders the same way ‘‘Qualified Opportunity Zones’’ were 

created will establish a level of trust in communities that never existed before. 

After all, the government requires environmental impact statements to estimate 

the effects of projects like roads and buildings on nature. Shouldn’t the government 

act similarly when it comes to how regulations impact the population? 

A minority impact assessment would create a list of all the positive and negative 

impacts a proposed regulation would have on factors including employment, wages, 

consumer prices and homeownership. This regulatory impact would then be analyzed for its effect on minorities in contrast to the general population. 

The bottom line: any policy that contributes to energy poverty is a bad one for 

low income families and minority communities. 

Fortunately, our Nation has an abundant supply of natural gas that is a solution 

to our Nation’s energy questions. Recent polar vortex temperatures dropped so low 

in some areas that windmills couldn’t turn. We need a plan B. 

Natural gas is clean. The U.S. Energy Information Administration reports that almost two-thirds of the CO2 emission reductions from 2006–2014 came from the fuel 

shifting toward natural gas. 

Natural gas is also reliable. Natural gas generation efficiently meets the needs 

of our Nation’s energy grid. 

And natural gas is affordable. For many Americans, this allows them to not have 

to choose whether to keep the lights on or feed their families. 

In closing, I’m all for protecting the environment and clean energy however until 

we have figure out a way to harness the sun, wind and water to sustain ourselves, 

we need to use what we have especially if it can lower energy cost, create jobs and 

boost the economy. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY REP. HICE TO MR. DERRICK HOLLIE, PRESIDENT, REACHING AMERICA

Question 1. Mr. Hollie, I represent the 10th District of Georgia, much of which is 

extremely rural. Now when I say ‘‘rural’’ different people get different things in their 

heads, so let me explain. When I say ‘‘rural’’ that means that in some parts of my 

district my constituents have to park at the Chick-fil-A to let the kids sit in the car 

to get WiFi to do their homework. When I say ‘‘rural’’ that means in other parts of 

my district my constituents have to drive to an entirely different county to get to a 

grocery store. 

So, I was struck by a remark you made in your testimony that, ‘‘When the government creates policy, its first priority should be the welfare of the people, especially 

those impacted the hardest . . .’’ 

You would agree then that if policies like the Green New Deal encourage energy 

poverty for rural, low income, and minority communities that we need to immediately 

hit the pause button on those ideas? And why would that be a prudent step? 

Answer. That’s the essence of the Minority Impact Assessment. Before a regulation is enacted, it should go through a process to see how it might specifically impact certain populations. Before a Green New Deal proposal to phase out the combustion engine in favor of electric vehicles is enacted, for example, it should be seen 

if this is feasible for specific communities. Can people in GA 10 afford a Telsa? What 

costs will come to the district to put electric car charging stations ‘‘everywhere’’ as 

prescribed by the Green New Deal FAQ? Can an electric car do the things that 
83 

1 New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, SCOTUS, 1932. 

people in GA 10 need a vehicle to do (i.e. rural jobs)? The Minority Impact Assessment acts as a ‘‘cooling saucer’’ to prevent regulations from imposing unrealistic 

expectations on specific people and communities. 

Question 2. One of the main reasons many of our founders supported federalism 

was because it provided for ‘‘laboratories of experimentation’’ 1 and regulatory diversity. What works best for some parts of the country does not necessarily work best 

for other areas. In my home state, we have almost completed two of the first nuclear 

reactors to be built in roughly 50 years at Plant Vogtle. 

Georgia has also been a leader in other clean energy sources like solar and hydro 

energy production. Plant Vogtle works hand in glove with other clean energy technologies. And nuclear will continue to provide cheap, clean energy when the sun is 

not shining or to refill the reservoir overnight at clean pumped-storage hydroelectric 

plants like our Rocky Mountain facility. 

But the Green New Deal would ban nuclear energy—which would effectively harm 

rural and low-income communities in my district and state. Mr. Hollie, how might 

your proposed Minority Impact Assessment prevent laws or regulations from banning 

affordable energy solutions for these communities? 

Answer. The Minority Impact Assessment would look at proposed regulation to 

ensure that it does not have a disparate impact on minority communities by affecting factors such as income, home prices, access to jobs and quality of life issues. Losing affordable, reliable and efficient power for a source that increases energy costs 

and breeds energy poverty does not make sense. The Minority Impact Assessment 

will identify these disparities—if Congress acts to instate Minority Impact Assessment requirements. 

Question 3. Mr. Hollie, one last question for you. The Green New Deal would ban 

most private cars to be replaced with ‘‘high-quality and modern mass transit.’’ Mr. 

Hollie, if you lived in a county that didn’t even have a grocery store and you needed 

your personal transportation to get food for your family, does it sound like the Green 

New Deal is a policy designed to help rural, low income, and minority communities, 

or a policy designed for the milieu—the wealthy and cultural elite? 

Answer. I can’t image using public transit to do the grocery shopping for my family in the bustling suburbs of Washington, DC area much less rural Georgia. For 

many people, a car or truck is freedom. Freedom to pursue the employment best 

for them. Freedom to associate with family, friends and like-minded people. Freedom to shop next door, across town or across county or state lines. There is also 

a potential limitation on freedom that comes with relying on a government entity 

to take you from point A to point B. Too often policy is presented that does not represent what’s best for the people who are impact the hardest. The Green New Deal 

calls for environmental impact studies and I would highly urge Congress to also include Minority Impact Assessments. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Dr. Curry. 

STATEMENT OF JUDITH A. CURRY, PRESIDENT, CLIMATE 

FORECAST APPLICATIONS NETWORK, RENO, NEVADA 

Dr. CURRY. I thank the Chairman, the Ranking Member, and the 

Committee for the opportunity to offer testimony today. 

I am concerned that both the climate change problem and its solution have been vastly over-simplified. This over-simplification has 

led to politicized scientific debates and policy gridlock. My testimony is presented today in the spirit of acknowledging the complexity of the problem, and proposing pragmatic ideas that can 

break the gridlock. 

Climate scientists have made a forceful argument for a future 

threat from climate change. Man-made climate change is a theory 
84 

whose basic mechanism is well understood, but the potential 

magnitude is highly uncertain. 

If climate change were a simple, tame problem, everyone would 

agree on the solution. Because of the complexities of the climate 

system and its societal impacts, solutions may have surprising unintended consequences that generate new vulnerabilities. In short, 

the cure could be worse than the disease. Given these complexities, 

there is plenty of scope for reasonable and intelligent people to 

disagree. 

Based on current assessments of the science, man-made climate 

change is not an existential threat on the timescale of the 21st 

century, even in its most alarming incarnation. However, the perception of a near-term apocalypse and alignment with a range of 

other social objectives has narrowed the policy options that we are 

willing to consider. 

In evaluating the urgency of emissions reductions, we need to be 

realistic about what this will actually accomplish. Global CO2

concentrations will not be reduced if emissions in China and India 

continue to increase. If we believe the climate models, any changes 

in extreme weather events would not be evident until late in the 

21st century. And the greatest impacts will be felt in the 22nd 

century and beyond. 

People prefer clean over dirty energy, provided that the energy 

source is reliable, secure, and economical. However, it is misguided 

to assume that current wind and solar technologies are adequate 

for powering an advanced economy. The recent record-breaking cold 

outbreak in the Midwest is a stark reminder of the challenges of 

providing a reliable power supply in the face of extreme weather 

events. 

With regards to energy policy and its role in reducing emissions, 

there are currently two options in play. Option Number 1: do 

nothing, continue with the status quo. Or, Option Number 2: 

rapidly deploy wind and solar power plants with the goal of eliminating fossil fuels in one to two decades. 

Apart from the gridlock engendered by considering only these 

two options, in my opinion, neither gets us where we want to go. 

A third option is to re-imagine the 21st century electric power 

systems with new technologies that improve energy security, reliability, and cost, while at the same time minimizing environmental 

impacts. 

However, this strategy requires substantial research development and experimentation. Acting urgently on emissions reduction 

by deploying 20th century technologies could turn out to be the 

enemy of a better long-term solution. 

Since reducing emissions is not expected to change the climate 

in a meaningful way until late in the 21st century, adaptation 

strategies are receiving increasing attention. The extreme damages 

from recent hurricanes, plus the billion-dollar losses from floods, 

droughts, and wildfires emphasize the vulnerability of the United 

States to extreme events. But it is easy to forget that U.S. extreme 

weather events were actually worse in the 1930s and 1950s. 

Regions that find solutions to current impacts of extreme 

weather and climate events will be better prepared to cope with 
85 

1 Curry, JA and Webster PJ, 2011: Climate science and the uncertainty monster. Bull. Amer. 

Meteorol. Soc., 92, 1667–1682. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2011BAMS3139.1. 

any additional stresses from climate change, and to address nearterm social justice objectives. 

The industry leaders that I engage with seem hungry for a bipartisan, pragmatic approach to climate policy. I see a window of opportunity to change the framework for how we approach this. 

Bipartisan support seems feasible for pragmatic efforts to accelerate energy innovation, build resilience to extreme weather 

events, pursue no-regrets pollution reduction measures, and better 

land use practices. 

Each of these efforts has justifications independent of their benefits for climate change. These efforts provide the basis of a climate 

policy that addresses both near term economic and social justice 

concerns, and also the longer term goals of mitigation. 

This ends my testimony. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Curry follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JUDITH A. CURRY, PRESIDENT, CLIMATE FORECAST

APPLICATIONS NETWORK

I thank the Chairman, Ranking Member and the Committee for the opportunity 

to offer testimony today on ‘Climate Change: The Impacts and the Need to Act.’ I 

am President of Climate Forecast Applications Network (CFAN) and Professor 

Emerita and former Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the 

Georgia Institute of Technology. I have devoted four decades to conducting research 

on a variety of topics related to weather and climate. 

By engaging with decision makers in both the private and public sectors on issues 

related to weather and climate, I have learned about the complexity of different decisions that depend, at least in part, on weather and climate information. I have 

learned the importance of careful determination and conveyance of the uncertainty 

associated with our scientific understanding and particularly for predictions. I have 

found that the worst outcome for decision makers is a scientific conclusion or forecast issued with a high level of confidence that turns out to be wrong. 

I am increasingly concerned that both the climate change problem and its solution 

have been vastly oversimplified.1 For the past decade, I have been promoting dialogue across the full spectrum of understanding and opinion on the climate debate 

through my blog Climate Etc. (judithcurry.com). I have learned about the complex 

reasons that intelligent, educated and well-informed people disagree on the subject 

of climate change, as well as tactics used by both sides to try to gain a political 

advantage in the debate. 

With this perspective, my testimony focuses on the following issues of central 

relevance to climate change, its impacts and need to act: 

• The climate knowledge gap 

• The climate change response challenge 

• The urgency (?) of CO2 emissions reductions 

• Resilience, anti-fragility and thrivability 

• Moving forward with pragmatic climate change policies 

THE CLIMATE KNOWLEDGE GAP

Climate scientists have made a forceful argument for a future threat from manmade climate change. Man-made climate change is a theory in which the basic 

mechanism is well understood, but the potential magnitude is highly uncertain. 

Scientists agree that surface temperatures have increased overall since 1880, 

humans are adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, and carbon dioxide and other 

greenhouse gases have a warming effect on the planet. 

However, there is considerable disagreement about the most consequential issues: 

whether the recent warming has been dominated by human causes versus natural 

variability, how much the planet will warm in the 21st century, whether warming 
86 

2 Curry, JA, (2011). Reasoning about climate uncertainty, https://link.springer.com/article/ 

10.1007/s10584-011-0180-z. 3Mauritsen et al., (2012). Tuning the climate of a global model, https:// 

agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012MS000154. 4>66% probability. 

5 IPCC AR5 WG1 Report, https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/. 

6 IPCC Special Report on Extreme Events, http://www.ipcc.ch/report/srex/. 

7 4th National Climate Assessment, Vol 1, https://www.globalchange.gov/nca4. 

is ‘dangerous’, and whether radically reducing carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions will 

improve the climate and human well-being in the 21st century. 

The scientific conflict regarding the theory of man-made climate change is over 

the level of our ignorance regarding what is unknown about natural climate variability. Why do climate scientists disagree on the relative importance of natural 

versus man-made climate change? The historical data is sparse and inadequate. 

There is disagreement about the value of different classes of evidence, notably the 

value of global climate model simulations and paleoclimate reconstructions from 

geologic data. There is disagreement about the appropriate logical framework for 

linking and assessing the evidence in this complex problem.2 Further, politicization 

of the science and the consensus building process itself can be a source of bias. 

Apart from these broad sources of disagreement, there are two sources of misconception and uncertainty that are of particular relevance to climate policy making: 

• Projections of 21st century climate change 

• Linking extreme weather events to man-made climate change 

With regards to projections of 21st century climate change, Sections 11.3.1.1 and 

12.2.3 of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 5th Assessment 

Report (AR5) describe uncertainties in the climate model-based projections. Climate 

models consistently indicate that the mean global temperature of the planet will rise 

with increasing CO2 emissions. However, these models show systematic errors in 

the simulated global mean temperature that are similar in magnitude to the size 

of the historical change we are seeking to understand.3 The likely 4 range of estimates of the sensitivity of global warming to doubling of CO2 as reported by the 

IPCC AR5 varies by a factor of 3, from 1.5 to 4.5°C.5 Apart from uncertainties in 

climate model projections that focus primarily on the impact of increases in greenhouse gases, we do not have sufficient understanding to project future solar 

variations, future volcanic eruptions, and decadal to century variations in ocean circulations. Finally, existing climate models are unable to simulate realistically possible extreme outcomes, such as abrupt climate change or a rapid disintegration of 

the West Antarctic Ice Sheet. Hence global climate models provide little relevant information regarding very unlikely but potentially catastrophic impacts—whether 

caused by man-made climate forcing or natural processes or some combination. 

Among the greatest concerns about climate change are its impacts on extreme 

events such floods, droughts, heat waves, wildfires and hurricanes. However, there 

is little evidence that the recent warming has worsened such events. The IPCC 

Special Report on Extreme Events 6 acknowledges that there is not yet evidence of 

changes in the global frequency or intensity of hurricanes, droughts, floods or 

wildfires. The recent Climate Science Special Report from the Fourth National 

Climate Assessment (NCA4) 7 reported the following conclusions abut extreme 

events and climate change: 

• ‘‘Recent droughts and associated heat waves have reached record intensity in 

some regions of the United States; however, the Dust Bowl era of the 1930s 

remains the benchmark drought and extreme heat event in the historical 

record.’’ [Ch. 6] 

• ‘‘Detectable changes in some classes of flood frequency have occurred in parts 

of the United States and are a mix of increases and decreases. Extreme precipitation is observed to have generally increased. However, formal attribution approaches have not established a significant connection of increased 

riverine flooding to human-induced climate change.’’ [Ch. 8] 

• ‘‘State-level fire data over the 20th century indicates that area burned in the 

western United States decreased from 1916 to about 1940, was at low levels 

until the 1970s, then increased into the more recent period.’’ [Ch. 8] 

• ‘‘[T]here is still low confidence that any reported long-term increases in 

[hurricane] activity are robust, after accounting for past changes in observing 

capabilities’’ [Ch 9] 
87 

8 Curry, JA, 2014. Senate EPW testimony, http://judithcurry.com/2014/01/16/senate-epwhearing-on-the-presidents-climate-action-plan/. 9https://judithcurry.com/2019/01/02/national-climate-assessment-a-crisis-of-epistemicoverconfidence/. 10Obersteiner, et al. (2001). Managing Climate Risk, http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Admin/PUB/ 

Documents/IR-01-051.pdf. 11Prins and Rayner, 2007. The wrong trousers: radically rethinking climate policy, http:// 

eureka.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/66/. 

With regards to the perception (and damage statistics) that severe weather events 

seem more frequent and more severe over the past decade, there are several factors 

in play. The first is the increasing vulnerability and exposure associated with increasing concentration of wealth in coastal and other disaster-prone regions. The 

second factor is natural climate variability. Many extreme weather events have documented relationships with natural climate variability; in the United States, extreme weather events (e.g. droughts, heat waves and hurricanes) were significantly 

worse in the 1930s and 1950s.8

While climate models predict changes in extreme weather events with future 

warming, the time of emergence of any man-made signal relative to the large natural variability in extreme weather events is not expected to be evident until late 

in the 21st century, even for the most aggressive scenarios of future warming. 

When considering the predictions of additional climate change impacts in the 

NCA4, pay attention to the confidence level ascribed to their conclusions. The NCA4 

defines the confidence levels as follows: 

• ‘‘Low: Inconclusive evidence (limited sources extrapolations, inconsistent findings, poor documentation and/or methods not tested, etc.), disagreement or 

lack of opinions among experts.’’ 

• ‘‘Medium: Suggestive evidence (a few sources, limited consistency, models 

incomplete, methods emerging, etc.), competing schools of thought.’’ 

• ‘‘High: Moderate evidence (several sources, some consistency, methods vary 

and/or documentation limited, etc.), medium consensus.’’ 

• ‘‘Very high: Strong evidence (established theory, multiple sources, consistent 

results well documented and accepted methods, etc.), high consensus.’’ 

These categories defy the common understanding of the words used to describe 

them.9 The words used to describe ‘High confidence’ include ‘Moderate evidence, 

medium consensus,’ which are more descriptive of the common understanding of 

medium confidence. The words used to describe ‘Medium confidence’ include: ‘a few 

sources, limited consistency, models incomplete, methods emerging; competing 

schools of thought,’ that are more descriptive of the common understanding of low 

confidence. 

Apart from these semantic issues, there are very few conclusions of meaningful 

impacts in the NCA4 that are associated with ‘very high’ confidence or even ‘high’ 

confidence. For conclusions associated with low, medium and even high confidence, 

there is substantial room for scientific disagreement. 

THE CLIMATE CHANGE RESPONSE CHALLENGE

In response to the threat of man-made climate change, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) has established an international 

goal of stabilization of the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. 

This framing of the climate change problem and its solution has led to the 

dilemma of climate response policy that is aptly described by Obersteiner et al: 10

The key issue is whether ‘‘betting big today’’ with a comprehensive global 

climate policy targeted at stabilization ‘‘will fundamentally reshape our 

common future on a global scale to our advantage, or quickly produce losses 

that can throw mankind into economic, social, and environmental 

bankruptcy.’’ 

In their ‘Wrong Trousers’ essay,11 Prins and Rayner argue that we have made the 

wrong choices in our attempts to define the problem of climate change and its solution, by relying on strategies that worked previously for ‘tame’ problems. A tame 

problem is well defined, well understood, and the appropriate solutions are agreed 

upon. Cost-benefit analyses are appropriate for tame problems, and the potential 

harm from miscalculation is bounded. 

By contrast, climate change is better characterized as a ‘wicked’ problem, which 

is a complex tangle characterized by multiple problem definitions, methods of understanding that are open to contention, ’unknown unknowns’ that suggest chronic 
88 

12Walker et al. (2016): Deep Uncertainty. doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-1153-7_1140. 13 Curry (2018). Climate uncertainty and risk. https://indd.adobe.com/view/da3d0bde-1848- 

474d-b080-f07200293f91. 14http://elibrary.worldbank.org/content/workingpaper/10.1596/1813-9450-6193. 15 Hartwell Paper, http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/27939/. 16http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/Climate_Pragmatism_web.pdf. 

conditions of ignorance, and lack of capacity to imagine future eventualities of both 

the problem and the proposed solutions. The complex web of causality may result 

in surprising unintended consequences to attempted solutions, that generate new 

vulnerabilities or exacerbate the original harm. Further, the wickedness of the 

climate change problem makes it difficult to identify points of irrefutable failure or 

success in either the scientific predictions or the policies. 

Overreaction to a possible catastrophic threat may cause more harm than benefits 

and introduce new systemic risks, which are difficult to foresee for a wicked problem. The known risks to human well-being associated with constraining fossil fuels 

may be worse than the eventual risks from climate change, and there are undoubtedly some risks from both that we currently do not foresee. 

The wickedness of the climate change problem is further manifested in the regional variability of the risks. Balancing the risks of climate change and the policy 

response is very difficult across different regions and countries that face varying 

risks from climate change, energy poverty and challenges to economic development. 

Some regions may actually benefit from a warmer climate. Regional perceptions of 

a preferred climate or ‘dangerous’ climate change depend on societal values and 

vulnerability/resilience, which vary regionally and culturally. Climate has always 

changed, independently of human activity, so climate change is nothing new. 

Further, our current preferences for avoiding a particular climate of the future fail 

to account for human creativity and ingenuity in creating new technologies and 

social and political structures that will condition our perceptions and the consequences of climate change. 

Climate-related decisions involve incomplete information from a fast-moving and 

irreducibly uncertain science. There are many different interests and values in play, 

the relevant timescales are long and there is near certainty of surprise. In the 

context of decision making, ‘deep uncertainty’ 12 refers to: 

• situations in which the phenomena are still only poorly understood and 

experts do not know or cannot agree on models that relate key forces that 

shape the future; 

• modeling and subjective judgments are used rather than estimates based 

upon previous experience of actual events and outcomes; and 

• experts cannot agree on the value of alternative outcomes. 

The climate change problem arguably meets all three of these criteria for ‘deep 

uncertainty’.13 Acknowledgement of deep uncertainty surrounding a problem and its 

solutions does not imply that ‘no action’ is needed. Rather, it implies that decisionanalytic frameworks should be selected that are consistent with deep uncertainty. 

Robust and flexible policy strategies can be designed that account for uncertainty, 

ignorance and dissent. Robust strategies formally consider uncertainty, whereby 

decision makers seek to reduce the range of possible scenarios over which the strategy performs poorly. Flexible strategies can be quickly adjusted to advancing scientific insights and new conditions that arise. 

Justification for addressing the climate change problem is transitioning away 

from precaution to a risk management approach that addresses the economics of 

preventing losses from climate change. The World Bank has a recent paper entitled 

Investment decision making under deep uncertainty—application to climate change 14

that summarizes decision-making methodologies that are able to deal with the deep 

uncertainty associated with climate change, including robust decision making and 

Climate Informed Decision Analysis. 

The Hartwell Paper,15 published by the London School of Economics in cooperation with the University of Oxford, argues that: ‘‘decarbonisation will only be 

achieved successfully as a benefit contingent upon other goals which are politically 

attractive and relentlessly pragmatic.’’ The Hartwell Paper analyzes many alternative policy approaches to decarbonization. The authors remind us that: ‘‘it is not 

just that science does not dictate climate policy; it is that climate policy alone does 

not dictate environmental or development or energy policies.’’ 

The Breakthrough Institute has proposed Climate Pragmatism,16 a pluralistic approach based on innovation, resilience and no regrets. This pragmatic strategy centers on efforts to accelerate energy innovation, build resilience to extreme weather, 
89 

17http://unfccc.int/essential_background/items/6031.php. 18https://www.ipcc.ch/sr15/. 19http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2014/12/two-degrees-a-selected-history-of-climate-changespeed-limit/. 20http://unfccc.int/un-climate-summit-ban-ki-moon-final-summary/. 21Lewis and Curry (2018), https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0667.1. 22https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0360544217314597. 23 Curry (2018). Sea level and climate change. https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2018/11/ 

special-report-sea-level-rise3.pdf (section 4.2.2). Whitehouse et al. (2019) https:// 

www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-08068-y. 

and pursue no regrets pollution reduction measures. Each of these three efforts has 

justifications independent of their benefits for climate mitigation and adaptation. 

Further, this framework does not depend on any agreement about climate science 

or the risks posed by CO2 emissions. 

THE URGENCY (?) OF CO2 EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS

In the decades since the 1992 UNFCCC Treaty, global CO2 emissions have continued to increase, especially in developing countries. In 2010, the world’s governments 

agreed that emissions need to be reduced so that global temperature increases are 

limited to below 2°C.17 The target of 2°C (and increasingly 1.5°C) 18 remains the 

focal point of international climate agreements and negotiations. 

The original rationale for the 2°C target is the idea that ‘tipping points’—abrupt 

or nonlinear transition to a different climate state—become likely to occur once this 

threshold has been crossed, with consequences that are largely uncontrollable and 

beyond our management. The IPCC AR5 considered a number of potential tipping 

points, including ice sheet collapse, collapse of the Atlantic overturning circulation, 

and permafrost carbon release. Every single catastrophic scenario considered by the 

IPCC AR5 (WGII, Table 12.4) has a rating of very unlikely or exceptionally unlikely 

and/or has low confidence. The only tipping point that the IPCC considers likely in 

the 21st century is disappearance of Arctic summer sea ice (which is fairly reversible, since sea ice freezes every winter). 

In the absence of tipping points on the timescale of the 21st century, the 2°C limit 

is more usefully considered by analogy to a highway speed limit: 19 driving at 10 

mph under the speed limit is not automatically safe, and exceeding the limit by 10 

mph is not automatically dangerous, although the faster one travels the greater the 

danger from an accident. Analogously, the 2°C (or 1.5°C) limit should not be taken 

literally as a real danger threshold. An analogy for considering the urgency of emissions reductions is your 401K account: if you begin making contributions early, it 

will be easier to meet your retirement goals. 

Nevertheless, the 2°C and 1.5°C limits are used to motivate the urgency of action 

to reduce CO2 emissions. At a recent U.N. Climate Summit, (former) SecretaryGeneral Ban Ki-moon warned that: ‘‘Without significant cuts in emissions by all 

countries, and in key sectors, the window of opportunity to stay within less than 

2 degrees [of warming] will soon close forever.’’ 20 Actually, this window of opportunity may remain open for quite some time. The implications of the lower values 

of climate sensitivity found by Lewis and Curry 21 and other recent studies is that 

human-caused warming is not expected to exceed the 2°C ‘danger’ level in the 21st 

century. Further, there is growing evidence that the RCP8.5 scenario for future 

greenhouse gas concentrations, which drives the largest amount of warming in 

climate model simulations, is impossibly high, requiring a combination of numerous 

borderline impossible socioeconomic scenarios.22 A slower rate of warming means 

there is less urgency to phase out greenhouse gas emissions now, and more time 

to find ways to decarbonize the economy affordably and with a minimum of unintended consequences. It also allows for the flexibility to revise our policies as further 

information becomes available. 

Is it possible that something truly dangerous and unforeseen could happen to 

Earth’s climate during the 21st century? Yes it is possible, but natural climate variability (including geologic processes) may be a more likely source of possible undesirable change than man-made warming. In any event, attempting to avoid such a 

dangerous and unforeseen climate by reducing fossil fuel emissions will be futile if 

natural climate and geologic processes are dominant factors. Geologic processes are 

an important factor in the potential instability of the West Antarctic ice sheet that 

could contribute to substantial sea level rise in the 21st century.23

Under the Paris Agreement, individual countries have submitted to the UNFCCC 

their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). Under the Obama administration, the U.S. NDC had a goal of reducing emissions by 28 percent below 2005 levels 
90 

24Lomborg (2015), https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1758-5899.12295. 25 Curry (2017). Climate models for laypersons, https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2017/ 

02/Curry-2017.pdf. 26 Clack et al. (2017), https://www.pnas.org/content/114/26/6722. 27https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/01/why-green-energy-is-futile-in-onelesson.php. 28https://webstore.iea.org/technology-roadmap-energy-storage. 29https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/ipcc_wg3_ar5_chapter11.pdf. 

by 2025. Apart from considerations of feasibility and cost, it has been estimated 24

using the EPA MAGICC model that this commitment will prevent 0.03°C in warming by 2100. When combined with current commitments from other nations, only a 

small fraction of the projected future warming will be ameliorated by these commitments. If climate models are indeed running too hot,25 then the amount of warming 

prevented would be even smaller. Even if emissions immediately went to zero and 

the projections of climate models are to be believed, the impact on the climate would 

not be noticeable until the 2nd half of the 21st century. Most of the expected 

benefits to the climate from the UNFCCC emissions reductions policy will be realized in the 22nd century and beyond. 

Attempting to use carbon dioxide as a control knob to regulate climate on decadal 

to century timescales is arguably futile. The UNFCCC emissions reductions policies 

have brought us to a point between a rock and a hard place, whereby the emissions 

reduction policy with its extensive costs and questions of feasibility are inadequate 

for making a meaningful dent in slowing down the expected warming in the 21st 

century. And the real societal consequences of climate change and extreme weather 

events (whether caused by man-made climate change or natural variability) remain 

largely unaddressed. 

This is not to say that a transition away from burning fossil fuels doesn’t make 

sense over the course of the 21st century. People prefer ‘clean’ over ‘dirty’ energy— 

provided that all other things are equal, such as reliability, security, and economy. 

However, assuming that current wind and solar technologies are adequate for providing the required amount and density of electric power for an advanced economy 

is misguided.26

The recent record-breaking cold outbreak in the Midwest is a stark reminder of 

the challenges of providing a reliable power supply in the face of extreme weather 

events, where an inadequate power supply not only harms the economy, but jeopardizes lives and public safety. Last week, central Minnesota experienced a natural 

gas ‘brownout,’ as Xcel Energy advised customers to turn thermostats down to 60 

degrees and avoid using hot water.27 Why? Because the wind wasn’t blowing during 

an exceptionally cold period. Utilities pair natural gas plants with wind farms, 

where the gas plants can be ramped up and down quickly when the wind isn’t blowing. With bitter cold temperatures and no wind, there wasn’t enough natural gas. 

A transition to an electric power system driven solely by wind and solar would 

require a massive amount of energy storage. While energy storage technologies are 

advancing, massive deployment of cost effective energy storage technologies is well 

beyond current capabilities.28 An unintended consequence of rapid deployment of 

wind and solar energy farms may be that natural gas power plants become increasingly entrenched in the power supply system. 

Apart from energy policy, there are a number of land use practices related to 

croplands, grazing lands, forests and wetlands that could increase the natural sequestration of carbon and have ancillary economic and ecosystem benefits.29 These 

co-benefits include improved biodiversity, soil quality, agricultural productivity and 

wildfire behavior modification. 

In evaluating the urgency of CO2 emissions reductions, we need to be realistic 

about what reducing emissions will actually accomplish. Drastic reductions of emissions in the United States will not reduce global CO2 concentrations if emissions in 

the developing world, particularly China and India, continue to increase. If we believe the climate model simulations, we would not expect to see any changes in extreme weather/climate events until late in the 21st century. The greatest impacts 

will be felt in the 22nd century and beyond, in terms of reducing sea level rise and 

ocean acidification. 

RESILIENCE, ANTI-FRAGILITY AND THRIVABILITY

Given that emissions reductions policies are very costly, politically contentious 

and are not expected to change the climate in a meaningful way in the 21st century, 

adaptation strategies are receiving increasing attention in formulating responses to 

climate change. 
91 

30Webster, (2008). Myanmar’s Deadly Daffodil. http://webster.eas.gatech.edu/Papers/ 

Webster2008c.pdf. 31Taleb, (2012). Antifragile: Things That Gain From Disorder. Random House. 32Lynch: Policy Diversity: Creative Potential or Wasteful Redundancy? https://slideplayer.com/ 

slide/6265255/. 33 Russell, (2013). https://www.amazon.com/Thrivability-Breaking-through-World-Works/dp/ 

1909470287. 

The extreme damages from recent hurricanes plus the recent billion dollar disasters from floods, droughts and wildfires, emphasize that the United States is highly 

vulnerable to current weather and climate disasters. Even worse disasters were encountered in the United States during the 1930s and 1950s. Possible scenarios of 

incremental worsening of weather and climate extremes over the course of the 21st 

century don’t change the fundamental storyline that many regions of the United 

States are not well adapted to the current weather and climate variability, let alone 

the range that has been experienced over the past two centuries. 

As a practical matter, adaptation has been driven by local crises associated with 

extreme weather and climate events, emphasizing the role of ‘surprises’ in shaping 

responses. Advocates of adaptation to climate change are not arguing for simply responding to events and changes after they occur; they are arguing for anticipatory 

adaptation. However, in adapting to climate change, we need to acknowledge that 

we cannot know how the climate will evolve in the 21st century, we are certain to 

be surprised and we will make mistakes along the way. 

‘Resilience’ is the ability to ‘bounce back’ in the face of unexpected events. 

Resilience carries a connotation of returning to the original state as quickly as possible. The difference in impact and recovery from Hurricane Sandy striking New 

York City in 2012 versus the impact of Tropical Cyclone Nargis striking Myanmar 

in 2008 30 reflects very different vulnerabilities and capacities for bouncing back. 

To increase our resilience to extreme weather and climate events, we can ‘bounce 

forward’ to reduce future vulnerability by evolving our infrastructures, institutions 

and practices. Nicholas Taleb’s concept of antifragility 31 focuses on learning from 

adversity, and developing approaches that enable us to thrive from high levels of 

volatility, particularly unexpected extreme events. Anti-fragility goes beyond 

‘bouncing back’ to becoming even better as a result of encountering and overcoming 

challenges. Anti-fragile systems are dynamic rather than static, thriving and growing in new directions rather than simply maintaining the status quo. Strategies to increase antifragility include: economic development, reducing the 

downside from volatility, developing a range of options, tinkering with small experiments, and developing and testing transformative ideas. Antifragility is consistent 

with decentralized models of policy innovation that create flexibility and redundance 

in the face of volatility. This ‘innovation dividend’ is analogous to biodiversity in the 

natural world, enhancing resilience in the face of future shocks.32

Similar to anti-fragility, the concept of ‘thrivability’ has been articulated by Jean 

Russell: 33

‘‘It isn’t enough to repair the damage our progress has brought. It is also 

not enough to manage our risks and be more shock-resistant. Now is not 

only the time to course correct and be more resilient. It is a time to imagine 

what we can generate for the world. Not only can we work to minimize our 

footprint but we can also create positive handprints. It is time to strive for 

a world that thrives.’’ 

A focus on policies that support resilience, anti-fragility and thrivability avoids 

the hubris of thinking we can predict the future climate. The relevant questions 

then become: 

• How can we best promote the development of transformative ideas and 

technologies? 

• How much resilience can we afford? 

The threats from climate change (whether natural or human caused) are fundamentally regional, associated not only with regional changes to the weather/ 

climate, but with local vulnerabilities and cultural values and perceptions. In the 

least developed countries, energy poverty and survivability is of overwhelming concern, where there are severe challenges to meeting basic needs and their idea of 

clean energy is something other than burning dung inside their dwelling for cooking 

and heating. In many less developed countries, particularly in South Asia, an overwhelming concern is vulnerability to extreme weather events such as floods and 

hurricanes that can set back the local economies for a generation. In the developed 

world, countries are relatively less vulnerable to climate change and extreme 
92 

weather events and have the luxury of experimenting with new ideas: entrepreneurs 

not only want to make money, but also to strive for greatness and transform the 

infrastructure for society. 

Extreme weather/climate events such as landfalling major hurricanes, floods, extreme heat waves and droughts become catastrophes through a combination of large 

populations, large and exposed infrastructure in vulnerable locations, and human 

modification of natural systems that can provide a natural safety barrier (e.g. deforestation, draining wetlands). Addressing current adaptive deficits and planning for 

climate compatible development will increase societal resilience to future extreme 

events that may possibly be more frequent or severe in the future. 

WAYS FORWARD

Climate scientists have made a forceful argument for a future threat from manmade climate change. Based upon our current assessment of the science, the threat 

does not seem to be an existential one on the timescale of the 21st century, even 

in its most alarming incarnation. However, the perception of man-made climate 

change as a near-term apocalypse and alignment with range of other social objectives has narrowed the policy options that we’re willing to consider. 

Effectively responding to the possible threats from a warmer climate is 

challenging because of the deep uncertainties surrounding the risks both from the 

problem and the proposed solutions. The wickedness of the climate change problem 

provides much scope for disagreement among reasonable and intelligent people. 

With regards to energy policy and its role in reducing emissions, consider the 

following three options: 

1. Do nothing, continue with the status quo. 

2. Rapidly deploy wind and solar power plants, with the goal of eliminating fossil 

fuels on the timescale of 1–2 decades. 

3. Re-imagine 21st century electric power generation and transmission systems 

with new technologies that improve energy security, reliability and cost while 

at the same time minimizing environmental impacts. 

The current climate/energy policy debate seems to be #1 versus #2; in my opinion, 

neither of these options gets us where we want to be in terms of thriving economically and minimizing the environmental impact of energy generation. #3 in principle 

can usher in a new era of abundant, clean energy, but we can’t put an arbitrary 

timetable/deadline on this; it will require substantial research, development and experimentation. In the meantime, muddling along with some combination of #1 and 

#2 can improve the situation somewhat. Ironically, acting urgently on emissions reduction by massively deploying solar and wind power could entrench natural gas in 

the power system and turn out to be the enemy of a better long-term solution. 

Focusing on #3 has the potential to eliminate the current gridlock of debating #1 

versus #2, and provides the best option for a long-term solution. 

A regional focus on adapting to the risks of climate change allows for a range of 

bottom-up strategies to be integrated with other societal challenges, including growing population, environmental degradation, poorly planned land-use and overexploitation of natural resources. Even if the threat from global warming turns out 

to be small, near-term benefits to the region can be realized in terms of reduced vulnerability to a broad range of threats, improved resource management, and improved environmental quality. Securing the common interest on local and regional 

scales provides a basis for the successful implementation of climate adaptation 

strategies and addressing near-term social justice objectives. 

Bipartisan support seems feasible for pragmatic efforts to: 

• accelerate energy innovation 

• build resilience to extreme events 

• pursue no regrets pollution reduction measures 

Each of these three efforts has justifications independent of their benefits for 

climate mitigation and adaptation. These three efforts provide the basis for a 

climate policy that addresses near-term economic and social justice concerns and the 

longer-term goals of mitigation. 

The role for climate science and climate scientists in the policy process has been 

complex. In the past 20 years, dominated by the IPCC/UNFCCC paradigm, 

scientists have become entangled in an acrimonious scientific and political debate, 

where the issues in each have become confounded. This has generated much polarization in the scientific community and has resulted in political attacks on scientists 

on both sides of the debate. A scientist’s ‘side’ is often defined by factors that are 
93 

34http://www.hillheat.com/articles/2015/02/24/rep-grijalva-asks-for-conflict-of-interestdisclosures-from-gops-go-to-climate-science-witnesses. 

exogenous to the actual scientific debate. Debates over relatively arcane aspects of 

the scientific argument have become a substitute for what should be a real debate 

about politics and values. 

Scientific progress is driven by uncertainty and disagreement; working to resolve 

these uncertainties and disagreements drives the knowledge frontier forward. 

Attempts by government policy makers to intimidate climate scientists 34 whose 

research or public statements are perceived to be in opposition to preferred policy 

narrative are enormously detrimental to scientific progress. 

I am making one ‘ask’ today: please allow climate science and the research process 

to proceed unfettered by political attacks on scientists. We need to acknowledge that 

climate-related decisions involve incomplete information from a fast-moving and 

irreducibly uncertain science. Uncertainty and disagreement is what drives the 

knowledge frontier forward; please help that process to flourish. Only in the most 

simple-minded policy making frameworks does scientific uncertainty and disagreement prescribe ‘no action.’ 

It is up to the political process (international, national, and local) to decide how 

to contend with the climate problem, with all of its uncertainties, complexity and 

wickedness. The challenge is to open up the decision-making processes in a way that 

is more honestly political and economic, while giving proper weight to scientific 

reason, evidence and uncertainty. 

QUESTION SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY REP. HICE TO DR. JUDITH A. CURRY, PRESIDENT, CLIMATE FORECAST APPLICATIONS NETWORK

Question 1. Dr. Curry, as you are probably aware, Dr. William Happer, Professor 

Emeritus of Physics and Princeton University, suggests that climate modeling is an 

extremely difficult problem because the climate involves the interaction between the 

atmosphere and the oceans, which are both extremely turbulent fluids. He notes that 

it is not difficult to write the partial differential equations that describe our climate, 

but that even our most powerful supercomputers cannot solve these equations leading 

scientists to replace them with simplified computer models that toss out much of the 

detail of the real atmosphere and oceans leading us to less robust data and 

conclusions. 

How would you respond to that? 

Answer. To answer questionssuch asthe oneput forward by Representative Hice, 

in 2017 I wrote a report entitled ‘‘Climate models for the layman’’ that explains how 

climate models work and their limitations. An online link to the report: https:// 

www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2017/02/Curry-2017.pdf. 

With regards to Representative Hice’s specific question regarding a statement by 

Dr. William Happer, I regard Dr. Happer’s statement to be correct. Thejustification 

for my conclusion is summarized in the report linked to in the previous paragraph. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, and to the whole panel, 

our appreciation for your valuable and important testimony. 

Let me turn to my colleague, Mr. Neguse, for questions. 

Mr. NEGUSE. First, I want to thank the Chairman for holding 

this hearing. It is a breath of fresh air, particularly for us new 

Members who have just joined the Congress, that the Natural 

Resources Committee is undertaking this important work, and that 

its first hearing is on such an important topic. 

I would respectfully disagree with Dr. Curry, in terms of your 

framing around the existential nature of this issue. I think climate 

change is an existential threat. 

I think of this in the context of being a new, young father. I am 

34 years old. My wife and I just had our first child, a daughter, 

Natalie. She is 5 months old. Much of our work here in the 

Congress is ultimately making sure that the world she inherits is 
94 

a better one than perhaps the world that we inherited. And one 

need look no further than the IPCC report and a variety of other 

studies to see just how catastrophic the consequences of climate 

change will be for her generation if we don’t take decisive action, 

and if we don’t do so now. 

And I can tell you that, certainly in my community in Colorado, 

we are feeling the impacts of climate change already. I have a 

report here that I will respectfully ask be submitted into the 

record, the most recent report from the Department of the Interior 

with respect to the impacts of climate change in Rocky Mountain 

National Park. 

I represent Colorado’s 2nd Congressional District, Northern 

Colorado. Fifty-two percent of my district is Federal public land, 

and we see very clearly the impacts of climate change in Rocky 

Mountain National Park and elsewhere. My constituents see it 

every day. Rising temperatures have led to snow melting faster, 

which causes increased flooding and erosion, and negatively impacts Colorado’s fresh water supply, 70 percent of which comes 

from our snow. At Rocky Mountain National Park, the studies have 

shown that temperatures have risen 3 to 4 degrees, significantly affecting the plants and animals that call the park home. 

I am very excited about the opportunity to take comprehensive, 

holistic, and significant action to solve this issue, actions like the 

Green New Deal, which I support, along with several of my colleagues. I have introduced legislation to protect over 400,000 acres 

of public lands in my state, in Colorado, so that we can ensure that 

those lands are not sold to the highest bidder and opened up to oil 

and gas development and the rest. 

So, at the end of the day, I think this was the defining issue of 

our time. And I thank the witnesses, with respect to their activism, 

in trying to push for common-sense solutions that will ultimately 

protect the planet for all of our children. 

My question goes to Mr. Hollie. I heard your testimony with respect to energy poverty, I think, as you described it, and the issues 

around affordability. I don’t know if you are aware of this—I think 

you referenced natural gas as being ‘‘clean.’’ 

According to the NAACP’s Clean Air Task Force report, AfricanAmerican communities face an elevated risk of cancer due to air 

toxic emissions from natural gas development, and over 1 million 

African-Americans live in counties that face a cancer risk above the 

EPA’s level of concern from toxins emitted by natural gas facilities. 

I am curious how you would respond to that statistic. 

Mr. HOLLIE. My response would be all of our energy sources have 

some type of downside to them, even coal. We look at the wind 

turbine—— 

Mr. NEGUSE. Well, I would agree with you there, Mr. Hollie. 

Mr. HOLLIE. Right, right. 

Mr. NEGUSE. Coal certainly has a negative impact, as does 

natural gas—— 

Mr. HOLLIE. If I could finish, sir. 

Mr. NEGUSE. Proceed. 

Mr. HOLLIE. Even the wind turbines this winter, a couple weeks 

ago, couldn’t operate. The downside. But we know for a fact that 
95 

liquid gas, natural gas, is the cleanest way and the most affordable 

way right now for people in this country. 

Mr. NEGUSE. Well, I am not sure I understand your comparison 

of windmills to the toxins and potential cancer risks associated 

with natural gas emissions. 

But nonetheless, I will say, I understand that you have written 

a number of editorials. And obviously, from your testimony today, 

support the development of fossil fuels, coal, and natural gas. 

Mr. HOLLIE. Energy exploration. 

Mr. NEGUSE. And I understand that your organization, Reaching 

America, that you have utilized that organization to make those 

views known. Is that a fair—— 

Mr. HOLLIE. That is a fair assessment. 

Mr. NEGUSE. I also understand that your organization is a 

partner with a group called Explore Offshore. Is that correct? 

Mr. HOLLIE. We are a member of that organization, yes. 

Mr. NEGUSE. OK, and that is a project of the American 

Petroleum Institute. 

Mr. HOLLIE. They are associated with them, yes. 

Mr. NEGUSE. OK. Does your organization receive any funding 

from fossil fuel companies or corporations? 

Mr. HOLLIE. No, we do not. 

Mr. NEGUSE. With that, I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Gohmert. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

I am curious, Reverend Yearwood. From your testimony it 

sounds like you support the Green New Deal. Is that fair? 

Rev. YEARWOOD. That is correct. 

Mr. GOHMERT. You had mentioned your position as a chaplain in 

the military. And some of us have real concerns about closing every 

base and cutting our military by 50 percent, but that is interesting 

that you support those. 

Rev. YEARWOOD. Well, the military was one of the key institutions of our government that actually has spoken about the threats 

of climate change. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Right. And Green New Deal is going to take care 

of that by making us basically indefensible. With a 50 percent cut, 

we will not be able to protect ourselves properly from the threat 

of Russia, China, or even ISIS from there, and closing all bases 

overseas, but that is interesting. 

Also, I couldn’t help think back as I listened to Mr. Hollie, your 

testimony, to the giant here in the U.S. Congress named John 

Dingell. He was chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee 

when Democrats took the majority back in January 2007 through 

January 2011. For 50 years he and, as I understand, his father had 

wanted some kind of universal health care, and he was thrilled 

that he was going to get to chair that into being. 

But my understanding was the Speaker of the House, now 

Speaker again, wanted two things out of his Committee. They 

wanted the universal health care bill, Obamacare, and cap and 

trade. And he made the public statement, because that jacks up the 

cost of energy, like you have been talking about. And, as you know, 

the people that are impacted, it isn’t the rich, they can afford it. 
96 

So, he made the statement the cap and trade bill is not only a 

tax, it is a great big tax. And, of course, the Nation’s poor were the 

ones that would be most impacted. But because of his comment he 

was fired as chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee. 

Mr. Waxman was made chairman. And, as he famously said, ‘‘We 

not only don’t want your input, we don’t need your votes.’’ So, he 

pushed it through, and it never became law. 

But as you testified, that does come back to mind. And I had an 

80-year-old lady say, ‘‘I am scared. My cost of energy to heat my 

home is going up. And I was born in a home that only had a woodburning stove, and I am afraid I am going to die in a home that 

can only afford a wood-burning stove.’’ 

And I said, ‘‘I am really sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings, but 

probably your wood-burning stove is going to end up being illegal.’’ 

But it is tragic. And it is the poor that suck it up, when we push 

these kinds of things. So, I appreciate your perspective very much. 

Dr. Curry, let me ask you very quickly. Has there ever been any 

climate change more dramatically than what killed off the 

dinosaurs? 

Dr. CURRY. Climate has always varied. Sometimes there are extreme events that maybe get an asteroid or comet impact, or something like that. But the ocean, volcanic eruptions, there are many 

sources of natural variability on all timescales. 

So, when you see the climate changing, you can’t immediately 

assume that it is all caused by humans. There is a strong 

natural—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. Do you think we are causing the polar ice caps 

on Mars to melt? 

Dr. CURRY. No. 

Mr. GOHMERT. That is probably the sun, apparently. 

But let me—my time is running out, but I appreciate all our witnesses. But the comparison of the civil rights effort, I mean, that 

was unconstitutional activity by the government, and it just strikes 

me so ironic that if the climate change and the Green New Deal 

comes into law, it is saying we are giving up our freedom and putting all our faith in the government because of the civil rights 

violations to begin with. It is just rather ironic. 

But my time has expired, I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Levin. 

Mr. LEVIN. Thank you, Chair, for this opportunity to finally, 

after many years, have a hearing on climate change. And I want 

to thank our witnesses, along with our governors, who signaled a 

bipartisan desire to see strong Federal action. 

Let’s cut to the chase. The overwhelming scientific consensus has 

left no doubt—no doubt—that we are facing a climate crisis. And 

it is long past time to stop undermining science and evidence. The 

report that we saw this morning from NOAA and NASA shows that 

the 5 warmest years recorded since 1880 are the last 5 years. This 

isn’t that hard to figure out. Now must be the time to accept reality. This is reality. And we have to begin focusing on solutions. 

And I want to thank the young people who are here for leading 

the way on initiatives like the Green New Deal. 
97 

We must not wait to accelerate the deployment of renewable 

energy or energy-efficient buildings or electrify our transportation 

infrastructure. 

I am from the great state of California, where I have been involved in climate and energy policy for a long time, and I have 

heard the nay-sayers every step of the way. But what we have done 

is we have demonstrated beyond any shadow of a doubt that, if you 

protect the environment and innovate with the clean energy jobs 

of the future, you will grow the economy at the same time. And our 

solar industry in California is a clear example of that. 

We must also not advocate our global leadership on the issue of 

climate change, or subcontract our energy and environmental policies to a handful of big polluters who ignore science and common 

sense. And we must not sit by as unprecedented climate change impacts the health and safety and the economy of our communities. 

I am confident that a strong majority of the American people are 

with us, and even a strong majority of my colleagues in the House 

and Senate. The question is whether we have the courage to act 

on climate. And this hearing is just one step of many that we are 

going to need to take in that direction. 

The transition to a more sustainable future has been my life’s 

work, and will be a critical aspect of my service in Congress. I hope 

that we can put politics aside, if even for just a moment, and focus 

instead on science and evidence and our future. 

And like my friend, Mr. Neguse, I have two young children at 

home, and this is about leaving the planet better for them than 

how I found it. 

With that, I actually do have a couple of questions for Dr. Cobb. 

Dr. Cobb, I want to thank you for your work. We have seen numerous studies over the past few months that climate change is 

wreaking havoc on ecosystems, and that we have potentially lost 

two-thirds of all species that were on the planet before the 

Industrial Revolution. Why is the preservation of biodiversity so 

important for resiliency to climate change, and what steps can we 

take to preserve biodiversity, particularly as the Natural Resources 

Committee? 

Dr. COBB. Thank you for that question, the opportunity to 

address that. 

I think I made clear in the testimony that I provided that any 

number of indicators of our ecosystem’s health are already showing 

steady declines with respect to climate change impacts. The 

National Climate Assessment lays that out item by item. 

But to your question about biodiversity. Diversity of species is 

critical to the function of ecosystems, and, in turn, those ecosystem 

services that we rely on. We might turn to the functioning of coastal ecosystems and recognize the importance of functioning ecosystems that provide fishermen with livelihoods and many other 

kinds of tourist-related services, as well. 

So, this has a distinct value to Americans that has been shown 

again and again and again. And certainly science tells us some of 

the ways that this Committee can help to promote biodiversity and 

increase ecosystem resilience and, therefore, support the communities that depend on these services. Some of those ways include, 

as I mentioned, protecting the lands that these species depend on, 
98 

and using the best science and evidence to inform the support of 

these ecosystems and the critical species that support their function. So, that is just one way. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. LEVIN. I represent a district, California’s 49th District, with 

over 50 miles of coastline. And my friends at the Scripps Institute 

of Oceanography agree with you, Dr. Cobb, that we absolutely must 

face the reality, the changing temperature of our oceans, the obvious coastal erosion, unprecedented. And if we don’t act, future generations will regret our lack of action. Now is our moment to lead. 

This should not be a partisan issue; this should be based on science 

and evidence. And if we can actually focus on facts for a change, 

maybe we will get somewhere. I yield back. 

Ms. YEAMPIERRE. I would like to, if possible, make a comment, 

as one of two women of color that is on this panel, particularly because climate change is going to impact front-line communities 

more than any other. And the people who are leading the women 

of color in these communities, their children are the ones that are 

going to be impacted. 

We can’t talk about these ecosystems devoid of talking about the 

impact on human rights and on the people affected. More than 

5,000 Puerto Ricans died. That is not nothing. That is not just an 

ecosystem. That was an entire island that was affected. 

In the Philippines around 2012, 10,000 Filipinos died. We have 

had Superstorm Sandy that affected life all over New York City 

and New Jersey, and the infrastructure was destroyed. 

So, I just really don’t want to talk about this in silos, we are not 

talking about whole communities, and not treating this issue in a 

way that is holistic. If we don’t lead with how this is going to impact the people least responsible for creating climate change, the 

people who live within their carbon footprint, the people who are 

engaged in urban forestry, doubling the amount of open space, 

stopping the siting of power plants, then we will—— 

Mr. GRIJALVA. I am not cutting you off—— 

Ms. YEAMPIERRE [continuing]. Miss the reason why we have this 

panel. 

The CHAIRMAN. The time is up, and we want to stay within the 

protocol. 

Ms. YEAMPIERRE. All right. Thank you, I appreciate it, but I just 

want to make sure—— 

The CHAIRMAN. With all due respect. Thank you. 

Ms. YEAMPIERRE [continuing]. That folks address those things. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. McClintock, please. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do want to talk 

about science and evidence. 

Professor Curry, are we experiencing the highest temperatures in 

the planet’s history. 

Dr. CURRY. No. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. When have we seen higher temperatures? 

Dr. CURRY. Oh, a very long time ago, and at least in some 

regions, they may be equally as high about 1,000 years ago, during 

the Medieval warm period. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. So, long before the Industrial Revolution? 

Dr. CURRY. Yes. 
99 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Are we experiencing the highest levels of 

atmospheric carbon dioxide in the planet’s history? 

Dr. CURRY. No. Historically, we are a little bit on the low side, 

actually, in the current era. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Are we experiencing the worst droughts in 

recorded history? 

Dr. CURRY. Definitely not. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Are we experiencing the most ferocious 

hurricanes in recorded history? 

Dr. CURRY. No. In recent history, in the 1950s in the Atlantic, 

the land-falling hurricanes were actually worse than what we have 

seen in recent decades. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. I am reminded of a poem by Ogden Nash, who 

wrote, ‘‘The ass was born in March, the rains came in November. 

‘Such a flood as this,’ he said, ‘I scarcely can remember’.’’ 

But our recorded history, as well as our paleoclimatology informs 

us that there have been periods where carbon dioxide levels have 

been much higher than they are today, temperatures have been 

much higher and lower than they are today, and long before the 

significant carbon dioxide emissions of human civilization. Is that 

correct? 

Dr. CURRY. Yes. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. A study published in Lancet a few years ago 

noted that cold weather kills far more people than warm weather. 

What do you see as the greater threat? 

Dr. CURRY. Well, obviously, it depends on the location. But I 

think the statistics, overall, across a wide variety of locations do 

support that cold weather kills more than hot weather. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. During the recent cold wave, those states that 

relied excessively on wind and solar saw electricity outages. Would 

you say that the greatest single threat in extreme weather, either 

hot or cold, is a lack of electricity? 

Dr. CURRY. Yes. Even during hurricanes, what kills a lot of people is the lack of electricity, which has all sorts of trickle-down 

effects on other things that are needed to save lives during those 

experiences. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. How does an over-reliance on wind and solar 

generation affect our ability to provide abundant, reliable, and affordable electricity? 

Dr. CURRY. Well, it doesn’t work without natural gas. Natural 

gas is the perfect partner for wind and solar, because of the 

intermittency, because you can fire up a gas burner and fire it back 

down. And energy trading, natural gas trading, is what has, I 

think, stabilized the price of natural gas that actually helps make 

wind and solar be affordable. 

So, until such time as there are advanced storage technologies, 

we are going to rely on natural gas as a partner. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Let me get to that, if I can. 

Mr. Hollie, we heard earlier from the governor of Massachusetts 

about all of their green energy policies, also the governor of North 

Carolina. My home state of California has adopted even more radical policies. They say they are helping the poor, but I just checked. 

In Massachusetts, those policies have produced the 11th highest 

gasoline prices in the country. California now has, as a result of 
100 

these policies, the 2nd highest gasoline prices in the country. 

Massachusetts and California are tied for the 6th highest electricity prices in the country. 

How are poor people helped by paying needlessly sky-high prices 

for gasoline and electricity? 

Mr. HOLLIE. Sir, I don’t have a lot of research to point to. All I 

have is my anecdotal research. The thousands of people that I 

speak to struggle every single day to pay their electric bill. And the 

one thing that they talk about is just the need for affordable, 

reliable energy that we have here in this country. So, if we can find 

a way to reduce the regulations that allow people access to that 

energy, I think it would go a long way in helping them to reduce 

the cost of energy for them. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Dr. Curry, a gridlocked car creates twice the 

NOx contaminants and six times the carbon contaminants per mile 

traveled as a car moving at peak efficiency. Doesn’t it make more 

sense to add highway capacity to resolve our chronic traffic congestion if carbon emissions are the goal of reducing? 

Dr. CURRY. A transportation policy is much tougher to figure out 

than power production. It is a very complex issue, and I would like 

to see us re-envision what that should be for the 21st century, 

rather than adding patches to our current system. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. If we are going to be able to store less moisture in the mountains as snow, does it make sense to build more 

dams, so that we can store surplus water from wet years so that 

we have it in dry years? 

Dr. CURRY. It certainly does. Water resource management is a 

big issue, but there are environmental challenges associated with 

dams and reservoirs, also. So, it needs a lot of planning to make 

all this do what you really want it to do. 

Mr. MCCLINTOCK. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Ms. Haaland. 

Ms. HAALAND. Thank you, Chairman. Welcome to all of you and 

thank you so much for taking time to be with us today. I would 

like to take this opportunity to thank you and my colleagues for entrusting me with the responsibilities of Vice Chair of this 

Committee and the chairship for the Subcommittee on National 

Parks, Forests, and Public Lands. I look forward to working with 

you and my colleagues to protect our public lands and to meet our 

obligations to our indigenous communities. 

To that point, this hearing is important and an appropriate place 

to begin this Congress. As we heard from all our witnesses, climate 

change poses an unprecedented threat to our communities and our 

environment. 

Last year, in my state of New Mexico, the Ute Park Fire burned 

tens of thousands of drought-stricken acres, while the city of Santa 

Fe experienced a once in 1,000-year flood. Meanwhile, a vast methane cloud hovers over the northwest corner of New Mexico, and 

this Administration has worked to weaken the rules on methane 

emissions from oil and gas operations. 

Methane is more than 80 times more powerful than carbon 

dioxide at trapping heat, and is responsible for about a quarter of 

the warming we are experiencing today. 
101 

Nearby in Arizona, Hurricane Rosa inundated the Tohono 

O’odham Nation, nearly overtopping their dam, trapping residents 

behind impassible roads, and forcing evacuations. Hurricanes have 

almost never reached this part of Arizona before. 

Climate change has forced us to live in a new normal, in which 

fires, floods, droughts, and hurricanes wreck our communities and 

our national heritage. And it is now time for us to act. 

I first would like to just thank Ms. Nazar for your commitment 

and your sacrifice to the things you believe in. I almost want to 

apologize to you and the youth of this world, who go to bed every 

night worrying about what will happen to our communities because 

of climate change. And I just want to recognize your presence here. 

It means a great deal to me and to many of us. So, thank you very 

much. 

Ms. Yeampierre, I think you are best equipped to answer this 

question, so I will ask it to you. 

Right now, the EPA and Interior Department are run by former 

lobbyists for coal and oil companies. The New York Times reported 

last year that a coal magnate was essentially getting his entire 

wish list of energy de-regulations approved by this Administration. 

What role do you believe this corporate capture of the Administration will play in being able to address the climate crisis? 

Ms. YEAMPIERRE. I think that the de-regulation is exacerbating 

the climate crisis, particularly in front-line communities and in indigenous communities. 

You are from New Mexico, where you have nuclear energy and 

uranium in the lungs and the water and people. It is affecting 60 

nations and tribes. The decisions that are being made to support 

an old-school way of thinking about energy are really racing us toward extreme catastrophic events. 

The truth is that even in places like Kentucky, people are moving away from coal. One of our organizations, which is with the 

Climate Justice Alliance, Kentuckians for the Commonwealth, are 

working at operationalizing just transitions that move people away 

from having to depend on an economic system that has destroyed 

their lives and limited their livability. 

So, while people in communities are doing that, you have an EPA 

that is racing toward, actually moving policies that are basically 

taking us back in time. It is really dangerous, and it is a contribution to actually making us look like the day after tomorrow. 

And it is unfortunate that this old-school, dated way of thinking 

about how we basically consume and use energy is really creating 

more problems for our communities. I think that, honestly, people 

in different parts of the world are way ahead of us, and that the 

United States is really looking like this clunky old-school machine 

that can’t keep up, not only with the technology, but the science. 

So, it is frightening. 

EPA has always had people in there that are in the pockets of 

the lobbyists, really slowing down the cogs and making it impossible for us to move as fast as the climate is changing. So, now 

what we are seeing is really dangerous. That is what I would 

contribute. 

Ms. HAALAND. I appreciate that very much. 
102 

Mr. Chairman, in the interest of time, I will submit other 

questions in writing. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Hern. 

Mr. HERN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for testifying today as expert witnesses on climate change. Each of you has 

spent your careers involved in climate policy and have helped to 

generate various solutions to the problem of climate change. 

Mr. Hollie, your work to reduce energy poverty has been truly remarkable, and your testimony today reflects your well-versed 

stances on climate change issues. One part of your testimony that 

interests me a lot was where you wrote, ‘‘The government requires 

environmental impact studies to estimate the effects of projects like 

roads and buildings on nature. Shouldn’t the government act similarly when it comes to how regulations impact the population?’’ 

Mr. HOLLIE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. HERN. Would it surprise you that we tried to put that into 

a rule last week and it was voted down by our friends across the 

aisle? So, we would evaluate the impact of our policies on a cost 

benefit analysis. 

Mr. HOLLIE. Sure. No, I did not know that, sir. 

Mr. HERN. Thank you. 

Dr. Curry, your testimony reflects your wealth of knowledge on 

these issues, and gives great insight into the climate change debate. In particular, you discuss the increasing concern you have 

that the climate change problem has been over-simplified. I agree 

with this statement, as I feel that an overly simple, one-size-fitsall—we are smarter than everybody else in Washington, DC—as 

we heard our opening statements today from our Ranking 

Member—approach to climate change should lead to serious issues, 

as what may work for one state may not work for another. 

Would you please elaborate on the problems that an expensive, 

one-size-fits-all, top-down solution might cause, if implemented? 

Dr. CURRY. Well, a whole host of unintended consequences, some 

of which we can’t even imagine right now. And because of that, we 

need to avoid the hubris of thinking that we can predict what the 

future climate will do, and that we can actually control the climate. 

If we were somehow successful in putting all these policies into 

place and getting CO2 emissions down to zero, I think we would be 

unpleasantly surprised at how little impact this actually has on the 

things that worry us most about extreme weather events, and 

things like that. 

Sea level rise is not—we are not going to turn that one on a 

dime, things like that. It is very tough to change the climate, has 

a whole lot of inertia in the system. Many timescales. The Pacific 

responds very slowly. So, even with success in reducing the CO2

emissions down to zero, it would be a long time to turn the corner 

on having that actually impact the climate. 

So, we need to do some of the more bottom-up type things. And 

the states are wonderful laboratories for trying out all these adaptation resilience kind of policies, and I think we should try to figure 

out how to help that flourish, the so-called innovation dividend. 

Mr. HERN. Since you brought that up, last week I had the fortunate opportunity—we have an organization called Grand River 
103 

Dam Authority that is a public-private partnership in our state of 

Oklahoma that has been around since the 1930s that was formed 

originally by the government through some grants to build some 

dams to lock up energy so that we could use that to handle flooding 

on the Arkansas River, the McClellan-Kerr Navigation System, as 

it came to be in the 1960s. 

We also have in our industrial park in Pryor, Oklahoma, the 

largest Google server farm in their company. It relocated there to 

take over a Gatorade plant with the qualification that they would 

only use renewable power. We had a conscious decision, even 

though it is not in my district—the state, the GRDA had a conscious decision to make on free-market enterprise. Do we want that 

there? Do we want to go through the cost of upgrading the grid, 

upgrading the technology to conform to the purchase of Google’s 

100 megawatts? And we felt like the cost benefit analysis of that 

made sense. 

It was a small plant at that time. It has since quadrupled in size. 

And, from all the Google people that I have talked to, they are so 

proud of the relationship in a free-market environment, working 

with renewable credits to get to where they are at so that, on the 

grid, GRDA has a great mixture of hydro, solar, wind, coal, and 

natural gas. 

To the testimony from Mr. Hollie earlier, that you have to have 

backups on this, so that the cost of having a battery-type environment when you don’t have solar and you don’t have wind, that you 

can actually have power to fuel and to warm our homes and businesses around our particular districts and our states and our 

country. 

Thank you for your time. Thank you for testimony. I yield back 

my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. McEachin. 

Mr. MCEACHIN. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

First of all, thank you for your leadership on the most urgent 

threat facing our planet: climate change. 

I want to thank the panelists for being here today. And in particular, I am very happy to see my good friend, Reverend 

Yearwood, here today. 

Reverend, I have enjoyed working with you over the past 2 years, 

and I look forward to our continued partnership. In that vein, 

Reverend, I want to start with you. 

Amazingly, it has been articulated today that there is a mistaken 

idea that moving toward a clean energy economy will hurt lowincome communities and communities of color. I need you to speak 

to what the rising health and economic costs of climate change 

would be for those communities, specifically if we fail to move in 

that direction. 

Rev. YEARWOOD. Thank you, Congressman, for that question. 

First, we can definitely fight poverty and pollution at the same 

time. And let me say clearly that the assessment that Mr. Hollie— 

respectfully, I disagree completely with what he put forth as the 

idea that people of color are not concerned about the climate, about 

climate change, about the environment, about their health. 

Mr. HOLLIE. I didn’t say that. 
104 

Rev. YEARWOOD. We know that 200,000 Americans are dying 

yearly because of air pollution. We know that we have millions of 

children and millions of adults who have asthma, emphysema, and 

are getting cancer. We know that 68 percent of people of color, 

black people, are living within 30 miles of coal-fired power plants. 

We know that the de-regulations or the mercury rule and the car 

rule and many of the rules being rolled back by EPA would hurt 

people of color. 

So, one of the things here that I just want to say. And, Mr. 

Hollie, please understand the reason why I was making this 

assessment is this. For me, as a minister, having buried a young 

girl because of asthma, that mother no longer cares about how 

much that utility bill would have cost. That child I had to bury because of asthma. She would have much more been concerned about 

dealing with a particular matter in the atmosphere. 

So, the health concerns are one of the key concerns that are 

within the communities of color. The idea that we are not also concerned about our future and the future generation is, frankly, absurd. The idea that we don’t care that we first and worst will be 

hurt by climate change is outlandish. 

The fact, for me, being from Louisiana and seeing what happened 

with Hurricane Katrina, or Harvey in Houston, those are the kind 

of things that have a huge impact on communities of color. So, to 

sit up here honestly at this critical moment and to then purport the 

idea that people of color are somehow making the decision that 

they are more concerned about their energy bill than their health, 

their energy bill than their life, then that is literally ludicrous. 

If you think anybody—and it was come to earlier about this was 

Black History Month and civil rights. The idea that poverty is also 

put upon with communities of color is also outlandish. This is not 

about this poor people of color, but poor white people also, as a 

matter of fact, want clean air and clean water. 

As I said earlier, climate change is a civil rights issue. 

Mr. MCEACHIN. Thank you very much, Reverend. 

Am I pronouncing this correctly? Is it Yeampierre, Ms. 

Yeampierre? 

Ms. YEAMPIERRE. It is Yeampierre, yes. 

Mr. MCEACHIN. How do we make sure that, as we move toward 

a clean energy economy, that we invest greener technologies in lowincome communities and communities of color so they are not left 

behind? How do we do that? 

Ms. YEAMPIERRE. Whether it is in Michigan, whether it is in 

Detroit or in Brooklyn, New York, or Richmond, California, whether it is fracking going on in people’s backyards, communities of 

color and front-line communities, whether they are in Indian 

Country, are working on operationalizing just transitions. They are 

looking at different economies of scale, anything from communityowned solar to trying to figure out how they can create food 

systems that will withstand the changes that are coming. 

And there has to be an investment in those communities. And we 

also need to start thinking about governance differently. Climate 

change is going to disrupt governance. The idea is that we need to 

start creating transformational partnerships with communities that 
105 

are on the front line, and that are engaging in this kind of 

transformation. 

The other thing is that the needs are different everywhere in the 

country. So, the needs of a rural community are not the same as 

an urban community. Folks that are dealing with mountain-top 

removal in Appalachia are dealing with different kinds of challenges. So, it isn’t cookie-cutter, but it is a commitment to try to 

work with people on the ground, and being led by the ground in 

partnership, because that is what it is going to take. 

Climate change is not going to—top-down solutions are not going 

to be sustained over time. They just don’t work. People on the 

ground are going to have to lead. And we are going to have to be 

partners in those kinds of decisions, and sharing and creating a 

space where we share expertise and information with each other. 

When the Reverend is talking about Louisiana, in my mind all 

I am thinking about was those floating black bodies. As people of 

African ancestry, that is the truth for all of us all over the United 

States, right? I think about Puerto Rico, I think about Louisiana. 

So, I think that it is really important that those communities that 

are leading and are doing the work, that they not be marginalized, 

and that they be supported and invested in. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you—— 

Mr. MCEACHIN. Thank you so much. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Lamborn. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to concentrate with my questions and comments on the proposals that 

are out there to deal with climate change. I don’t want to talk 

about climate change, the science behind it, the man-made role. I 

want to talk about the proposals that are on the table to deal with 

it. 

And the main proposal that I have seen so far is the Green New 

Deal. I hear that my colleagues on the other side of the aisle may 

have some proposals coming forward to flesh this out, but right 

now, all we have is the Green New Deal, and we already have 

presidential contenders endorsing it. 

We have the Green Party, that has talked a lot about it. I am 

going to use a few of their facts and figures. They say—and if you 

go to GP.org—that the transition to a Green New Deal will cost 

$13 trillion. 

Right now, here is our dependence on hydrocarbons: 82 percent 

of U.S. electricity is generated from coal, natural gas, and nuclear, 

leaving 18 percent from renewables and hydropower. 

When it comes to transportation, we have 30,000 commercial air 

flights a day. I don’t think a single one of those is powered by renewables. We have 250 million cars and trucks on the road. People 

in the United States travel 11 billion miles a day, and the vast majority of that is hydrocarbon powered. Some electric vehicles, some 

alternatives like propane and bio-fuel. 

The Department of Defense, in particular—I am also on the 

Armed Services Committee—they spend a lot of money on energy, 

$13 billion a year. Much of that, if not most of that, is hydrocarbonbased. 
106 

According to the Green Party, in their plan for the Green New 

Deal, we would have to close all overseas bases and we would lay 

off 1.4 million people, both military and civilian. 

To me that is very extreme. And this has to do something with 

the goal of no hydrocarbons by the year 2030, 11 years from now. 

So, I am going to just ask—I will start with you, Dr. Hollie. Is that 

realistic? 

Mr. HOLLIE. No, sir. And you actually mentioned that 80 percent 

of our total energy sources come from fossil fuels. I know that it 

has been that way since the turn of the century. It was that way 

when my grandfather was a black coal miner in southwest 

Virginia. It was that way when I was working for Norfolk 

Southern. And even the last EPA Director, Gina McCarthy under 

the Obama administration, stated that we were going to need fossil 

fuels at least through 2050. 

Mr. LAMBORN. And Dr. Curry? 

Dr. CURRY. The problem that I see with a massively ambitious 

top-down policy like the Green New Deal is: (a) what if we can’t 

do it? What if we are wrong? And there are all sorts of things. It 

is not a problem that is amenable to that kind of a solution. That 

is why I propose more of a bottom-up kind of approach, the socalled innovation dividend, so we can try lots of different things, 

lots of solutions, and see what works. 

Mr. LAMBORN. I have to really agree with you. I think that the 

ingenuity and hard work and creativity of the American people is 

a real solution here, and should not be left out. We shouldn’t—like 

you said, top-down from government coercion, government control, 

that sounds too much like a Soviet, 5-year plan, or something like 

that, which is simply not going to work. 

I understand that if someone comes into Congress—you only 

have to be 25 years old to be a Member of Congress, and we have 

young people that bring a lot of great qualities, but maybe they 

don’t bring a lot of life experience. So, I guess I can understand if 

someone hasn’t a lot of life experience, and they are proposing 

something that is extremely unrealistic. Well, impossible, 

impossible. 

But what I don’t understand is if adults and grown-ups, who are 

older and more mature, are also advocating something that is impossible. And I see that with some of the presidential contenders 

who are throwing their names out there. They are plugging for 

something that is literally impossible. 

With that, Mr. Chairman, I am going to yield back the balance 

of my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, let me put a pitch in for myself. 

Ms. YEAMPIERRE. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, I just want 

to say—— 

The CHAIRMAN. No, we have to follow—— 

Ms. YEAMPIERRE [continuing]. Our movements have been led by 

young people. 

The CHAIRMAN. We have to follow the protocol. 

Ms. YEAMPIERRE. Our movements of civil rights divestment in 

South Africa, all led by young people. Let’s not try to put them in 

a box. 
107 

The CHAIRMAN. Ma’am, the protocol and decorum for this, with 

all due respect, please. I mean we are trying to run this meeting 

in the way that is orderly. And while you might have an opinion 

and want to interject it at that moment, unless you are recognized, 

you can’t. I appreciate that. 

Let me put in a plug for myself, Mr. Lamborn. As an old-timer, 

I happen to agree with some of what our colleagues are saying here 

today, and some of our witnesses have said today. I don’t know if 

that puts me out of step with my age group, but I would suggest 

that the vast majority of Americans feel the way I do. 

But anyway, Ms. Vela ́zquez. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking 

Member. 

I am very proud to be the Representative of a leading voice, an 

activist on climate change, Ms. Elizabeth Yeampierre. 

Thank you for your service and for your activism. I would like 

to ask you the first question. As an advocate for climate justice 

with its ethical and political implications, what would you say to 

someone who thinks we should ignore climate change, despite lowincome communities being disproportionately at risk from its 

impact? 

Ms. YEAMPIERRE. Congresswoman, it is wonderful to see you. 

You have been a champion for environmental justice for years, 

since even before it became a sexy thing. You have been doing it 

for all of your districts for so many years that I am honored to be 

speaking in front of you. 

I don’t engage climate deniers. I think it slows us down and 

wastes our time. I engage people who are at the margins, who don’t 

know that they are living at the intersection of injustice and 

climate change. And I try to inspire and provide information to 

those people, so that they know that their lives are at risk and the 

future of their children is at risk. 

I want folks in our communities to know that things like power 

plants that are run by gas produce NOx, SOx, PM2.5 and all of 

those particulates that get trapped in the air passages of our children and our elders because our elders are going to be tremendously vulnerable in the face of climate change. 

So, that is what I do. I try to reach people’s hearts and minds. 

But first they need to have hearts and minds. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Thank you. 

Ms. DiPerna, in which countries do you see businesses making 

the greatest efforts toward addressing climate change? And why is 

that the case? 

Ms. DIPERNA. Thank you. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. And I am sorry if this question has been asked. 

Ms. DIPERNA. No, no. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. I was absent from this important hearing because I am the Chair of the Small Business Committee and we 

were holding a hearing on the government’s shutdown impact on 

small businesses. 

Ms. DIPERNA. Well, first of all, the question wasn’t asked. And 

second, as a New Yorker, I am also delighted to see you. And thank 

you for your decades, years of service. 
108 

With regard to companies in our country, it isn’t that they are 

not doing anything. On the contrary, they see the risks, as I said 

earlier, and are being driven to take proactive measures to protect 

their business supply chains, and so on. 

But with regard to your question, these companies operate in a 

global environment more and more. For example, you have the 

European Union, which has instigated very, very strong regulations, particularly looking at the fiduciary responsibility of companies and are they operating within parameters that recognize the 

risks they may face. And, of course, shareholders are ordinary people very often. They are not just rich people—401(k)s are involved. 

With regard to some interesting things going on, for example, 

China—I know there is lots of controversy about China, but China 

has declared an ecological civilization. It is built into their national 

program. They are making tremendous investments in solar 

energy. Morocco has taken tremendous steps to establish targets. 

And with all due respect to all the debate, this is not an eitheror situation. Precisely, we need an energy mix. Precisely, we have 

to use a bit of natural gas to make renewables less expensive. I 

mean, this is definitely not an either-or. And it is certainly not a 

choice between top-down or bottom-up. This is a very complex problem, which has been stated. Everybody has a stake in it. And 

companies are very much benefiting and would benefit from a 

smoothing of the requirements, so that they don’t have to have different operations, one country to the other. That is very expensive. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Thank you. 

Ms. DIPERNA. Thank you. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Ms. Yeampierre, a huge barrier for sustainable 

communities, whether large or small, seems to be management, 

waste management. As a member of the Transform Don’t Trash 

campaign, how can we urge largely populated cities to be aggressive when asking steps toward zero waste? 

Ms. YEAMPIERRE. I was invited to speak in Amsterdam by an 

international organization that is trying to get businesses to become more sustainable and take responsibility for their practices. 

All over the world, businesses know that they will suffer and they 

will lose income because of climate change. 

And, then, locally, we have been working with small businesses 

to become climate adaptable, because they are literally the heart 

of, the economic driver in our community. 

So, I think, going toward zero waste is really important. When 

we started working with the small businesses, and we were trying 

to get them to move away from Styrofoam, we also presented them 

with alternatives that were affordable and the idea of creating cooperatives, so that they could reduce the cost. There are all kinds 

of things that we can do with businesses so that we can move them 

away from using products and working in a way that makes them 

unsustainable. So, that is happening locally. 

Ms. VELA ́ ZQUEZ. Thank you. 

I yield back my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Gosar. 

Dr. GOSAR. I thank the Chairman. I just heard that we are citing 

China as being a good actor. A net increase in new coal plants were 
109 

built in 2017 with China accounting for 34 of the 61 megawatts 

that were actually generated. Wow, China is the biggest polluter in 

the world. India right behind them. 

Mr. Hollie, I have to come back to you. I have heard statements 

that climate impacts different communities. 

Mr. HOLLIE. Yes, sir. 

Dr. GOSAR. What communities are hit most by the policies like 

the Green New Deal? 

Mr. HOLLIE. Minority and low-income communities, just because 

we cannot afford the rise in cost that will be associated with these 

policies. 

And, like I said, many people are struggling right now to pay 

their energy bills. 

Dr. GOSAR. Well, this is interesting, because I keep hearing this 

thing about energy. Are you familiar with baseload energy versus 

intermittent energy? 

Mr. HOLLIE. Somewhat. 

Dr. GOSAR. OK. So, I guess what we have to look at is baseload 

energy happens all the time, 24/7. But intermittent, like solar and 

wind, if the wind doesn’t blow and the sun doesn’t shine, it isn’t 

going to work. 

Mr. HOLLIE. Right. 

Dr. GOSAR. OK? There is a very big difference along those 

applications. 

The problem that we have with baseload energy, with new technology, is molten-salt batteries don’t work real well. The other side 

is not interested in rare earths, and the mining capacities of those 

that actually help us with new technology called battery capacity. 

So, we have a problem. 

Because it is convenient in Phoenix, Arizona, when you need 

energy at the middle of the day, when you don’t get it, or at night 

time, when temperatures are at 120. It is kind of hard to tell minority groups, ‘‘Just live with it.’’ 

Mr. HOLLIE. Yes, sir. I would agree with that. And that is one 

of the things that I would disagree with the Reverend here is I 

never said that, we don’t agree that climate change does not exist. 

However, my point is until we find a way, a solution to harness 

those renewables to sustain ourselves, then we have to use what 

we’ve got. And we have an abundance of affordable and reliable 

energy in this country, and we need to use it. 

Dr. GOSAR. Oh, I agree. In fact, one of the companies in northern 

Scottsdale in Arizona uses sun during the day and gas at night, because it delivers uniform delivery on our grid. So, very important 

to do that. 

But I want to concentrate on something else. I am a dentist, so 

science is a big deal to me. And if we are talking about carbon 

sequestration, it seems to me like what we want to have is a very 

dynamic, engaging forest. 

Dr. Curry, would you agree? 

Dr. CURRY. I think land use is a very big deal, including—— 

Dr. GOSAR. I want to get more specific: photosynthesis, like 

plants take in clean oxygen, right, and produce carbon dioxide. No, 

they take in carbon dioxide, produce oxygen. They take in dirty 

water, produce clean water. 
110 

So, it seems to me, if we really want to address this, we want 

to look at the best carbon trap we have, which is a healthy, vibrant 

forest. And I have heard over and over again that climate change 

is the problem with our forest burning up. That is not the case. 

I am from Arizona. Ponderosa forests are 40 to 60 trees per acre. 

That is fact. That is what a healthy forest should look like. But 

what we have, because of lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit, we 

have 800 to 1,000 trees per acre. These starving trees raise to the 

sunlight, and what ends up happening is when we get these fires, 

they are no longer landscape fires on the grasslands, they are treetop fires. 

And I want to quote exactly what we saw last year. Wildfires— 

this is PolitiFact: ‘‘Wildfires produce more of one key pollutant, 

particulate matter, than cars both in California and nationwide. 

Particulate matter is a mixture of microscopic particles and liquid 

droplets that, when inhaled, can affect the heart and lungs and 

cause serious health problems.’’ 

I heard this all along this panel right here, about asthma and all 

that stuff. Listen to this: ‘‘According to U.S. Geological Survey, 

wildfires in California in 2018 released enough—roughly equivalent 

of 86 million tons—of heat-trapping carbon dioxide, the same 

amount of carbon emissions that are produced in a year providing 

electricity for an entire state.’’ 

So, if we are going to concentrate on this carbon sequestration, 

I think we ought to be looking at our forests being adaptive. I am 

part of the Western Caucus. We had a number of different opportunities to look at good neighbor. In fact, one of the most liberal bastions in my state, Coconino County, passed a bond levy to actually 

start thinning the forest so they had a dynamic interface to stop 

the fire, Number 1, and Number 2 is get it more dynamic for 

carbon sequestration. 

Would you agree with all those synopses, Dr. Curry? 

Dr. CURRY. Most of it. The life cycle of a forest is—it has a 

complex interaction with CO2. At some point it becomes not so 

much of a sequestration. So, managing forests to prevent wildfires 

and to maximize the CO2 uptake is certainly a sensible policy. 

Dr. GOSAR. And one quick indulgence. A dynamic forest is young 

trees, medium-growth trees, and old-growth trees, because what we 

know is young and medium-growth trees produce more oxygen than 

they do carbon, as the older the tree gets the less they do. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Horsford. 

Mr. HORSFORD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am very 

excited that you have given us this opportunity to really have a robust discussion around climate change. This is an issue that is very 

important to each of us individually, collectively, to the future of 

our children. 

My oldest son, who is now a freshman in college, asks me all the 

time, ‘‘When is Congress going to act to address the issues of 

climate change?’’ 

As we have heard here today, the impacts of climate change become greater every year. In my home state of Nevada, a desert 

state, it is particularly vulnerable to the changing climate. By 
111 

2050, it is projected that the city of Las Vegas will experience 106 

days per year with temperatures upwards of 105 degrees. 

To provide context, Las Vegas currently averages 70 days per 

year with temperatures more than 100 degrees. It is hot in Vegas. 

But the fact that we are having those many days per year over 100 

degrees is just one example. 

Even more concerning, by 2050 the typical number of heat-wave 

days in Nevada is projected to increase from 15 days per year to 

55 days per year. According to the Ready Public Service campaign 

of the Department of Homeland Security, extreme heat results in 

the highest number of annual deaths among all weather-related 

hazards. 

Mr. Chairman, sadly, seniors and children are at greatest risk of 

death during heat waves. Lake Mead, which supplies water to 

more than 90 percent of Las Vegas, and roughly 25 million people 

throughout Nevada, California, and Arizona, continued to deplete 

at an alarming rate, due to increasing temperatures caused by 

climate change. And in 2016, Lake Mead, which is fed by the 

Colorado River, reached its lowest level on record, and now holds 

just 37 percent of its original capacity. 

As occurrence of extreme heat rises, the depletion of the Colorado 

River and Lake Mead is projected to worsen in the future. Additionally, more than 1.2 million people living in Nevada, or 46 

percent of our state’s population, live in areas at elevated risk of 

wildfire. As extreme temperatures increase, especially in drought 

years, the risk of wildfires will continue to rise. 

So, the people of Nevada, like people across the United States, 

are looking for solutions. And they are looking for this Congress to 

act. 

Ms. DiPerna, I want to ask you whether your organization, which 

works with businesses to understand the business investor impacts, if you can talk to me about the heat waves and drought and 

how they are a significant concern, and how water issues, particularly around companies and investors, are dealing with this particular issue, and if there are examples that you know in our home 

state of Nevada. 

Ms. DIPERNA. Well, as a matter of fact, today we are having our 

supply chain conference in Las Vegas. And, as I mentioned in my 

testimony, Caesar’s Entertainment is very concerned about the cost 

of water. They have facilities in very dry areas, southern Africa, 

and so on. Dr. Pepper, I mentioned, is also concerned. Every company is worried about water. 

And Dr. Cobb mentioned the carbon pricing. I think it would be 

interesting for you all to know that most companies in the country, 

including Oklahoma Gas and Electric, are using internal carbon 

prices to gauge the potential cost of these sort of hidden hitchhikers, which are these carbons that go up into the atmosphere 

that we don’t see, but which cost us something. So, people are 

using an internal carbon price in anticipation of regulation, or to 

deal with existing regulations in the jurisdictions where they are 

covered by regulation. 

On the water matter, because of increasing water scarcity, companies have begun to also set an internal water price, because they 

need to begin to come to terms with the increase in cost of water, 
112 

the increasing scarcity. And even more to the point, the increasing 

lack of usability. Water is potable or usable. We are beginning to 

have less potable and certainly less usable, unless we spend a lot 

of money to clean it. 

Now, here is where the impact on the poor is potentially catastrophic, because they will have to pass that cost on. There will 

never be one other drop of water on this Earth. It is all here. You 

can’t make water, so we are into an ultimate scarcity there. And 

I think that I can provide you with a lot of information from our 

water disclosure. Company after company is concerned about 

water. And the IT industry, in particular, because they need to cool 

those data centers with water. So, their energy costs are climbing. 

Cooling is becoming a very big cost. 

So, it is a complex system. You can’t tease out one little bit. But 

you are the government of the entire country, and so we all look 

to you to put all the pieces together. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Graves. 

Mr. GRAVES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Dr. Cobb, I missed some of your comments earlier, but I understand you had raised concerns about energy production and fisheries, and I just wanted to make note that my home state of 

Louisiana, we produce more offshore energy in the Federal waters 

than any other state. In fact, I think we would take the other five 

states that produce and multiply times four, that is how much offshore energy we produce. 

We are also the top fisheries producer, in terms of commercial 

fisheries in the continental United States. There is a habitat that 

is created by the energy infrastructure. I don’t think we have done 

a great job managing that, in regard to—I think we can take advantage of rigs to reefs programs and others. But I did just want 

to make note that that is really the hotbed ecosystem or habitat 

for many of the fisheries in Louisiana. 

In the first panel, I brought up a letter from May 2018. That letter was signed by Senators Schumer, Cantwell, Menendez, and 

Markey. That letter was written to the President of the United 

States, asking that the President work with our OPEC allies to 

increase—to increase—global oil production. 

I am going to say that again. Senators Menendez, Markey, 

Cantwell, and Schumer, May 2018, asking the President to work 

with OPEC to increase oil production, saying that increased production will result in lower energy prices. 

Yet, it was interesting in that the first panel, some of the 

governors that were here, talked about how their efforts to help to 

reduce emissions were benefiting everyone. But I looked, for example, at the state of Massachusetts that was represented here. Their 

kilowatt hour electricity cost was more than twice that, more than 

200 percent that of my home state of Louisiana, which I just 

thought was interesting. 

Mr. Hollie, I am just curious. Could you share any reflections on 

just that balance of how do we pursue a climate policy agenda legislation, while at the same time not adversely affect our citizens? 

How do we strike that balance? 
113 

Mr. HOLLIE. Yes, sir. I actually had the chance to visit your state 

over the summer. 

Mr. GRAVES. Come back any time, any of you. 

Mr. HOLLIE. Down to Port Fourchon, where we had the opportunity to see where all the on-shore operations take place for all 

the offshore. 

And also when I took the tour of Port Fourchon, they talked 

about how countries come from around the world to study the Gulf 

because it is so rich in wildlife and the environment. 

So, what that says to me is that energy exploration can co-exist 

with wildlife and the environment. So, as long as we have that to 

look at and use as a gauge, I think that is a great place to start. 

Mr. GRAVES. Thank you. And let me be clear, we have some 

extraordinary coastal challenges. 

Ms. Yeampierre—did I do that OK? We can engage. I am not a 

climate denier, I just have really struggled with how we find the 

right balance in sort of criteria that we use here to move forward 

on legislation. 

I am curious, Dr. Curry. One of the rule changes that I tried to 

make in this Committee last week was a rule that would cause us 

to evaluate the job impacts and economic impacts, and try to quantify temperature and sea rise impacts and other things on legislation we progressed. 

Do you have any thoughts on how do we properly use criteria or 

metrics to determine which legislation is actually going to be helpful, in balance, in what may be weighted too hard toward job 

losses, or too hard toward other things that is just not really advancing a public win or a public goal? Does that make sense? 

Dr. CURRY. Well, sort of. This is why I called climate change a 

wicked problem, why myself and others refer to it as a wicked 

problem. It is hard to even define the problem. The boundaries just 

seem to ever expand. The impacts are very wide. No matter what 

policy we propose, there is bound to be unintended consequences. 

So, it is a big challenge to sort through all that. 

And the approach to me that seems to work the best is where 

communities and states work to secure their common interests, 

which are very specific to their location, their economy, their population, their vulnerabilities, as we try to sort through this, rather 

than a big, top-down mandate. 

So, that is my thinking on the subject. I wish there was a simple 

silver-bullet solution, but there isn’t. 

Mr. GRAVES. Thank you. And to comply with my commitment, I 

am going to yield back my 8 seconds. 

The CHAIRMAN. You are very kind, thank you. 

The bell was about votes being called. Before adjourning the 

meeting, let me thank the panel, the second panel. As many of the 

questions, the perspectives my colleagues have brought up when 

they asked you questions—and rather than repeat the same ones 

over again, let me just thank Ms. Nazar. Thank you very much. I 

think your presence here and your testimony talks about us looking 

beyond our nose, as Members of Congress, to think about the 

future, your generation, generations to follow. 

And this issue of climate change, what I did learn today is that 

maybe we are not in full-blown, full-throated denial as we were. 
114 

We are into a different phase, which is climate change avoidance. 

And what can we do to stall, change, tinker with the science, raise 

issues that are meant to slow any solution-seeking or policies or 

legislative initiatives to deal with this very urgent problem. 

Ms. Yeampierre and Reverend, thank you very much. The frontline communities and communities most impacted in a disparate 

way by unabated climate change and no solution seeking and an 

afterthought in the policy making, you made sure that those are 

front and center in the discussion around issues of justice, equity, 

access, and inclusion, and I want to thank you for that. That is 

very, very important. 

Too often, we make policies at this level, and then have to backtrack because, obviously, the impact was never dealt with. And as 

we seek solutions, that equity has to be part of the discussion all 

the way down. 

Dr. Cobb, thank you very much for bringing to bear what I think 

is essential in the solution seeking, that is empirical information 

and science, and we will go from there. That having been absent 

in the last 2 years, that is no longer going to be the case. Our 

guidepost needs to be science and facts and empirical information. 

And if those are the guideposts, we can move forward. And I have 

every intention of making sure that is central to the discussion. 

I also want to thank Ms. DiPerna for bringing to light about 

businesses. And with or without regulations, that, in anticipation 

of what is coming, they are preparing. And just as the economic engines of this country of us in this world are preparing for climate 

change, we should be preparing for everyone else, to make sure 

that we confront this and deal with it. So, I appreciate your information very much. 

And on that note, let me thank you. It is the first hearing. I appreciate your indulgence, as I failed to manage the clock accurately, but it all worked out. And we will go forward. Each 

Subcommittee will now take upon itself from this Committee to 

have a similar hearing dealing with that jurisdiction, as we go 

forward. 

This Committee, as Mr. Bishop said, has a lot under the jurisdiction. We feel we over 20 percent of the legislative adaptation and 

solution—public lands, waters, oceans, and the jurisdiction that is 

brought, and we intend to pursue it that way. It is a task that we 

can’t ignore, and your testimony today made it abundantly clear 

that it is something we can’t ignore, and in urgency we must deal 

with it with haste, and not stall, avoid, or ignore it. 

Thank you very much. 

The meeting is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1:36 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

[ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. DEBBIE DINGELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN

Thank you, Chairman Grijalva and Ranking Member Bishop, for convening this 

hearing to discuss the threat of climate change and next steps to address this issue. 

As a Member of Congress from Michigan, the Great Lakes State, I understand 

firsthand the importance of addressing climate change and safeguarding our 

environment for future generations. 
115 

The Great Lakes are fundamental to our Nation’s environmental and economic 

well-being. As the single largest surface freshwater source on Earth, the Great 

Lakes watershed supports countless wildlife and serves as an important source of 

fresh drinking water to tens of millions of Americans, whose health is directly tied 

to that of the Great Lakes ecosystem. 

Climate change threatens to destabilize this ecosystem, putting the health and 

well-being of my constituents and millions of others at risk. 

Additionally, we have already seen the impact of climate change through increased incidence of deadly wildfires in the western United States, as well as stronger and more destructive hurricanes on the Gulf and Atlantic Coasts. 

The cause of these extreme events is indisputable. According to the Trump administration’s own National Climate Assessment released last year, ‘‘Earth’s climate is 

now changing faster than at any point in the history of modern civilization, 

primarily as a result of human activities.’’ 

Simply put, climate change is already threatening our public health, our economy, 

and our national security. 

The magnitude of this threat demands bold action, and we must work to address 

this urgent issue without delay. 

We must promote renewable energy, commit to investing in new technology, and 

redouble our conservation efforts to mitigate, adapt, and reverse the growing climate 

threat. 

Additionally, we must rejoin our partners in the international community by 

committing to the Paris Climate Accord and taking strong action to limit future 

greenhouse gas emissions. 

There is not a single American who will be unaffected by climate change, and I 

look forward to working with all my colleagues, regardless of background or party, 

to take serious action to address climate change. 

It is my hope that today’s hearing underscores the need for bold climate action. 

We must put our differences aside and take the aggressive actions needed to safeguard our planet for future generations. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. JODY B. HICE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF GEORGIA

Look, everyone knows I’m a dyed-in-the-wool Georgia Bulldogs fan, and it sure 

was fun seeing our two running backs face off in the Super Bowl this past Sunday. 

However, I would be remiss if I did not thank former Georgia Tech professor, Dr. 

Judith Curry and current Georgia Tech professor, Dr. Kim Cobb for being with us 

today. The Georgia Institute of Technology is one of the most important public research universities in our Nation and the world, and we thank you both for lending 

your expertise to us here today. 

FACEBOOK, 

WASHINGTON, DC 

February 8, 2019 

Hon. RAU ́ L GRIJALVA, Chairman, 

Hon. ROB BISHOP, Ranking Member, 

House Committee on Natural Resources, 

1324 Longworth House Office Building, 

Washington, DC 20515. 

Dear Chairman Grijalva, Ranking Member Bishop, and distinguished members of 

the Committee: 

We appreciate your leadership in convening the hearing, ‘‘Climate Change: 

Impacts and the Need to Act,’’ and we thank you for the opportunity to submit this 

statement. Climate change deserves close attention and creative solutions by both 

policymakers and industry leaders. 

At Facebook, we are prioritizing our work to combat climate change, especially as 

it relates to our own sustainability objectives. As you know, sustainability within 

corporations is more than simply operating responsibly. We are working to minimize 

the impact of our energy, emissions, and water usage, protect workers and the 
116 

environment in our supply chain, and partner with others to develop and share solutions for a more sustainable world. Our goal is to support the communities we are 

a part of and to make a bigger positive impact on the world. 

Creating and maintaining facilities that contribute positively to our communities 

is a top priority for our company. Specifically, Facebook has set a science-based 

target to reduce our emissions by 75 percent by 2020. Between 2011 and 2017, 

Facebook avoided emitting over 2 million metric tons of CO2 thanks to these 

efforts—the equivalent of taking 266,000 vehicles off the road for a year. 

Facebook was one of the first companies to commit to supporting our facilities 

with 100 percent renewable energy in 2011, and our goal is to hit that target by 

2020. Our data centers are among the most energy efficient in the world. For each 

new data center Facebook builds, we add new renewable energy to the same electric 

grid as our facilities, and we do it in a way that often increases options for other 

businesses in those communities. We are proud that just last month, a report from 

Bloomberg New Energy Finance found that Facebook was the largest corporate 

purchaser of renewable energy last year worldwide. 

Facebook embraces our responsibility and opportunity to impact the world beyond 

our operations. For example, we use rigorous sustainable design standards to ensure 

that our facilities are constructed with responsible materials, utilize natural daylight, and are energy and water conscious. All of our data centers have achieved 

LEED Gold certification. 

As the Committee continues its work on climate change, we look forward to being 

part of the conversation on how companies like Facebook can have an impact on this 

important issue. 

Sincerely, 

KEVIN MARTIN, 

Vice President, U.S. Public Policy. 

[LIST OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD RETAINED IN THE

COMMITTEE’S OFFICIAL FILES]

Submission for the Record by Rep. Grijalva 

— NOAA Report, U.S. and Global Climate for 2018. 

Submission for the Record by Rep. Neguse 

— ‘‘Climate Change in Rocky Mountain National Park,’’ National 

Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, March 2014. 

Æ