U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

75–205 PDF 2012

S. HRG. 110–1153 

CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS AND RESPONSES 

IN ISLAND COMMUNITIES 

FIELD HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, 

SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MARCH 19, 2008 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation 

( 

(II) 

SENATE COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii, Chairman 

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia 

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts 

BYRON L. DORGAN, North Dakota 

BARBARA BOXER, California 

BILL NELSON, Florida 

MARIA CANTWELL, Washington 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

MARK PRYOR, Arkansas 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

TED STEVENS, Alaska, Vice Chairman 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas 

OLYMPIA J. SNOWE, Maine 

GORDON H. SMITH, Oregon 

JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada 

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire 

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN THUNE, South Dakota 

ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi 

MARGARET L. CUMMISKY, Democratic Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

LILA HARPER HELMS, Democratic Deputy Staff Director and Policy Director 

CHRISTINE D. KURTH, Republican Staff Director and General Counsel 

PAUL NAGLE, Republican Chief Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hearing held on March 19, 2008 ............................................................................ 1 

Statement of Senator Inouye .................................................................................. 1 

WITNESSES

Kim, Karl, Ph.D., Professor and Chair, Department of Urban and Regional 

Planning, University of Hawai‘i at Ma ̄noa ........................................................ 46 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 49 

Leong, Ph.D., Jo-Ann C., Director, Hawai‘i Institute of Marine Biology, School 

of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology, University of Hawai‘i at 

Ma ̄noa .................................................................................................................... 7 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 10 

Mackenzie, Ph.D., Fred T., Department of Oceanography, School of Ocean 

and Earth Science and Technology, University of Hawai’i at Ma ̄noa ............. 18 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 22 

Rocheleau, Ph.D., Richard E., Director and Terry Surles, Researcher, Hawaii 

Natural Energy Institute, University of Hawaii at Manoa .............................. 35 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 39 

Thomas, Bill, Director, Pacific Services Center, NOAA, U.S. Department of 

Commerce ............................................................................................................. 2 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 4 

Uehara, Dr. Goro, College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources, 

University of Hawai‘i at Ma ̄noa .......................................................................... 51 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 53 

APPENDIX

Response to written questions submitted by Hon. Daniel K. Inouye to: 

Karl Kim, Ph.D. ................................................................................................ 93 

Jo-Ann C. Leong, Ph.D. .................................................................................... 71 

Fred T. Mackenzie, Ph.D. ................................................................................ 71 

Richard E. Rocheleau, Ph.D. ........................................................................... 82 

Bill Thomas ....................................................................................................... 87 

Dr. Goro Uehara ............................................................................................... 86 

(1) 

CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS AND RESPONSES 

IN ISLAND COMMUNITIES 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 19, 2008 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE, SCIENCE, AND TRANSPORTATION, Honolulu, HI. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in room 325, 

Hawaii State Capitol Building, Honolulu, Hawaii, Hon. Daniel K. 

Inouye, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM HAWAII 

The CHAIRMAN. I’d like to thank all of you for joining us today. 

Over the past year, climate change has become a topic of discussion, not only at the highest government levels, but throughout the 

world, and it’s become a political issue. 

New important research and assessments continue to be produced, which allow the public and policymakers to make more informed decisions, and engage in more meaningful discussions. 

Speaking of discussions, I believe one of the most important ones 

was held last year at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Bali. I considered this important enough to send some 

of my staff there. 

This meeting, as you may be aware, established a road map to 

develop a new approach that will serve as the logical extension of 

the Kyoto Protocol. 

Regardless of the causes of climate change, its effects are felt by 

everyone. That fact is never more apparent than for those who call 

this island community a home. 

Islands have unique characteristics that make them especially 

vulnerable to climate change and variability. While our island state 

faces distinct challenges, it also has significant opportunities when 

it comes to climate change, because we’re blessed with the full 

spectrum of renewable sources of energy. We have multiple days of 

sunshine, we have a healthy trade wind, most of the time, we have 

great, world-class waves, and geothermal hot spots, so we can decrease our dependence on fossil fuels. 

Hawaii’s consumers have suffered from some of the highest fuel 

and utility costs in the Nation. In fact, a few days ago, Maui hit 

the first $4 a gallon in the Nation. By producing our electricity 

from renewable sources locally, we keep those dollars in the state. 

This also means we can reduce our carbon dioxide emissions. 

Clearly we possess the natural resources to lead the research, development and integration of clean, renewable energy technologies, 

2 

and become a model for the rest of the Nation. We’ve already taken 

significant steps. 

Locally, Honolulu is one of the more than 170 local governments 

participating in the Cities for Climate Protection. At the state level, 

Hawaii is one of only three states that have passed laws establishing mandatory, economy-wide, greenhouse gas emission limits, 

requiring the states or the utilities to provide 20 percent of electricity production from renewable sources by 2020. 

In February, Hawaii partnered with DOE to produce 70 percent 

of the state’s energy from renewable resources by 2030. We’re the 

only state to create this kind of partnership, so we’re ahead of the 

curve. 

We’re also addressing climate change issues beyond energy, for 

example, Hawaii has taken steps to lead in planning and adapting 

to the impacts of climate change and other natural disasters 

through the newly authorized National Disaster Preparedness 

Training Center, housed at the University of Hawai‘i. 

So, I look forward to the testimony of the distinguished witnesses 

we have assembled here, to hear more about our involvement in 

understanding climate issues, and how we’re responding to the opportunities and challenges. 

Our first witness is the Director of the Pacific Services Center, 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Mr. Bill Thomas. 

Mr. Thomas, welcome, sir. 

STATEMENT OF BILL THOMAS, DIRECTOR, PACIFIC SERVICES 

CENTER, NOAA, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 

Mr. THOMAS. Thank you, Senator. Good morning, Senator 

Inouye, Members of the Committee. I’m Bill Thomas, Director of 

NOAA’s Pacific Services Center, and I’d like to extend my sincerest 

mahalo for the opportunity to testify on the impacts of climate 

change on the Hawaiian Pacific Islands, and those efforts to assist 

the region in managing their resources in the face of this challenge. 

It’s well-documented in scientific literature and publicized in the 

media, that our changing climate will have impacts on a global 

scale, and as you stated earlier, island communities are particularly susceptible to climate change. 

In 2007, a NOAA-sponsored Coastal Zone Visioning Session held 

right here, in Hawaii, identified climate change as its number one 

issue. In addition, at a recent meeting of all island coastal managers, every jurisdiction set climate change as their most important 

area of concern. 

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s recently published Assessment Report, and other similar reports, have identified small island communities as particularly vulnerable to climate 

variability and change. The impacts highlighted in these reports include the following: sea level rise is expected to exacerbate coastal 

hazards, there’s a projected reduction in water resources in many 

small islands—the Pacific and the Caribbean, alike—to the point 

where, by mid-century, resources may be insufficient to meet demand during low rainfall periods. Invasion of non-native species is 

expected to occur with rising temperatures, and other existing 

human influences on fisheries and marine ecosystems, such as 

3 

over-fishing, habitat destruction, pollution and excess nutrients 

will be exacerbated. 

But currently scientists and decisionmakers in the Pacific are engaged in individual and collaborative efforts to understand the nature of the climate change impacts described in the IPCC’s report, 

and explore our options for both mitigation, and adaptation. 

This shared effort involves NOAA, other Federal partners, state 

agencies, university scientists, community leaders, and non-governmental organizations. NOAA’s Pacific Region is engaged in a number of initiatives to help our island communities both to collect atmospheric and oceanic data, and plan for, mitigate against, and 

adapt to climate change. 

I’ll now highlight a few prominent efforts, I also have a longer 

list in my written testimony. 

Observations and data collection—NOAA is undertaking a number of critical climate programs and activities, including contributing to global and regional climate and ocean observing systems, 

providing operational forecasts on climate variability, and developing improved models that provide long-term projections on climate change. 

In fact, NOAA’s Mauna Lau Observatory has been measuring atmospheric gases for over 50 years, and the data has been instrumental in forming the basis for the theory of global atmospheric 

change. 

On a regional scale, NOAA has developed the Pacific Climate Information System, or PaCIS, an integrated organization that brings 

together NOAA’s regional assets, as well as those of its partners, 

to provide a programmatic framework to integrate ongoing and future climate observations, forecasting services and climate projections, and outreach and communications that will address the 

needs of American flag, and U.S.-affiliated Pacific Islands. 

PaCIS will also serve as the United States contribution to the 

World Meteorological Organization’s Regional Climate Centre for 

Oceania. 

Risk management decision-support tools—discussions with Pacific disaster management agencies and coastal managers over the 

past decade have highlighted concerns about sea level rise and 

coastal inundation as one of the most significant climate-related 

issues facing our coastal communities in the Pacific. 

As a result, in 2003 NOAA formed the Pacific Risk Management 

‘Ohana, or PRMO, which is a network of partners and stakeholders 

involved in the development and delivery of risk management-related information, products and services in the Pacific. 

This multi-agency, multi-organizational, multi-national group, 

brings together representatives from agencies, institutions and organizations involved in Pacific risk management-related projects 

and activities, with the overall goal of enhancing communication, 

coordination, and collaboration among the ‘ohana of partners and 

stakeholders involved in this work. 

As a result of this collaboration, several ideas that emerged over 

the years have led to the development of decision-support and community planning tools that aid managers and the general public in 

better understanding risks, and in making the best possible socioeconomic decisions. 

4 

In conclusion, again, I’d like to thank you for the opportunity to 

appear before you today. NOAA’s Pacific Region will continue to 

work with our island communities to develop tools, products and 

services, to move toward realizing NOAA’s vision of an informed society that uses a comprehensive understanding of the role of the 

oceans, coasts, and atmosphere in the global ecosystem to make the 

best social and economic decisions. I’d be happy to answer any 

questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Thomas follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BILL THOMAS, DIRECTOR, PACIFIC SERVICES CENTER, NOAA, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Introduction 

Good morning, Senator Inouye and Members of the Committee. I am Bill Thomas, 

Director of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Pacific 

Services Center. I thank you for the opportunity to testify on the impacts of climate 

change on Hawaii and the Pacific Islands and NOAA’s efforts to assist the region 

in managing their resources in the face of this challenge. 

Over the last 50 years, researchers at NOAA’s Mauna Loa Observatory (MLO) in 

Hawai’i have been measuring the increasing concentrations of carbon dioxide and 

other greenhouse gases in the Earth’s atmosphere. This long-term carbon dioxide 

record has been instrumental in forming the basis for the theory of global atmospheric change as well as acting as a catalyst for international policies. It is now 

well-documented in scientific literature and publicized in the media that our changing climate will have impacts on a global scale. Today, we must now begin to understand and address the impacts of climate change in highly vulnerable locations. 

Island communities, such as Hawai’i and other Pacific Islands, are particularly 

susceptible to climate change impacts. This was apparent to participants at a coastal zone visioning session held in Hawai’i in 2007, organized by NOAA and sponsored 

by its Pacific Region, where climate change was identified as the number one issue. 

In addition, at a recent meeting of island coastal managers, every jurisdiction cited 

climate change as their most important area of concern. 

Changing Climate and its Impacts on Pacific Islands 

The recently published Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel 

on Climate Change (IPCC–AR4) has updated the projections of changing climate 

conditions (i.e., temperature, rainfall, sea level, and extreme events) and the consequences for Pacific Islands and other small island states. IPCC–AR4 confirms the 

vulnerabilities identified in the 2001 Pacific Islands regional assessment and provides insights into then less widely understood climate-related challenges such as 

ocean acidification. 

The IPCC–AR4 and similar climate assessment reports identify small island communities like those in the Pacific as particularly vulnerable to climate variability 

and change. There are similar threads regarding small island impacts that run 

through such reports including: 

• Deterioration of coastal conditions is expected to affect local resources and reduce their value as tourist destinations (e.g., the combined effect of increased 

ocean temperatures and ocean acidification on coral reef resources). 

• Sea level rise is expected to exacerbate coastal hazards such as inundation, 

storm surge and erosion as well as reduction of freshwater availability due to 

saltwater intrusion, especially in low-lying islands. 

• Climate change is projected to reduce water resources in many small islands 

(Pacific and Caribbean) to the point where, by mid-century, resources may be 

insufficient to meet demand during low rainfall periods. 

• Invasion of non-native species is expected to occur with rising temperatures. 

• Climate change will exacerbate other existing human influences on fisheries 

and marine ecosystems such as over-fishing, habitat destruction, pollution, and 

excess nutrients. 

NOAA in the Pacific Islands: Developing Capacity to Deal with Climate 

Change 

NOAA’s Pacific Region is a hallmark of an integrated approach to problem-solving. 

5 

The Pacific Risk Management ‘Ohana (PRiMO) 

The Pacific Risk Management ‘Ohana (PRiMO) is a network of partners and 

stakeholders involved in the development and delivery of risk management-related 

information, products, and services in the Pacific and is led by the NOAA Pacific 

Services Center. Established in 2003, this multi-agency, multi-organizational, multinational group brings together representatives from agencies, institutions, and organizations involved in Pacific risk management-related projects and activities with 

the overall goal of enhancing communication, coordination, and collaboration among 

the ‘ohana of partners and stakeholders involved in this work. As a result of this 

collaboration, several ideas that emerged over the years have led to the development 

of decision-support and community planning tools that aid a cross section from managers to the general public in better understanding risks and in making the best 

possible socio-economic decisions. Examples of these collaborations include: 

Decision Support Tools 

• Hazard Assessment Tools (HATs) have been developed in partnership with 

NOAA’s Pacific Region, local governments in American Samoa, Guam, and Hawai’i (County of Kaua’i). These tools use Geographic Information Systems (GIS) 

maps to integrate hazard risk information, such as sea level rise projections, 

along with local information on infrastructure, natural resources, and administrative boundaries to improve both short and long term decisionmaking. 

• The Hazard Education and Awareness Tool (HEAT) is a template which allows 

any organization the ability to create a simple website which provides public 

access to local hazard maps for their community. Additional information on appropriate response and preparedness actions are also included. 

• Nonpoint Source Pollution and Erosion Comparison Tool (N–SPECT) is a decision support tool which allows coastal managers to compare potential water 

quality impacts of land cover change that may occur from changes in climate. 

Data 

• The Coastal Change Analysis Program (C–CAP) is a nationally standardized 

database of land cover and land change information, developed using remotely 

sensed imagery, for the coastal regions of the U.S. C–CAP products inventory 

coastal intertidal areas, wetlands, and adjacent uplands with the goal of monitoring these habitats by updating the land cover maps every 5 years. Its primary objective is to improve scientific understanding of the linkages between 

coastal wetland habitats, adjacent uplands, and living marine resources. Land 

cover data from C–CAP has been developed for Hawai’i from satellite images 

acquired in both 2000 and 2005. High resolution elevation data for Hawai’i was 

collected in 2005 using Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar (IFSAR). This 

elevation data provides resource managers with the highest resolution elevation 

data currently available for Hawai’i. This data is invaluable for determining potential impacts of changes in climate, such as sea level rise, in areas where 

higher resolution data may not be available. 

Community Planning Tools 

• The Coastal Community Resilience (CCR) Guide presents a framework for assessing resilience of communities to coastal hazards. The work was the result 

of a partnership funded through the Indian Ocean Tsunami Warning System 

Program and is being piloted for application in Hawai’i. The framework, developed in concert with over 140 international partners, encourages integration of 

coastal resource management, community development, and disaster management for enhancing resilience to hazards, including those that may occur as a 

result of climate change. 

The Pacific Enso Application Center (PEAC) 

Pacific Island communities continually deal with dramatic seasonal and year-toyear changes in rainfall, temperature, water levels and tropical cyclone patterns associated with the El Nin ̃ o-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) cycle in the Pacific. This dynamic system involving the Pacific Ocean and the atmosphere above it can bring 

droughts, floods, landslides, and changes in exposure to tropical storms. Fourteen 

years ago, NOAA joined forces with the University of Hawai’i, the University of 

Guam, and the Pacific Basin Development Council to begin a small research pilot 

project designed to develop, deliver, and use forecasts of El Nin ̃ o-based changes in 

temperature, rainfall, and storms to support decisionmaking in the American Flag 

and U.S.-Affiliated Pacific Islands. That pilot project—the Pacific ENSO Applications Center (PEAC)—continues its work today as part of the operational National 

6 

Weather Service programs in the Pacific. The PEAC experience has demonstrated 

the practical value of climate information for water resource management, disaster 

management, coastal resource planning, agriculture, and public health. 

The Pacific Climate Information System (PaCIS) 

The experience gained from PEAC has helped inform the emergence of a comprehensive Pacific Climate Information System (PaCIS). As an integrated organization that brings together NOAA’s regional assets as well as those of its partners, 

PaCIS provides, on a regional scale, a programmatic framework to integrate ongoing 

and future climate observations, operational forecasting services, and climate projections, research, assessment, data management, communication, outreach and education that will address the needs of American Flag and U.S.-Affiliated Pacific Islands. Within this structure, PaCIS will also serve as a United States’ contribution 

to the World Meteorological Organization’s Regional Climate Centre for Oceania and 

represents the first integrated, regional climate service in the context of emerging 

planning for a National Climate Service. 

Scientists and decision-makers in Pacific Island communities are now engaged in 

individual and collaborative efforts to understand the nature of the climate change 

impacts described in IPCC–AR4 and explore our options for both mitigation and adaptation. This shared effort involves NOAA, other Federal programs, state agencies, 

university scientists, community leaders and nongovernmental organizations. Together they are bringing their unique insights and capabilities to bear on a number 

of critical climate programs and activities including: contributions to global and regional climate and ocean observing systems; operational forecasts of seasonal-tointerannual climate variability; development and analysis of improved models that 

provide long-term projections of climate change; multi-disciplinary assessments of 

climate vulnerability, climate data stewardship, the development of new products 

and services to support adaptation and mitigation in the Pacific, and education and 

outreach programs to increase the climate (and environmental literacy) of Pacific Island communities, governments, and businesses. One of the newest activities involves a summary of the most recently published work on climate change and vulnerability in key sectors such as agriculture, water resources, and coastal infrastructure in the context of a Pacific regional contribution to a new Unified Synthesis Report of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program. This work is being supported and 

led by NOAA through its Integrated Data and Environmental Applications (NOAA 

IDEA) Center in Honolulu. While led by the NOAA IDEA Center, the full range of 

regional assets of NOAA in the Pacific are being brought to bear on this critical 

issue. 

Future planning for a number of climate programs in the Pacific will be organized 

in the context of PaCIS including building upon the PEAC, the Pacific Islands Regional Integrated Science and Assessment (Pacific RISA) program and other related 

climate activities in the region. In addition to meeting the specific needs of U.S. affiliated jurisdictions in the Pacific, PaCIS will also provide a venue in which to discuss the role of U.S. contributions to other climate-related activities in the Pacific 

including, for example, observing system programs in the region, such as the Pacific 

Islands Global Climate Observing System (PI–GCOS) and the Pacific Islands Global 

Ocean Observing System (PI–GOOS), as part of an integrated climate information 

system. 

In order to further define the roles and capabilities of PaCIS, a steering committee has been selected incorporating PEAC, the Pacific RISA, PI–GCOS, U.S. National Weather Service Operations Service and Climate Services Division, and their 

partners, as well as experts and users of climate science and applications in the region. The PaCIS Steering Committee, made up of representatives of institutions and 

programs working in the fields of climate observations, science, assessment, and 

services in the Pacific, as well as selected individuals with expertise in similar regional climate science and service programs in other regions, will provide a forum 

for sharing knowledge and experience and guide the development and implementation of this integrated, regional climate information program. 

The Pacific Region Integrated Coastal Climatology Program (PRICIP) 

Discussions with Pacific disaster management agencies and coastal managers over 

the past decade have highlighted concerns about sea level rise and coastal inundation as one of the most significant climate-related issues facing coastal communities 

in the Pacific. In light of this need, NOAA, through its IDEA Center with support 

from the Pacific Services Center and working with colleagues throughout NOAA, the 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Geological Survey and university scientists in 

Hawaii, Guam, Alaska, and Oregon, initiated the Pacific Region Integrated Coastal 

Climatology Program (PRICIP). PRICIP recognizes that coastal storms and the 

7 

strong winds, heavy rains, and high seas that accompany them pose a threat to the 

lives and livelihoods of the people of the Pacific. To reduce their vulnerability, decision-makers in Pacific Island governments, communities, and businesses need timely access to accurate information that affords them an opportunity to plan and respond accordingly. The PRICIP project is helping to improve our understanding of 

patterns and trends of storm frequency and intensity within the Pacific Region and 

develop a suite of integrated information products that can be used by emergency 

managers, mitigation planners, government agencies, and decision-makers in key 

sectors including water and natural resource management, agriculture, fisheries, 

transportation, communications, recreation, and tourism. 

As part of the initial build-out, a PRICIP web portal is serving a set of historical 

storm ‘‘event anatomies.’’ These event anatomies include a summary of sector-specific socio-economic impacts associated with a particular extreme event as well as 

its historical context climatologically. The intent is to convey the impacts associated 

with extreme events and the causes of them in a way that enables users to easily 

understand them. The event anatomies are also intended to familiarize users with 

in situ and remotely-sensed products typically employed to track and forecast 

weather and climate. 

Hawaiian Archipelagic Marine Ecosystem Research (HAMER) 

The Hawaiian Archipelagic Marine Ecosystem Research Plan (HAMER) is a collaborative planning process to develop sustainable conservation and management 

throughout Hawai’i’s marine ecosystem through improved understanding of the 

unique physical and biological attributes of the Hawaiian archipelagic marine ecosystem, their interconnected dynamics, and their interactions with human beings. 

By using Hawai’i as a large-scale archipelagic laboratory for the investigation of biophysical processes, comparing the protected Northwestern Hawaiian Islands to the 

heavily used Main Hawaiian Islands and integrating socioeconomic information, Hawai’i and comparable marine ecosystems worldwide should realize improvements in 

resource management and community response to changes in climate. 

While this project is in its formative stages, the information generated by this projected 10-year multi-agency, collaborative program will: 

• Fill critical and important research gaps in the underlying science of marine 

ecosystem dynamics. 

• Complement national, international, and state ecosystem research initiatives. 

• Improve understanding of the behavior of humans in a marine ecosystem approach to conservation and management. 

• Formulate predictive theory of ecosystem dynamics relative to physical and biological variables, and 

• Generate useful information for conservation managers. 

Conclusion 

NOAA’s Pacific Region is engaged in a number of ways to help the Pacific Islands 

plan for, mitigate against, and adapt to climate change. This is not an exhaustive 

list. I have highlighted efforts that are most prominent at this time. The development of NOAA’s products and services as they relate to climate change is as dynamic as the issue itself. 

NOAA’s Pacific Region will continue to work with our island communities to develop tools, products, and services to move toward realizing NOAA’s vision of, ‘‘An 

informed society that uses a comprehensive understanding of the role of the oceans, 

coasts and atmosphere in the global ecosystem to make the best social and economic 

decisions.’’ 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank you very much, Mr. Thomas. 

Next witness is the Director of the Hawai‘i Institute of Marine 

Biology, Dr. Jo-Ann Leong. 

Dr. Leong? 

STATEMENT OF JO-ANN C. LEONG, PH.D., DIRECTOR, HAWAI‘I 

INSTITUTE OF MARINE BIOLOGY, SCHOOL OF OCEAN AND 

EARTH SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF 

HAWAI‘I AT MA ̄ NOA 

Dr. LEONG. Thank you. 

8 

Good morning, Senator, and Members of the Committee. Thank 

you for the opportunity to speak before you on the impacts of climate change on Hawaii’s species at the level of coral resilience and 

resistance to invasive species. 

Again, my name is Jo-Ann Leong, and I serve as Director of the 

Hawai‘i Institute of Marine Biology and I represent a group of scientists whose major research effort includes a study of coral reef 

ecosystems. 

We also provide research for the new Papaha ̄naumokua ̄kea Marine National Monument through an MOA with the Pacific Island 

Regional Sanctuary Office. 

One of the fundamental questions being addressed by HIMB researchers for the Monument is, what factors are important in coral 

reef resilience? In particular, we are examining the role of biological connectivity in reef restoration, and the role of genetic and species diversity in the ability of reefs to bounce back after a disturbance. 

In today’s testimony I would like to focus on the following points: 

One, thermal stress and bleaching, coral disease and ocean acidification are real threats to the coral reef ecosystem in Hawaii, and 

particularly, in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. 

Two, genetic analysis, coupled with spatial and physical measurements are needed to tell us about the role of genetic diversity 

and coral resistance to temperature stress. 

Three, biological connectivity studies indicate that we need to 

manage coral reefs as individual units, and not as a single chain 

of islands and atolls. Our studies show that these islands and atolls 

may not be biologically connected, and therefore capable of replenishing each other, should one member of the chain experience a 

stress event. And I’ll get back to that. 

Now, recommendations for controlling the spread of invasive species have been developed for the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands, 

and I’ve provided copies for the Committee, in the back. And genetic technologies are useful in identifying the origin of invasive 

species to truly find out whether they’re really invasive, or that the 

ecosystem has changed, and an epedemic has now begun to take 

over. 

Ocean acidification will affect the crustose coralline algae, as well 

as the stony corals, and that may have an even more dramatic effect on the future of coral reefs. 

Now, I offer these points in the context of what Hawaii can offer 

to this study. We have a Hawaiian archipelago, the largest living 

coral reef ecosystem in the United States. It stretches over a distance of 1,500-plus miles, with 132 islands and atolls, reefs, shallow banks, shoals and sea mounts. This lovely set of islands, from 

Kure Atoll in the Northwest, to the Big Island of Oahu in the 

Southeast, offers natural gradients in island evolution, and now, 

temperature regimes; and a gradient of anthropogenic stressors 

with dense human populations in the South, to the relatively pristine environment in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. This 

makes Hawaii a natural laboratory to study the effects of climate 

change on global coral reefs, and in that process, develop recommendations to protect those reefs. It really is our responsibility, 

sir. 

9 

I have provided written testimony that far exceeds the amount 

of time I have before you today, so let me point out five findings 

that have bearing on our discussion. 

The role of species diversity at both the organismal and genetic 

level in reef resilience has not been determined. 

We assume from other ecological studies that redundancy in an 

ecosystem function offered by high species diversity will also work 

in a coral reef ecosystem. So, that if one goes out, you will have 

another to take its place. We are just beginning to conduct those 

studies, here in Hawaii. Scientists have finally put temperature 

monitors across a reef—so we’ve wired a reef—and sampled every 

coral in that reef, so that we know what the genotype of that coral 

is. 

So, what we found is that in a reef there are hot spots, and there 

are cool spots. So, the patchiness of a bleaching may be due to 

those physical change dynamics. 

The genotype and the symbiont in those corals are just being determined now, and I hope to be able to give you an update and a 

briefing in another 6 to 9 months. 

The incidents of coral disease appears to be increasing in Hawaii. 

At least 17 coral diseases have been described. Experience with 

bleached corals in other parts of the world indicates that we will 

see more disease among our corals, because we’ve already had 

three episodes of bleaching in Hawaii. 

The immunologic agents for these diseases have not been determined. Hawaii, and the Pacific Region, needs a safe facility for conducting studies that might identify these agents, and provide some 

methods for treating disease. We can not work on that—and we 

will not work on that—unless those safe facilities are available. 

Invasive species come in many forms, that’s point number three, 

and it is the small ones that usually escape our eye. This is the 

case for micro-algal symbiont for corals. I have highlighted a study 

in my written testimony from Ruth Gates and Michael State at 

HIMB. They have identified a genotype of zooxanthellae which is 

the micro-algae in the coral, it’s a symbiont and it belongs to what 

we call clade A. And clade A is a genotype you normally don’t find 

in the Pacific. It is found in a jellyfish called cassiopeia, which is 

a foreign introduction into Hawaii, from the Caribbean. 

And what we found is that, we found this clade A in corals in 

the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands at French Frigate Shoals. And 

there was a high correlation with this Clade A in these corals, and 

disease susceptibility. So, we have to be careful at that level, about 

the introduction of invasive species. 

Now, please note that we have provided the Committee with 20 

copies of a plan for monitoring invasive species, and I’ve also provided these little booklets, or little cards, which contain coral diseases for the rest of the Committee. And they’re provided from the 

Department of Aquatic Resources. 

You need to tell me if I’m going over time. 

Biological connectivity is one of the key factors that are used in 

the designs of marine protected areas. We work in the largest marine protected area in the United States, and we don’t know whether this MPA can provide the protection to preserve these marine 

resources. 

10 

Rod Toonen and Brian Bowen have been tracking the movement 

of the larvae of fish and invertebrates to ask when—are any of 

these atolls and islands can serve to replenish a neighboring island 

or system. We have found the answers to that question differs 

greatly among species, and that no one species can represent any 

other species in that taxa. 

So, I was going to refer you to my written testimony, which is 

showing on Figure 2. And in this it shows you blocks—yellow 

blocks—in the archipelago. And those yellow blocks identify barriers to gene flow exchange between one system and another system. That tells you that you have to be very careful in developing 

management of any ecosystem, because there might not be enough 

gene flow to replenish a system from another system that is protected in that area. And you need to know that information. 

OK, ocean acidification will affect Hawaii, on its northern end 

first. Some of the key studies on the effect of pH on calcification 

rates was done in Hawaii. One of the most interesting findings that 

has just emerged, is that ocean acidification will affect the crustose 

coralline algae. The coral reef glue that holds reef together, and 

provides the cues for the settlement of coral larvae on the reef. 

This is a critical finding, and we need to identify the effects of 

slight changes in pH on other marine calcifiers. 

To end this testimony, I ask the Committee to carefully consider 

the recommendations on page 16 [of this transcript], for critical research needs. I made a plea for the need for facilities to conduct 

studies on coral disease with native and non-regional corals of the 

Coral Conservation Program workshop last year. 

We also need, in the Pacific Region, sites where research will be 

able to conduct experiments on coral reef misocosms that can be 

replicated under controlled, measurable conditions. This is not 

available to anyone, anywhere. 

And, thank you again for this opportunity, Senator Inouye, and 

Members of the Committee, and I’m willing to take questions. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Leong follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JO-ANN C. LEONG, PH.D., DIRECTOR, HAWAI‘I INSTITUTE

OF MARINE BIOLOGY, SCHOOL OF OCEAN AND EARTH SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, 

UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI‘I AT MA ̄ NOA

Introduction 

Good morning Senator Inouye and members of the Committee. Thank you for the 

opportunity to speak before you on the impacts of climate change on Hawai’i’s myriad ocean species at the level of coral reef resilience and resistance to invasive species. My name is Jo-Ann Leong and I serve as Director of the Hawai’i Institute of 

Marine Biology. I represent a group of scientists whose major research effort includes the study of coral reef ecosystems and the biological connectivity between the 

islands and atolls of the Hawaiian Archipelago. We have a memorandum of agreement with the NOAA Pacific Regional Sanctuary office to provide research for the 

new Papahanaumokuakea Marine National Monument. 

Current models for sea surface temperature (SST) and seawater CO2 saturation 

in the coming decades suggest that the Hawaiian Archipelago will experience rises 

in sea levels, increased episodes of coral bleaching, and decreased aragonite saturation in its ocean waters (Guinotte, Buddemeier, Kleypas 2003; IPCC, 2007 working 

group I report; E. Shea, Preparing for a Changing Climate, 2001). Higher sea surface temperatures produced severe bleaching events in the main Hawaiian Islands 

in 1996 and in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) in 2002 and 2004. Climate experts are virtually certain that more episodes of coral bleaching are in store 

for Hawai’i. Moreover, by 2049, ocean acidification is expected to have a marked efVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:05 Jul 24, 2012 Jkt 052754 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\75205.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
11 

fect in the waters surrounding Kure and Midway Atolls. These climate changes will 

have an impact on the marine resources of the Hawaiian Archipelago. 

One of the fundamental questions being addressed by the research at HIMB is 

what factors are important in coral reef resilience. In particular, we are examining 

the role of biological connectivity in reef restoration and the role of genetic and species diversity in the ability of reefs to bounce back after a disturbance. In today’s 

testimony, I would like to focus the following points: 

1. Thermal stress and bleaching, coral disease, and ocean acidification are real 

threats to the coral reef ecosystem in Hawai’i and particularly in the NWHI. 

2. Genetic analysis coupled with spatial and physical measurements are needed 

to tell us about the role of genetic diversity in coral resistance to temperature 

stress. 

3. Biological connectivity studies indicate that we need to manage coral reefs 

as individual units and not as a single chain of islands and atolls. Our studies 

show that these islands and atolls are not biologically connected and therefore 

capable of replenishing each other should one member of the chain experience 

a stress event. 

4. Recommendations for controlling the spread of invasive species have been developed for the NWHI and genetic technologies are useful in identifying the origin of invasive species. 

5. Ocean acidification will affect the crustose coralline algae as well as the stony 

corals and that may have an even more dramatic effect on the future of coral 

reefs. 

Coral Bleaching Events in Hawai’i 

Although coral bleaching due to high temperature was first described in Hawai’i 

by Jokiel and Coles (1974) off Kahe Point (O’ahu) electric generating station, the 

isolated subtropical location of Hawai’i was thought to be sufficient to protect its 

corals from the bleaching outbreaks that have ravaged coral communities elsewhere. 

However, in the late summer of 1996, the first large-scale bleaching event in the 

main Hawaiian Islands occurred (Jokiel & Brown, 2004) and another major bleaching event occurred in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands (NWHI) in the Summer 

of 2002 (Brainard, 2002; Aeby et al., 2003). In September 2004, a third Hawaiian 

coral bleaching event occurred at the three northern atolls (Pearl and Hermes, Midway, Kure) (Kenyon & Brainard, 2005). Clearly, Hawai’i is not immune to large 

scale coral bleaching events. 

Mean summer monthly temperatures in Hawaiian waters are approximately 27 

± 1 °C. A 30-day exposure to temperatures of only 29–30 °C will cause extensive 

bleaching in Hawaiian corals (Jokiel & Coles, 1990). Combined with high irradiance 

(clear days) and low winds, water temperatures can be 1–2 °C higher in certain 

coastal regions. The ‘‘degree heating weeks’’ (DHW) (1 week of SSTs greater than 

the maximum in the monthly climatology) over a rolling 12 week period now serves 

as an indicator of the likelihood of bleaching. Whether the single factor of temperature increase is sufficient to predict coral bleaching is unclear since hind sight analysis of SST data note the absence of bleaching reports in Hawai’i when SST data 

indicated that there should have been bleaching in 1968 and 1974. Nevertheless, 

DHW is used by NOAA’s Coral Reef Watch program because it gives a first alert 

to investigators and the public of possible coral bleaching events. 

Hawai’i’s coral reefs did recover from the bleaching. During the 1996 episode on 

O’ahu, the corals were closely monitored for recovery in Ka ̄ne’ohe Bay. A month 

after the height of the bleaching episode, the slightly bleached corals regained pigmentation, and 2 months later, the completely bleached corals had recovered. Overall coral mortality during the event was less than 2 percent. The rate of recovery 

was related to bleaching sensitivity, i.e., the first corals to bleach were the last to 

recover. Most of the bleached corals at Kure, Midway and Pearl and Hermes involved in the September 2002 event also recovered by December 2002 except for the 

Montipora capitata. Estimates of 30 percent of the montiporids did not recover from 

this bleaching event in the back reef sections of Midway, Pearl and Hermes Atolls 

(Kenyon and Brainard, 2006). 

A comparison of the sensitivity of different corals to bleaching is shown in Table 

1. In general, the montiporid and pocilloporid corals were sensitive to thermal stress 

and the poritid corals were more resistant. But even these more sensitive corals 

have resistant members in a bleaching event and scientists are beginning to focus 

on these coral ‘‘survivors’’ for answers to the question of whether coral reefs will survive to 2100. The first question asked by Steve Karl, a researcher at HIMB, was 

whether the temperature gradients across a reef were uniform. Thus, if corals responded to thermal stress by bleaching, then perhaps those corals that did not 

12 

bleach were those corals that inhabited cool spots on the reef. A careful study with 

miniature temperature monitors placed at 4 M intervals throughout a reef has 

shown that there are hot spots and cool spots within a reef and this may account 

for the patchiness of coral bleaching. In addition, Steve and his group have mapped 

every single coral in the reef and the genotype for each coral is being determined. 

The question being addressed is whether the corals are genetically distinct (produced by sexual reproduction) or clonally derived (produced by breakage and regrowth from a parent colony). This research may provide some answers regarding 

the role of genotype in thermal resistance. Steve’s study is being carried out at 

Ka ̄ne’ohe Bay, French Frigate Shoals, and Pearl & Hermes Atoll. In addition to the 

genotype analysis, Steve is working with HIMB researcher Ruth Gates to determine 

if there are differences in the zooxanthellae symbiont type in the resistant and sensitive corals. Symbiont type has been identified as a key factor in resistance to thermal stress in corals (Baker, 2004; Little, van Oppen, & Willis, 2004; Berkelmans 

and van Oppen, 2006; Middlebrook, Hoegh-Guldberg, and Leggat, 2008)). 

Table 1. Relative Resistance of Corals to Bleaching in Hawai’i 

Ka ̄ne’ohe Bay 1996 NWHI 2002, 2004 

Highly Resistance 

Porites evermanni 

Cyphastrea ocellina 

Fungia scutaria 

Porites brighami 

Porites compressa 

Porites lobata 

Montipora flabellata 

Moderate Resistance 

Porites compressa Porites evermanni (Maro, Laysan, Lisianski) 

Porites lobata 

Montipora patula Montipora patula (Maro, Laysan, Lisianski) 

Montipora capitata 

Low resistance (most sensitive to bleaching) 

Montipora turgescens 

Montipora flabellata Montipora patula 

Pocillopora meandrina Montipora capitata 

Pocillopora damicornis Pocillopora damicornis 

Montipora dilitata. Pocillopora ligulata 

Pocillopora meandrina 

Compiled from Jokiel & Brown, 2004; Aeby, Kenyon, Maragos, and Potts, 2003; Kenyon and Brainard, 2006. 

Coral Disease in Hawai’i 

Coral diseases have emerged as a serious threat to coral reefs worldwide and Hawai’i has its own set of coral diseases. There are at least 17 described coral diseases 

in Hawai’i (Work & Rameyer 2001; Work et al., 2002; Aeby, 2006; Friedlander et 

al., 2005). In general, coral disease is found to be widespread on reefs but occurs 

at a low prevalence. However, disease outbreaks with more serious effects are starting to occur in Hawai’i. The white syndrome resulting from tissue necrosis and loss 

in Acropora cytherea has appeared at French Frigate shoals, a pristine area presumably free from anthropogenic stressors. In Ka ̄ne’ohe Bay on O’ahu, Montipora 

capitata are showing progressive signs of tissue loss (Figure 1F). The etiology 

(cause) of these diseases has not been determined because no facility for the safe 

conduct on this research is available in the Pacific. Nevertheless, we must continue 

to monitor these outbreaks. Experiences with bleached corals in other parts of the 

world indicate that bleached corals are more susceptible to disease (Bally and 

Garrabou, 2007). If this is true, Hawai’i should expect more disease outbreaks. 

13 

Figure 1. Some coral disease found in Hawai’i. A. Porites trematodiases. B. Acropora white 

syndrome. C. Porites growth anomalies. D. Pocillopora white band disease. E. Acropora growth 

anomalies. F. Montipora white syndrome. H. Montipora multi-focal tissue loss syndrome. I. 

Montipora dark band. J. Dark spot disease caused by endolithic hypermycosis. 

Genetics, Diversity, and Coral Reef Resilience 

Resilience of ecosystems was originally defined by C.S. Holling in 1973 as the 

ability of systems to absorb, resist or recover from disturbances or to adapt to 

change while continuing to maintain essential functions and processes. For coral 

reefs, resilience is the term used to describe the ability of coral reefs to bounce back 

or recover after experiencing a stressful event such as bleaching. Resistance, in 

turn, refers to the ability of coral communities to remain relatively unchanged in 

the face of a major disturbance. 

Ensuring reef resilience is an important aim for all present and future marine 

protected areas in Hawai’i. The Nature Conservancy (TNC) has done an admirable 

job in developing a model of reef resilience. The four principles of reef resilience that 

TNC have identified are: 

1. Provide adequate replicates of habitat types to decrease the risk of catastrophic events, such as bleaching, from destroying the entire ecosystem. 

2. Identify as high priority conservation targets those areas vital for the survival and sustainability of the coral reef ecosystem, i.e., nursery habitats, regions of high diversity. 

3. Ensure connectivity among reefs to ensure replenishment of coral communities and fish stocks to enhance recovery in case of a catastrophic event. 

4. Reducing threats to the environment by effective management. 

In the HIMB-Monument research partnership, we are examining the issue of biological connectivity among the reefs and atolls in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands and its possible connectivity to the Main Hawaiian Islands. The work of 

HIMB researchers Rob Toonen and Brian Bowen and their colleagues shows that 

the answer to this question differs greatly among species, and that single studies 

of individual species tell us little about how to manage any other population (Bird 

et al., 2007). Although these are preliminary results, the extensive survey currently 

underway suggests that many of the fishes are well-connected throughout the archipelago. In contrast, the corals and other invertebrates that form the reefs are far 

more isolated, and must therefore be managed carefully on a local scale to persist. 

Despite the differences among species, however, some striking patterns of isolation 


319LEONG1.eps
14 

emerge; there are consistent breaks in exchange of individuals across many species 

that divide regions of the Hawaiian Archipelago (Figure 2). Notably, there is a consistent break between populations found at the Big Island, Kauai, and between the 

Main and NWHI, with the predominant direction of exchange being to the northwest rather than to the southeast. Additionally, even for fishes—which show the 

highest degree of connectivity in our studies—the rate of exchange is too low to subsidize fisheries stocks in the Main Hawaiian Islands, suggesting that regional or 

community-based management will be the most effective route for the future (Bird 

et al., 2007). 

Figure 2. Shared genetic breaks among diverse species (including Spinner dolphins, sharks, 

opihi, tube snails, lobsters, and sea cucumbers) across the Hawaiian Archipelago. Although patterns of population structure differ by species in each case, the four regions highlighted in this 

figure appear to limit exchange across a broad range of marine taxa. 

A major contributor to reef resilience is species diversity at both the organismal 

level and the genetic level. Although we have a listing of the species found in the 

Hawaiian Archipelago to date, the actual species diversity in the NWHI is largely 

unknown. A recent Census of Marine Life Cruise to French Frigate Shoals uncovered 30–50 invertebrate species new to science, 58 new ascidian records, 33 new 

records of decapod crustaceans, and 27 new opistobranch mollusks of record (R. 

Brainard, personal communication). It is clear that we don’t know the extent of species diversity in the NWHI and it is critical that we find out if we are to understand 

how that ecosystem functions and what levels of redundancy in function are available (McClanahan, Polumin, and Done, 2002). HIMB scientists are beginning to examine the genetic diversity of different coral species in Hawai’i. 

Symbiont diversity, we are learning, is a vital factor in the resistance of corals 

to bleaching. The symbiotic dinoflagellate genus Symbiodinium is genetically diverse containing eight divergent lineages (clades A–H). Corals predominantly associate with clade C Symbiodinium, although clades A, B, D, F, and G are also found 

to a lesser extent in corals. There is ample evidence that some type of symbiont 

‘‘shuffling’’ occurs during the process of acclimatization of corals to higher thermal 

stress (Berkelmans and van Oppen, 2006; Middlebrook, Hoegh-Guldberg, and 

Leggat, 2008). In fact, there is growing evidence that corals with clade D symbionts 

are more resistant to thermal stress than the same species with clade C symbionts, 

the more common coral symbiont clade in the Pacific region. HIMB researchers 

Ruth Gates and Michael Stat found Symbiodinium clade A1, a rare symbiont type, 

and clade C associated with the Acropora cytherea corals at French Frigate Shoals. 

The A symbiont type is rare, and genetic evidence suggests that this clade was introduced with Cassiopea (Stat & Gates, 2007). Moreover, the presence of clade A 

was highly associated with disease. None of the diseased corals had clade C as the 

dominant symbiont (Stat & Gates, preliminary communication). 

Invasive Species 

Living in KA ̄ ne’ohe Bay, we are confronted daily by the invasive algae that impact 

our coral reefs. Our associates, Cindy Hunter, Celia Smith, the Division of Aquatic 

Resources, and The Nature Conservancy are part of an organized effort to keep the 

algae from taking over our reefs. As part of our efforts to prevent this from ever 

happening in the NWHI, we have developed a set of recommendations to restrict 

the transport of non-indigenous species to the NWHI. They include hull inspections 

for vessels planning to enter the NWHI and requiring treatment of ballast water. 


319LEONG2.eps
15 

Copies of the document are provided for the members of the Committee: S. Godwin, 

K. S. Rodgers, and P. L. Jokiel (2006) Reducing Potential Impact of Invasive Marine 

Species in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands Marine National Monument. 

The power of the genetic tools we use to detect invasive species can also be used 

to uncover the origins of invasive species and I provide this example for our discussion. When the snowflake coral, Carijoa riseii, was first observed growing at high 

densities on the black coral beds in Hawai’i, it was labeled as a foreign invasive 

from the Caribbean. It was thought to have been brought in by ships coming to Hawai’i from the continental United States. Genetic evidence no longer supports this 

finding (Concepcion et al., in review). Rather, the ‘‘Hawaiian snowflake coral’’ was 

closer genetically to the snowflake corals identified throughout the Pacific Islands, 

and that there are multiple species of Hawaiian snowflake coral (Concepcion et al., 

2007). It is clear that this is not a Caribbean introduction and the data cannot rule 

out a natural colonization of Hawai’i by the snowflake coral. If that is the case, then 

the ecology of the black coral ecosystem has been altered to allow the snowflake 

coral to overgrow these precious coral beds. 

Fig. 3. Distribution of genotypes of Carijoa riseii. Each colored circle is characteristic for a 

specific genotype of Carijoa. Note that Hawai’i does not share any genetic types with the Caribbean. 

Ocean Acidification 

Several models for changes in aragonite saturation at today’s CO2 concentration 

(375–380 ppm) to the projected saturation state for years 2040–2049 (465 ppm) indicate that Kure Atoll and Midway Island will be affected by rates of aragonite saturation that are marginal for coral growth (Guinotte, Buddemeier, & Kleypas, 2003; 

Hoegh-Guldberg et al., 2007). Experiments in mesocosms containing corals exposed 

to lower pH suggest that coral calcification rates will slow (Ries, Stanley, & Hardie, 

2006; Marubini & Atkinson, 1999), and, in some cases, the corals will actually decalcify to form sea anemone-like soft bodied polyps (Fine and Tchernov, 2007). Ilsa 

Kuffner and her colleagues at HIMB have shown that crustose coralline algae are 

dramatically affected by acidified ocean water (Figure 4). This is an important finding because members of this group of calcifying algae act as framework organisms, 

cementing carbonate fragments into massive reef structures, providing chemical settlement cues for reef-building coral larvae, and is a major producer of carbonate 

sediments (Kuffner et al., 2008). 


319LEONG3.eps
16 

Figure 4. Encrusting algal communities on experimental cylinders. Control cylinder on the left 

was exposed to normal seawater at pH 8.17 and shows the pink crustose coralline algae colonies. 

On the right, this cylinder exposed to seawater at pH 7.91 shows growth of on non-calcifying 

algae. 

Recommendations: 

Management strategies will need to focus on increasing coral reef resilience, usually by managing other stressors on reefs, i.e., nutrient overload, sediments, human 

induced disturbances, resource extraction. Management will also require: 

1. An accurate survey of the biodiversity of the coral reef ecosystems in Hawai’i. 

2. A study of ecosystem function in these reefs to identify keystone species and 

redundancy in the system. 

3. Management must be based on an accurate assessment of the biological 

connectivity between the different reefs and atolls. Temporal and spatial contributions to replenishment from healthy reefs must be determined. 

4. Coral reef ecosystem management and fisheries management must work together to provide sustainable harvest while preserving habitat and ecosystem 

functions. 

5. Research needs include: 

a. Identification of the etiologic agents of coral disease within an appropriate containment facility. 

b. Understanding the epizootiology of coral diseases (transmission, rate of 

spread, virulence, etc.). 

c. Measurement of the impacts of reduced calcification on a wide range of 

marine organisms including pteropods, coccolithophores, foraminifera . . . 

d. Determine the calcification mechanisms across many different calcifying 

taxa. 

e. Large mesocosms equipped with seawater that can be regulated for temperature, flow rate, wave action, pH and CO2, and light are needed to conduct replicate studies on the effects of these thermal stress and/or lowered 

pH on coral reefs. 

6. We support the recommendations of the report: Impacts of Ocean Acidifcation 

on Coral Reefs and Other Marine Calcifiers: A guide for future research. Authors: J. A. Kleypas, R. A. Feely, V. J. Fabry, C. Langdon, C. L. Sabine, and 

L.L. Robbins. 


319LEONG4.eps
17 

References 

Aeby, G. S., J. C. Kenyon, J. E. Maragos, and D. Potts. (2003) First record of mass coral 

bleaching in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. Coral Reefs 22:256. 

Aeby, G. S. (2006). Baseline levels of coral disease in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. 

Atoll Research Bulletin 543:471–488. 

Baker, A. C., C. J. Starger, T. R. McClanahan, & P. W. Glynn. (2004). Corals’ adaptive response to climate change. Nature 430:741. 

Baker, A. C. (2001). Reef corals bleach to survive change. Nature 411:765–766. 

Bally, M. and J. Garrabou. (2007). Thermodependent bacterial pathogens and mass mortalities in temperate benthic communities: a new case of emerging disease linked to climate change. 

Global Change Biology 13:2079–2088. 

Berkelmans, R. and M. J. H. van Oppen (2006) The role of zooxanthellae in the thermal tolerance of corals: a ‘‘nugget of hope’’ for coral reefs in an era of climate change. Proceedings of 

the Royal Society of London, Series B., Biological Sciences, doi: 10,1098/rspb.2006.3567 

Bindoff, N. L., J. Willebrand, V. Artale, A. Cazenave, J. M. Gregory, S. Gulev, K. Hanawa, 

C. Le Quere, S. Levitus, Y. Nojiri, G. C. Shum, L. D. Talley, and A. Unnikrishnan. (2007). Observations: Oceanic Climate Change and Sea Leve. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical 

Science Basis. Contribution of the working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K. B. Avery, M. Tignor, and H. L. Miller [eds]). Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 

United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. 

Bird, C. E., B. S. Holland, B. W. Bowen, and R. J. Toonen. 2007. Contrasting population structure in three endemic Hawaiian limpets (Cellana spp.) with similar life histories. Molecular 

Ecology 16 (15):3173–3187. 

Brainard, R. (2002) Bleaching in NW Hawaiian Isalnds. Bleaching Report, National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service. ORA/ORSPD Coral Reef Team, Coral Reef 

Bleaching Hotspots. http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/data/alslbleaching 

.10.16.2002. 

Brown, B. E., R. Dunne, M. S. Goodson, and A. E. Douglas. (2000) Bleaching patterns in reef 

corals. Nature 404:142–143. 

Concepcion, G., M. Crepeau, D. Wagner, S. E. Kahng, & R. J. Toonen. 2008. An alternative 

to ITS—a hypervariable, single-copy nuclear intron in corals, and its use in detecting cryptic 

species within the octocoral genus Carijoa. Coral Reefs. Online first, DOI: 10.1007/s00338–007– 

0323–X. 

Concepcion, G., S. E. Kahng, M. Crepeau, E. C. Franklin, S. Coles, & R. J. Toonen. In Review. 

Molecular data refute a Caribbean introduction and suggest multiple origins for the invasive 

snowflake coral in Hawai’i. Molecular Ecology. 

Cooper, T. F., G. De’ath, K. E. Fabricius, and J. M. Lough. (2008) Declining coral calcification 

in massive porites in two nearshore regions of the northern Great Barrier Reef. Global Change 

Biology 14: 529–538. 

Friedlander, A., G. Aeby, E. Brown, A. Clark, S. L. Coles, S. Dollar, C. Hunter, P. L. Jokiel, 

J. Smith, B. Walsh, and Wiltse, W. (2005) The State of Coral Reef Ecosystems of the Main Hawaiian Islands, pp. 222–269. In: J. Waddell (ed.), The State of Coral Reef Ecosystems of the 

United States and Pacific Freely Associated States: 2005. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS 

NCCOS 11. NO AA/NCCOS Center for Coastal Monitoring and Assessment’s Biogeography 

Team. Silver Sping, MD. 522 pp. 

Guinotte, J. M., R. B. Buddemeier, and J. A. Kleypas. (2003). Future coral reef habitat marginality: temporal and spatial effects of climate change in the Pacific basin. Coral Reefs 22: 551– 

558. 

Holling, C. S. 1973. Resilience and stability of ecological systems. Annual Review of Ecology 

and Systematics 4:1–23. 

Jokiel, P. L., and S. L. Coles. (1974). Effects of heated effluent on hermatypic corals at Kahe 

Point, O’ahu. Pacific Sciences 28(1):1–16. 

Jokiel, P. L., and E. R. Brown. (2004) Global warming, regional trends and inshore environmental conditions influence coral bleaching in Hawai’i. Global Change Biology 10:1627–41. 

Jokiel, P. L., and S. L. Coles. (1990) Response of Hawaiian and other Indo-Pacific reef corals 

to elevated temperatures associated with global warming. Coral Reefs 8:155–162. 

Kenyon, J. C. and R. E. Brainard. (2006) Second Recorded Episode of Mass Coral Bleaching 

in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. Atoll Res. Bull. 543:505–523. 

Kuffner, I. B., A. J. Andersson, P. L. Jokiel, K. S. Rodgers, and F. T. MacKenzie. (2008) Decreased abundance of crustose coralline algae due to ocean acidification. Nature Geosciences 

11:114–117. 

Little, A. F., M. J. H. van Oppen, and B. L. Willis. (20040. Flexibility to algal endosymbioses 

shapes growth in reef corals. Science 304:1492–1494. 

Marubini, F., and J. J. Atkinson. (1999). Effects of lowered pH and elevated nitrate on coral 

calcification. Marine Ecology progress Series 188:117–121. 

McClanahan, T., N. Polumin, and T. Done. (2002). Ecological States and the resilience of coral 

reefs. Conservation Ecology 6(2):18. 

Middlebrook, R., O. Hoegh-Guldberg, and W. Leggat. (2008). The effect of thermal history on 

the susceptibility of reef-building corals to thermal stress. Journal of Experimental Biology 

211:1050–1056. 

Ries, J. B., S. Stanley, and L. A. Hardie. (2006). Scleractinian corals produce calcite, and grow 

more slowly, in artifical Cretaceous seawater. Geology 34:525–528. 

Shea, E. L., G. Dolcemascolo, C. L. Anderson, A. Barnston, C. P. Guard, M. P. Hamnett, S. 

T. Kubota, N. Lewis, J. Loschnigg, and G. Meehl. (2001). Preparing for a Changing Climate: 

The Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change, Pacific Islands. Pub. East-West 

Center, Honolulu, HI. ISBN: 0–86638–197–X. 

18 

Stat, M., and R. D. Gates (2008). Vectored introductions of marine endosymbiotic 

dinoflagellates into Hawai’i. Biological Invasions 10(4):579–583. 

Van Oppen, M. J. H., and R. D Gates. (2006) Conservation genetics and the resilience of reefbuilding corals. Molecular Ecology. 

Work, T. M., and R. A. Rameyer. (2001). Evaluating Coral Health in Hawai’i. U.S. Geological 

Survey, National Wildlife Health Center, Hawai’i Field Station, 42 pp. 

Work , T. M., S. L. Coles, and R. A. Rameyer. (2002) French Frigates Shoals Reef Health Survey. U. S. Geological Survey, National Wildlife Health Center, Hawai’i field Station, 25 pp. 

The CHAIRMAN. I wish to assure all witnesses that your prepared 

statements will all be made part of the record, and other exhibits 

that you may have. We will study them when we get back. 

Our next witness is the Professor Emeritus, Department of 

Oceanography, School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology 

at the University of Hawai‘i, Dr. Fred T. Mackenzie. 

Dr. Mackenzie? 

STATEMENT OF FRED T. MACKENZIE, PH.D., DEPARTMENT OF 

OCEANOGRAPHY, SCHOOL OF OCEAN AND EARTH SCIENCE 

AND TECHNOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI‘I AT MA ̄ NOA 

Dr. MACKENZIE. Thank you, Senator Inouye. 

Senator Inouye, ladies and gentlemen, I want to thank you very 

much, a mahalo, for giving me the opportunity to address the Subcommittee. 

As you all know, just very recently the Intergovernmental Panel 

on Climate Change came out with their 2007 report on the physical 

science of climate change, but also with two volumes on adaptation 

and mitigation. All volumes were about the same size, 800 pages 

each. 

What I would like to do today is to show you some recent findings relevant to global warming and the Pacific Region, in terms 

of climate impacts that were not in the recent IPCC science report, 

and have come forward within the last couple of years. 

So the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change produced 

their last climate change science report in 2007. However, research 

was excluded from the 2007 document if it were controversial, not 

fully quantified, or not yet incorporated into models. Papers published after 2005 could not be used. Now, this is very important, 

the importance is shown below. 

Of importance to any discussion of Pacific Region climate impacts 

are the post-2005 observations. Land and ocean surface temperatures have risen relatively rapidly, just in this century. Global climate models had assumed that ice sheets would melt slowly in response to increased warmth. What really happens is that ice sheets 

fracture as they melt, and they allow water to penetrate rapidly toward the bottom of the sheet, with the result that the ice sheet 

surges and breaks up. 

The rate of ice loss in Greenland has more than tripled, just in 

this century, and there has been rapid loss of sea ice around Antarctica, and mass loss of ice in West Antarctica. 

A few other post-2005 observations are that: (1) global sea is rising about 50 percent faster in the early 21st century than in the 

recent past decades. This may be a sign of accelerated sea level 

rise. 

Based on recent predictions, sea level rise in 2100 is probably 

going to be about 1 meter under a business-as-usual emissions scenario. (2) Interestingly enough, it appears that the Gulf Stream has 

19 

slowed about 30 percent between 1997 and 2004. This Stream 

transports heat to high latitudes in the North Atlantic, and its 

slowing would have major climatic implications. 

(3) Arctic sea ice has decreased 15 percent just in this half-decade. In 2007, there was a record decrease in the area of sea ice, 

and the Northwest Passage was open for the first time in centuries. 

(4) The North Pacific Region around Hawaii, of relatively low 

productivity and nutrient-deficient surface waters, has expanded to 

the East as the surface water, ocean water has warmed, with poorly known consequences for pelagic fishes, like our tuna fisheries. 

(5) In certain regions of the ocean, the strength of the oceanic 

sink of anthropogenic carbon dioxide is weakening, as the partial 

pressure difference of carbon dioxide between the atmosphere and 

the ocean decreases. The oceans are the major reservoir besides 

terrestrial plants on land for uptake of anthropogenic carbon dioxide, and that reservoir, that sink, is weakening, in terms of taking 

up the carbon dioxide. 

Now, I would like to turn to regional projections of climate 

change variables on into this century. They’re based mainly on climate models, and although these models are much improved, they 

are still not as robust as the global projections. 

Large deviations among models make regional estimates across 

the Pacific Region uncertain. However, the following diagrams that 

I’ll show you for precipitation—temperature, precipitation, and sea 

level projections for this Century, for the Pacific Region, are based 

on the U.K.’s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research 

Model, HADCM2 General Circulation Model. After this, I will make 

a brief comment on storminess, and along with Dr. Leong, I will 

have something to say about ocean acidification. 

First, temperature—the 2007 global mean annual carbon dioxide 

concentration of 380 parts per million globally, and at Mauna Lau 

at present, 385 parts per million, is higher today than it has been 

in the past more than 600,000 years. And this is due to fossil fuel 

burning and land use changes. 

The global mean surface temperature has risen nearly 1 degree 

centigrade since the 18th century. The global mean temperature 

anomaly between just the 5 years of 2000 and 2005, was about a 

half a degree centigrade. And that anomaly in the high latitudes 

of the Northern hemisphere was a whopping 2 degrees centigrade. 

You wonder why Greenland is melting! You wonder why the permafrost is melting! This is the reason, it’s getting warm in the high 

latitude of the North Atlantic. 

The 2007 IPCC science report concluded that the probability that 

the warming is caused by natural climatic processes alone is less 

than 5 percent. Most of the observed increase in global average 

temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the 

observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. 

I apologize to you, these maps do not show up as good as they 

do on the PC, but this one shows regional surface temperature 

changes between the end of the 20th century, and the end of the 

21st century for the Pacific Region. Hawaii will be two to three, 

and probably 3 degrees centigrade warmer at the end of this century in a business-as-usual scenario of fossil fuel emissions. Note, 

importantly, the seasonal and geographical variability in the temVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:05 Jul 24, 2012 Jkt 052754 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\75205.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
20 

perature changes. The real red harsh colors mean, are hotter, the 

yellows are not as hot. 

This shows the projections for Pacific rRgion changes in precipitation between the end of the 20th Century and the end of the 

21st. Hawaii may be wetter, Hawaii may be drier—this will all depend on how the elevation of the trade wind inversion above Hawaii changes. 

If the inversion decreases in elevation, Hawaii will become drier, 

and that’s the anticipation. If it increases in elevation, Hawaii will 

become wetter. Once more, I want you to note, the big variability 

seasonally, and geographically, in precipitation. The blues, very 

wet, the reddish color in here and here, dry. 

This slide shows the Pacific Region projections of sea level rise 

for two scenarios—late 20th to mid-21st century, late 20th to the 

end of this century. And you can see, from just this frame, that Hawaii under a business-as-usual, fossil fuel-emissions scenario, it’s 

project to have at least 40 centimetered high sea level in the latter 

part of this century. 

But, because of our recent knowledge on the rate of ocean thermal expansion, the rate of the melting of mountain and valley glaciers, and—and most importantly—the rate that the Greenland Ice 

Sheet is melting, we are now predicting a 1 meter rise in sea level 

by the year 2100. 

And just within the week, the National Research Council’s 

Transportation Board has released a report demonstrating how 

vulnerable our transportation system will be to that 1 meter rise, 

including Hawaii. 

I live in Hawaii Kai—I drive Kalanianaole Highway. With a 1 

meter rise in sea level, and any kind of small storm surge, that 

highway will be under water, considerably, with a 1 meter rise in 

sea level. 

This slide shows what Waikiki and environs would look like with 

a 1 meter rise in sea level. 

My own personal feeling is that we in the state need to prepare 

for the possibility of a 1 meter rise in sea level. We will have to 

prepare by adaptation, since Hawaii does not emit much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, mitigation is not going to play a big 

role. 

Storminess—this has been a big problem, it’s still a problem 

today. There’s still considerable uncertainty concerning how storm 

and hurricane frequency and intensity will change for the Pacific 

Region in a warmer world. Multi-model ensembles do not give a 

clear picture of how storms in the Pacific Region will be affected 

by temperature change, and water—hydrological—change. 

The Hadley Model projects increased storminess for the Hawaiian Islands, as well as the Federated States of Micronesia, and the 

Republic of the Marshall Islands. Storminess is projected to decrease for the region around Fiji, and the French Polynesian Islands. 

However, and very importantly, to date there is no rigorous observational proof that there is a trend in the intensity or frequency 

of hurricanes in the Atlantic or Pacific. Inter-annual, El Nin ̃ o/La 

Nin ̃ a, and inter-decadal Pacific and Atlantic natural climate pheVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:05 Jul 24, 2012 Jkt 052754 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\75205.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
21 

nomena, I think, are masking whatever influence global climate 

change is having on storms, at the moment. 

Ocean acidification—and Dr. Leong went through this in quite 

detail, but I think it’s worth emphasizing, because this is a very 

serious issue for us. Ocean acidification is simply due to emissions 

of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, because of fossil fuel combustion, and land use changes. And their partial absorption in surface 

waters—this is a major environmental problem today. The observational record of surface ocean pH, measure of acidity, and model 

calculations—those done on my own laboratory—show that since 

the 18th Century, the oceans have become more acidic. 

Accompanying the increase in acidity, is a decline in the carbonate saturation state of the world’s surface oceans, with respect 

to all carbonate minerals. And thus, this makes it much more difficult for organisms to calcify. 

Under a business-as-usual emissions scenario, in the year 2100, 

surface water pH could decrease to 7.85—its pristine, pre-industrial level was 8.1, 8.2. This will be accompanied by a 30 percent 

decrease in carbonate saturation state. Obviously, these decreases 

would very likely affect the calcification rates of both benthic coral 

and algae corals, pelagic flora, calcifying organisms—and be accompanied, and this is important by major changes in marine ecosystem communities, their structure, and ability to recruit. 

Coastal ocean acidification will be especially detrimental to the 

coral reefs of Hawaii, and the rest of the Pacific Region. Only 50 

years from now, much of the surface water that bathes Pacific reefs 

will be more warm, and more acidic, and hence marginal for vigorous reef growth. 

Unfortunately, the only way to resolve this problem is by the reduction of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere. I cannot emphasize that more—no matter what the climate 

does in the future, as long as we put carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, the oceans will continue to acidify. 

Finally, I have a list of key concerns and needs for Hawaii and 

Pacific Island communities, I’m not going to go through these in detail, they’re written out in both of the handouts we have. I would, 

however, like to end by looking at these two down here with diamond symbols on the slide. 

I feel now there is a need for a new Pacific Region assessment 

of climate variability and change, in light of improved models, and 

these improvements are going on every year—and particularly the 

observations of the last 10 years, which are not documented well 

in the 2007 report of the IPCC. I would like to see regional-based 

climate information services established in the Pacific Region, and 

to some extent this is going on, but not to the extent that I perceive. It could be handled by UH, it could be handled by NOAA, 

to provide climate services that bridge the gap between local 

weather, and global climate information for island communities, for 

the people. These services should include community educational 

resources, such as the one that I have given out here, and is available for all of you—on climate change, its variability, and the anticipated impacts and vulnerability and adaptation to climate 

change and rising sea level for the Pacific Region. 

22 

I’d like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to address the 

Committee, I know I ran a little over time, my apologies. I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Mackenzie follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF FRED T. MACKENZIE, PH.D., DEPARTMENT OF

OCEANOGRAPHY, SCHOOL OF OCEAN AND EARTH SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI’I AT MA ̄ NOA

Introduction 

Good morning, Senator Inouye, Members of the Committee, ladies and gentlemen. 

Thank you for giving me the opportunity this morning to speak to you on global climate issues and how they might impact island communities. My name is Fred Mackenzie and I am an Emeritus Professor in the Department of Oceanography at the 

University of Hawai’i. My research is quite broad in scope but focuses on the behavior of the Earth’s surface system of oceans, atmosphere, land, and sediments 

through geologic time and its future under the influence of humans, including the 

problems associated with greenhouse gas emissions to the atmosphere, global warming, and ocean acidification. I have been an academician for more than 45 years and 

published more than 250 scholarly publications, including six books and nine edited 

volumes in ocean, Earth and environmental science. Today you have asked me to 

comment on how climate change might affect island communities and on our recent 

work developing climate and sustainability case studies for Pacific island resources 

that can be used to educate and inform the community, including local decisionmakers. 

Many of my comments are derived from the report of the Pacific Islands Regional 

Assessment Group, for which I served as a member, entitled Preparing for a Changing Climate. The Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change (Shea 

et al., 2001), and the case study Climate Change, Water Resources, and Sustainability in the Pacific Basin: Emphasis on O’ahu, Hawai’i and Majuro Atoll, Republic 

of the Marshall Islands (Guidry and Mackenzie, 2006). I and my colleagues have 

used these materials and my books Our Changing Planet: An Introduction to Earth 

System Science and Global Environmental Change (Mackenzie, 2003) and Carbon in 

the Geobiosphere—Earth’s Outer Shell (Mackenzie and Lerman, 2006) to educate the 

public and students at all levels in Hawai’i and elsewhere about climate change and 

its impacts. We also have run an immersion course for native Hawaiian students 

and a course for the Myron B. Thompson Charter School in Hawai’i employing these 

texts and an interactive website as resource materials. 

General Comments on Climate Change 

The science of climate change has been assessed in a series of four reports by the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a body of 2500 scientists that, 

as you are aware, shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for their work on distilling 

the scientific community’s research on the physical and biogeochemical basis for climate change into authoritative reports. Similar sized volumes on mitigation and impacts, adaptation and vulnerability have accompanied the more recent science volumes. The panel’s latest 2007 physical science report Climate Change 2007: The 

Physical Science Basis (IPCC, 2007) includes a full chapter on regional climate projections that for temperature, precipitation, and extreme weather projections are 

very similar to the Third Assessment Report (TAR) of the IPCC in 2001, as are the 

global climate assessments and projections. The major difference between the TAR 

and the 2007 report is that generally the projections have a higher level of confidence due to a larger number of simulations, improved models, a better understanding of model deficiencies, and improved detailed analyses of the results. It 

should be kept in mind that the distillation of the science of climate change by the 

IPCC in their 2007 report only dealt with findings up until the year 2005. More recent findings from 2005–2007 studies are included in this testimony. Also it is still 

very difficult to take the information from the IPCC physical science report and use 

it to predict the future of regional and short-lived annual events, like day-long high 

sea levels and floods, or even inter-annual (El Nin ̃ o/La Nin ̃ a) or decadal (North Atlantic and Pacific Decadal Oscillations) climate changes and their effects on precipitation, sea level, and hurricane frequency or intensity. 

At its most basic level, the balance between incoming solar radiation and outgoing 

infrared heat radiation determines Earth’s climate. The absorption of the outgoing 

Earth radiation by atmospheric greenhouse gases of methane (CH4), nitrous oxide 

(N2O), and especially carbon dioxide (CO2) and the consequent heating of the lower 

atmosphere are what constitute the well-recognized ‘‘greenhouse effect’’. It should be 

23 

kept in mind that water vapor (H2O) is the most potent greenhouse gas. The greenhouse gases have for most of planetary history resided in our atmosphere and by 

trapping outgoing Earth radiation have maintained the Earth at a temperature 

amenable to life. Thus, there has always been a greenhouse effect, but humans by 

adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere are increasing the strength of the greenhouse effect. The Earth without greenhouse gases in the atmosphere would be ¥18 °C, 33 °C colder than the late pre-industrial global mean temperature of 15 °C. We 

have had an ‘‘enhanced greenhouse effect’’ operating since at least the beginning of 

the industrial era. 

It is well known and documented that the greenhouse gases of carbon dioxide 

(CO2), methane CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) have increased markedly in the atmosphere due to human activities. The global increase 

of atmospheric carbon dioxide from 1750 to 2007 has been about 36 percent, from 

280 ppm (parts per million) to 382 ppm globally and 385 ppm at the Mauna Loa 

Observatory on the Big Island of Hawai’i. Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are 

higher today than they have been in more than 600,000 years. The global increases 

in carbon dioxide concentration are mainly due to fossil fuel use and land use 

changes. The increases of methane from 715 to 1774 ppb (parts per billion) and nitrous oxide from 270 to 320 ppb are primarily due to agriculture. The concentrations 

of the potent synthetic halogenated greenhouse gases, like CFC–12, have risen from 

zero to hundreds of ppt (parts per trillion) concentrations. For example, CFC–12 has 

risen from zero to 538 ppt. This rise is due to industrial activities and use of the 

compound as a coolant in refrigeration and air conditioning units. Another greenhouse gas, tropospheric ozone (O3) (not to be confused with stratospheric ozone), is 

formed from reaction of anthropogenic sources of nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds in the atmosphere derived from the burning of fossil fuels and biomass. The 1987 Montreal Protocol and its amendments have had a significant effect 

on slowing the rise of the chlorofluorocarbons in the atmosphere, but other halogenated compounds that have replaced the chlorofluorocarbons are rising in concentration in the atmosphere. With the well-documented rise in the concentrations 

of the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, one would anticipate an increase in global temperatures. In addition, the anthropogenic greenhouse gases persist in the atmosphere for years to decades to centuries implying impacts on the climate far into 

the future. 

Natural and anthropogenic micrometer-sized aerosol particles in the atmosphere 

also affect climate directly or indirectly. In general, the aerosols in the lower atmosphere are removed on time scales of days to weeks and their climatic impacts are 

mainly that of cooling, particularly on a regional scale. The most notable of the aerosol compounds is that of sulfate (SO4) aerosol which may affect climate directly by 

reflecting sunlight back toward space or indirectly by acting as cloud condensation 

nuclei (CCN) and leading to cloud formation, the type and distribution of which affect climate. For example, the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo in the Philippines in 1991 

that spewed sulfur compounds high into the upper atmosphere led to a cooling of 

the planet on a time scale of several years of about 0.5 °C. The burning of fossil 

fuels, particularly coal, generates sulfur gases that in the atmosphere are converted 

to sulfate aerosols and the cooling and cloud formation effects of these particles are 

considered in present climate models. 

Global dimming is the gradual reduction in the amount of direct solar irradiance 

at the Earth’s surface that has been observed for several decades after the start of 

systematic measurements in the 1950s. It appears to be caused by air pollution and 

the increase in particulates such as sulfur aerosols in the atmosphere due to human 

activities. The effect varies geographically. Worldwide it has been estimated to have 

resulted in a 4 percent reduction in irradiance between 1960 and 1990. The trend 

appears to have been reversed during the past decade, as the lower atmosphere has 

become less polluted in some regions. The dimming has affected the water cycle by 

reducing evaporation and likely was the cause of droughts in some areas. Dimming 

also creates a cooling effect that may have partially masked the enhanced greenhouse effect. 

The sun’s output of solar energy also affects climate. In actual fact, during the 

past four billion years, the sun’s luminosity has increased about 30 percent. More 

germane to the present global warming issue is that during periods of high sunspot 

activity, the Earth receives slightly more solar radiation at the top of Earth’s atmosphere; the converse is true at times of low sunspot activity. The cool period of the 

Little Ice Age of 1350–1850 was probably due in part to a decrease in the amount 

of solar radiation received from the sun at the top of the Earth’s atmosphere However, for the period 1750 to 2005, it appears that the sun’s forcing on climate has 

only been about + 0.12 (0.06–0.30) W m–2 out of the total net anthropogenic forcing 

of +1.6 (0.6–2.4) W m–2. The global average radiative forcings on climate of the varVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:05 Jul 24, 2012 Jkt 052754 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\75205.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
24 

ious major factors involved in climate change from 1750–2005 are shown in 

Figure 1. 

Figure 1. Global average radiative forcing estimates (RF) and ranges in 2005 since 1750 for 

greenhouse gases and other agents and mechanisms (IPCC, 2007). 

The first report of the IPCC in 1990 suggested that the warming of 0.3 °C to 0.6 

°C during the twentieth century was reasonably consistent with projections from the 

climate models in operation at the time but also within the ballpark of natural climate variability. The attribution of the warming to human or natural causes was 

not definitive at that time. By 2007, the IPCC stated that there is a very high confidence that ‘‘the global average net effect of human activities from 1750 to 2005 has 

been one of warming, with a radiative forcing of +1.6 (0.6–2.4) W m–2 ’’. This climatic 

forcing has led to a nearly 1 °C rise in temperature since 1750. This temperature 

change is remarkably close to that predicted for a climate system that has a climate 

sensitivity response to increasing greenhouse gas concentrations of 2–3 °C (best climate sensitivity estimate is 2.8 °C) for a doubling of effective atmospheric carbon 

dioxide concentration over its 1850s concentration of 280 ppm. In addition, the IPCC 

concluded that the probability that the warming is caused by natural climatic processes alone is less than 5 percent. Most (>50 percent) of the observed increase in 

globally averaged temperatures since the mid-twentieth century is very likely (confidence level >90 percent) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse 

concentrations (IPCC, 2007). 

Recent Findings Relevant to Global Warming 

We should bear in mind in the material discussed in later sections that the IPCC 

has a very rigorous review process. However, research was excluded from the 2007 

document if it were controversial, not fully quantified, or not yet incorporated into 

models. Furthermore, no papers published after 2005 could be discussed in the report. 

Positive feedbacks to the rate of atmospheric greenhouse gas accumulations and 

climate and ‘‘tipping points’’ (a point at which the climate system and biogeochemistry suddenly switch from one mode to another) were not always included in 

the IPCC 2007 chapter discussions. Of importance are the post-2005 observations 

that: 

1. Land and ocean surface temperatures have risen relatively rapidly in the 

early twenty-first century (Figure 2). Ocean temperatures down to 3000 meters 

are also on the rise. 


319MACK1.eps
25 

2. Current climate models assume that ice sheets will melt slowly in response 

to increased warmth. Recent work shows that ice sheets fracture as they melt, 

allowing water to penetrate rapidly toward the bottom of the sheet with the result that the ice sheet surges and breaks up. The rate of ice loss in Greenland 

has more than tripled in this century (Velicogna and Wahr, 2006) and there has 

been rapid loss of sea ice around Antarctica and mass loss of ice in West Antarctica. If the Greenland ice sheet melted completely, this would lead to a 6– 

7 meter rise in sea level. The Larsen B ice shelf collapsed in 2005. The melting 

of the West Antarctic ice sheet would add 5–6 meters of sea level rise. 

Figure 2. Global land-ocean anomaly for 1880 to 2005 and the 2001–2005 mean surface temperature anomaly. In just the latter period of time, the anomaly was 0.54 °C and of more importance is the fact that the anomaly over the high latitude of the Northern Hemisphere was up 

to 2.1 °C. It is this abnormal heating that is the cause of the warming at high latitudes of surface seawater and the melting of the Greenland ice sheet and the permafrost. 

3. Global sea level is rising about 50 percent faster in the early twenty-first century than predicted by the IPCC in their 2001 report, perhaps the first sign of 

accelerated sea level rise. Average rates of sea level rise during the last several 

decades were about 1.8±0.5 mm/yr, with a larger rate of increase during the 

most recent decade of 3.1±0.7 mm/yr. However, the IPCC 2007 report in their 

worse case scenario for global sea level rise reduced their sea level rise estimates from 88 to 59 centimeters for the period 2000 to 2100, but the new observational findings of this century were not incorporated in the models used in 

the IPCC 2007 report. 

4. It appears that the Gulf Stream has slowed about 30 percent during the period 1957–2004. This is a crucial current in terms of transporting heat to high 

latitudes in the North Atlantic and its slowing would have major climatic implications and is a key aspect of models of past climatic change and tipping points. 

5. The positive feedback of the effect of rising temperatures on the release of 

carbon dioxide and methane from soils, permafrost, and the seabed were not 

considered in detail in the 2007 IPCC report. The permafrost is melting rapidly 

in western Canada and Siberia. Indeed, standing bodies of water are forming 

in the Siberian permafrost with high methane concentrations. 

6. Arctic sea ice area has decreased about 15 percent since October 2005 

(Nghiem et al., 2006) and in 2007 there was a record decrease in the area of 

sea ice and the Northwest Passage was opened for the first time in centuries. 


319MACK2.eps
26 

7. Higher rates of precipitation are now observed at mid to high latitudes and 

lower rates in the tropics and subtropics, with corresponding changes in surface 

seawater salinities. 

8. The North Pacific region of relatively low productivity and nutrient deficient 

surface waters has expanded to the east as the surface ocean has warmed with 

poorly known consequences for pelagic fishes, like tuna. 

9. Ocean surface water pH has fallen 0.1 pH unit (‘‘ocean acidification’’) (Orr 

et al., 2005; Andersson et al., 2005) (the pH scale is logarithmic so this represents a significant increase in hydrogen ion concentration) since 1700, and the 

projected rate of change in ocean surface water pH will increase on into this 

century and beyond unless anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere are curtailed. Invasion of carbon dioxide into the deeper ocean has 

resulted in the shoaling of the depth at which the calcareous skeletons of sinking pelagic organisms can be dissolved (Feely et al., 2004). 

10. In certain regions of the oceans, the strength of the oceanic sink of anthropogenic carbon dioxide is weakening as the partial pressure difference of carbon 

dioxide between the atmosphere and the ocean decreases. 

The Pacific Region Temperature, Precipitation, Sea Level and Storm 

Projections 

Regional projections of climate change variables on into this century, based mainly on climate models, although much improved, are still not as robust as global projections. Large deviations among models make regional estimates across the Pacific 

region uncertain. However, the following diagrams show the temperature, precipitation, and sea level projections for this century for the Pacific region based on the 

United Kingdom’s Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research HADCM2 

General Circulation Model (GCM). Notice that Australia and the Pacific tropics and 

subtropics are very likely to warm the most, with temperatures in Hawai’i in the 

late twenty-first century being 2–3 °C higher than at the beginning of this century. 

There are likely to be strong seasonal and geographical changes in temperature for 

the Pacific region induced by global warming. 

Annual rainfall is likely to increase in the equatorial belt of the Pacific on into 

this century and likely to decrease over southwestern Pacific islands, with Hawai’i 

perhaps being wetter or drier. The latter is more likely. Whether Hawai’i is wetter 

or drier in a globally warmer word is mainly a function of the behavior of the trade 

wind inversion above which rainfall decreases sharply. 

Sea level using the HADCM2 GCM is projected around Hawai’i to be about 40 

centimeters higher in the late twenty-first century than at the beginning of this century. However, the HADCM2 model projections do not include the melting of the 

ice sheets, and it is likely because of ice sheet melting, warming of surface waters, 

and acceleration of the melting of valley and mountain glaciers that global mean 

sea level could reach a level one meter higher than in the year 2000 by the end 

of the twenty-first century. As with precipitation, the rise in sea level is not likely 

to be uniform throughout the Pacific region but geographically variable making regional estimates uncertain. Notice, however, that with a one-meter rise in sea level, 

areas like Waikı ̄kı ̄ in O’ahu, Hawai’i (a high Pacific island) will be drowned. New 

marshes would be formed and salt water during storms with inordinate daily high 

sea levels would be prevalent in sewer drains and an important component of the 

flooding. Beach erosion would intensify and the distribution of beach sand about the 

Hawaiian Islands would change. Homes close to the present shoreline would be 

more susceptible to flooding, erosion and damage. For low-lying Pacific islands like 

Majuro in the Republic of the Marshall Islands, a one-meter rise in sea level would 

have devastating consequences. For example, for the Laura atoll region of the Marshall Islands, the shoreline would retreat by about 150 meters on each coast, which 

would result in a loss of more than 25 percent of the atoll’s surface area. In addition, approximately 50 percent of the volume of Laura’s freshwater lens would be 

salted out and unusable as a fresh water resource (Miller and Mackenzie, 1988; 

Holthus et al., 1992). The damage due to storms and resulting surges would be amplified considerably by the rise in sea level. 

There is still considerable uncertainty concerning how storm and hurricane frequency and intensity will change for the Pacific region in a warmer world. Multimodel ensembles do not give a clear picture of how storminess in the Pacific region 

will be affected by temperature and hydrologic changes. It is likely with global 

warming that the warm water (Pacific warm water pool) and intense atmospheric 

convection that are normally confined to the western equatorial Pacific will move 

eastward into regions that presently only experience warm waters during El Nin ̃ o 

events. In part as a result of this, the HADCM2 model projects increased storminess 

27 

in the Hawaiian Islands as well the Federated States of Micronesia and the Republic of the Marshall Islands. Storminess is projected to decrease for the Pacific region 

that includes Fiji and the French Polynesian Islands. It should be kept in mind that 

these findings are not as robust as we would like, but we do know that the patterns 

of storms will change in the Pacific region due to global warming. 


319MACK3.eps 319MACK4.eps
28 

Ocean Acidification 

The modern environmental problem of ocean acidification due to emissions of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere because of fossil fuel combustion and land-use 

changes and their partial absorption in surface ocean waters has been discussed in 


319MACK5.eps 319MACK6.eps
29 

the literature since at least the early 1970s (Broecker et al., 1972). More recently 

the observational record of surface ocean water pH and model calculations show 

that surface water pH has declined about 0.1 pH unit since the 18th century 

(Caldeira, et al., 2005; Orr et al., 2005; Andersson, et al., 2005). Accompanying this 

decline in pH is a decline in the carbonate saturation state of the world’s surface 

ocean waters with respect to all carbonate minerals. Model calculations show that 

under a Business as Usual emissions scenario (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change IS92a), surface water pH could reach 7.85 by the year 2100 accompanied 

by a 30 percent decrease in carbonate saturation state (Figure 3). Such a decrease 

would very likely affect the calcification rates of both benthic calcifying organisms, 

like corals and coralline algae, and pelagic calcifiers, such as foraminifera, 

pteropods, and Coccolithophoridae, accompanied by other major changes in marine 

ecosystem communities, structure and recruitment. Coastal ocean acidification will 

be especially detrimental to the coral reefs of Hawaii and the rest of the Pacific region. The only way this problem can be alleviated is by reduction of anthropogenic 

carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere. 

Figure 3. pH and carbonate ion concentrations, a measure of carbonate saturation state, as 

predicted under various greenhouse gas emissions scenarios. Only radical innovation measures 

will prevent the oceans from becoming more acidic. 

Conclusions and Recommendations 

Future global climate change and the resultant impacts to water resources are 

very serious problems for Pacific island communities. For small low-lying island 

communities like Majuro and large volcanic islands like the southern Hawaiian Islands, water is a most precious natural resource. Majuro and Hawai’i represent the 

end points for two different types of Pacific island communities. Majuro in the Republic of the Marshall Islands is a small low-lying atoll two to three meters above 

sea level. The impact of projected sea level rise on Majuro’s water resources is potentially severe. The low-lying atoll lacks groundwater resources for its freshwater 

needs and relies primarily on rainwater catchment systems for freshwater supply. 

The groundwater reservoir does provide a freshwater source for times when rainfall 

is low and thus rainfall catchment is reduced. Rising sea level, exacerbated by storm 

activities, all due to climate change, will reduce Majuro’s volume of fresh groundwater and that of other low-lying Pacific islands. In addition to climate change, rising population will place additional pressures on the groundwater resource. To unVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:05 Jul 24, 2012 Jkt 052754 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\75205.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE

319MACK7.eps
30 

dertake shoreline protection measures for low-lying Pacific islands is costly but will 

be necessary to protect its groundwater and land area resources from rising sea 

level and storm events. Desalinization is another measure that could be implemented to support, at least in part, present and future freshwater needs of both 

high- and low-lying Pacific islands, albeit at considerable cost. 

Compared to the low-lying atolls and island communities like Majuro, the island 

of O’ahu is a relatively large volcanic island with a peak elevation of over 1200 meters (3,936 feet) and a much larger groundwater resource. This groundwater resource already supplies O’ahu with 92 percent of freshwater use. The development 

and use of the groundwater system have reached the point where the sustainability 

of current and future water usage rates is in doubt. Even if future climate change 

were to lead to increased precipitation for O’ahu, the elevated temperature, via its 

influence on evaporation rate, could result in a reduction in groundwater recharge 

rates and thus a decrease in the groundwater reservoir size. Add to this the increased groundwater usage due to population growth and also the background of future sea level rise and O’ahu’s groundwater resource could be significantly taxed. 

The future rise in sea level could also threaten the economy of Hawai’i by negatively 

impacting vital areas (e.g., airport runway and Waikı ̄kı ̄) in close proximity to shorelines. The rise in sea level could also result in the flow of salt water from the ocean 

to land via the storm drainage system that during storm events can result in flood 

damage to areas such as the Mapunapuna industrial district. 

A summary of the some key concerns and needs for Hawai’i and Pacific island 

communities follows: 

• The adaptive capability of the human systems is generally low for small islands 

and their vulnerability is high; small island communities are likely to be among 

those regions most seriously impacted by climate change. 

• The projected global sea level rise and its geographical variability in this century will cause enhanced coastal erosion, loss of land and property, dislocation 

of people, increase risk from storm surges, reduced resilience of coastal ecosystems, saltwater intrusion into freshwater resources, and high resource costs 

to respond to and adapt to these changes. 

• Islands with very limited water supplies are highly vulnerable to the impacts 

of climate change on their water balance. 

• Coral reefs are likely to be negatively affected by bleaching due to increasing 

temperature and by reduced calcification rates due to higher carbon dioxide levels and consequent ocean acidification; mangroves, sea grass beds, and other 

coastal ecosystems and their associated biodiversity are likely to be adversely 

affected by rising temperatures, accelerated sea level rise, and increasing acidity of seawater. 

• Declines in the water quality and pH and increasing temperatures of coastal 

ecosystems could negatively impact reef fish and threaten reef fisheries, those 

who earn their livelihoods from reef fisheries, and those who rely on the fisheries as a significant food source. 

• Limited arable land and soil salinization make agricultural practices for small 

islands, both for domestic food production and cash crop exports, highly vulnerable to climate change. 

• Tourism, an important source of income and foreign exchange for many islands, 

likely would face severe disruption from climate change and sea level rise. 

• Island communities will mainly have to adapt to climate change and its impacts. Mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions is important from a strategic and 

sustainability viewpoint but will have little effect on rising atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations. 

• There is a need for a new Pacific regional assessment of climate variability and 

change in light of improved models and observations made since the last assessment of 2001. 

• Regional-based climate information services should be established for the Pacific region, perhaps by the University of Hawai’i or by NOAA, to provide climate services that bridge the gap between local weather and global climate 

change information for island communities. These services should include community educational resources on climate change and variability and on the anticipated impacts and vulnerability and adaptation to climate change and rising 

sea level. 

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to address the Committee. I look forward 

to answering your questions. 

31 

Selected References 

Andersson, A. J., Mackenzie, F. T. and Lerman, A., 2005, Coastal ocean and carbonate systems in the high CO2 world of the Anthropocene. American Journal of Science, v. 305, p. 875– 

918. 

Broecker, W. S., Y.-H. Li and T. H. Peng., 1972, Carbon dioxide—man’s unseen artifact. In: 

D. W. Hood (ed.), Impingement of Man on the Oceans, Wiley Interscience, New York, p. 387– 

324. 

Caldeira, K. and M. E. Wickett, 2005, Ocean model predictions of chemistry change from carbon dioxide emissions to the atmosphere and oceans. Journal of Geophysical Research (Oceans), 

v. 110, C09SO4, doi: 10.1029/2004JC002671. 

Feely et al., 2004, Impact of anthropogenic CO2 on the CaCO3 system in the oceans. Science, 

v. 305, No. 5862, p. 362–366. 

Grossman, W., F. T. Mackenzie and A. J. Andersson, 2007, in preparation. 

Guidry, M. W. and F. T. Mackenzie, 2006, Climate Change, Water Resources, and Sustainability in the Pacific Basin: Emphasis on O’ahu, Hawai’i and Majuro Atoll, Republic of the Marshall Islands, University of Hawai’i NOAA Hawai’i Sea Grant Publication, Honolulu, Hawai’i, 

100 pp. 

Hansen et al., 2006, Global temperature change. Proceedings of the National Academy of 

Sciences, v. 103, No. 38, p. 14288–14293. 

Holthus P., M. Crawford, C. Makroro and S. Sullivan, 1992, Vulnerability Assessment for Accelerated Sea Level Rise. Case Study: Majuro Atoll, Republic of the Marshall Islands. SPREP 

Reports and Studies Series No, 60, 107 pp. 

IPCC, 2001, Climate Change 2001. The Physical Science Basis. Cambridge University Press, 

Cambridge, United Kingdom, 881 pp. 

IPCC, 2007, Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Cambridge University Press, 

Cambridge, United Kingdom, 996 pp. 

Mackenzie, F. T., 2003, Our Changing Planet—An Introduction to Earth System Science and 

Global Environmental Change. Prentice Hall, Pearson Education, Inc., Upper Saddle River, New 

Jersey, 580 pp. 

Mackenzie, F. T. and A. Lerman, 2006, Carbon in the Geobiosphere—Earth’s Outer Shell. 

Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 402 pp. 

Miller, D. L. R. and F. T. Mackenzie, 1988, Implications of climate change and associated sea 

level rise for atolls. Proceedings of the 6th International Coral Reef Symposium, Australia, v. 3, p. 519–522. 

Nghiem, et al., 2006, Depletion of perennial sea ice in the East Arctic Ocean. Geophysical Research Letters, 10.1029/2006GL027198. 

Orr, J. C. et al., 2005, Anthropogenic ocean acidification over the twenty-first century and its 

impact on calcifying organisms. Nature, v. 437, p. 681–686. 

Shea et al., 2001, Preparing for a Changing Climate. The Potential Consequences of Climate 

Variability and Change. Report of the Pacific Islands Regional Assessment Group, East-West 

Center, Honolulu, Hawai’i, 102 pp. 

Velicogna, I. and J. Wahr, 2006, Acceleration of Greenland ice mass loss in spring 2004. Nature, v. 443, p. 329–331. 

Visbeck, M., 2008, From climate assessment to climate services. Nature Geoscience, v. 1, No. 

1, p. 2–3. 

The CHAIRMAN. On behalf of the Committee, I thank all of you 

for your testimony. It’s a bit frightening. However, I should tell you 

that in the past several weeks, articles prepared supposedly by scientists with various degrees have been circulated and distributed 

among Members of Congress, and these articles suggest that we 

are giving too much credit to the greenhouse gases for what is happening. They’re suggesting that what is happening is a natural 

phenomenon. They point to the Ice Age, and the fact that the 

oceans have been there for 4 billion years. 

Yesterday on my way into Hawaii, flying, there was a documentary on the screen, I believe it was prepared by a British company, 

that showed the drying out of the Mediterranean caused by the two 

continents coming together. It showed this warm belt that goes underneath, by Alaska, and that’s been affected. 

It suggested the importance of one-cell plankton which, if reduced, would affect all living organisms in the ocean. 

What are your thoughts on these articles? Because although they 

are not taking hold in the Congress, it does provide certain people 

with arguments to slow it down. And all of you have been suggesting that now is not the time to slow down. 

Do you have any thoughts about this? Yes, sir? 

32 

Dr. MACKENZIE. I have considerable thoughts on them. As you 

well know, there’s a move out there amongst certain scientists, 

working for certain organizations, to come up with information to 

try to falsify the hypothesis of global warming, and that’s the way 

science works—we try to destroy the hypothesis, we try to tear it 

apart. That’s the way that scientific method works. And so, some 

of them are doing it, I think, fairly, they’re doing it, but others, I 

do think have certain political or other motivations. 

Having said that, let me backtrack in geologic time, and come 

forward to today, because I think it will answer your question 

about what we’ve seen in the past—and the past has been great, 

why is the future so frightening, maybe? Through the last 600 million years of Earth’s history, we have had changing atmospheric 

carbon dioxide concentrations. Indeed, 400 million years ago, carbon dioxide concentrations in our atmosphere were 18 times the 

present pre-industrial level of 280 parts per million. 

Coming closer to today, during the Cretaceous, at 100 million 

years ago, those concentrations were 8 to 10 times higher. During 

both of those periods, the Earth was warmer. 

Now, between those periods, we had carbon dioxide concentrations that looked much like those of the pre-industrial age—concentrations much like what we had before we came into this 

human anthropogenic scene. And at that time, one was the socalled Permian Triassic, we had big glaciers. Now we have big glaciers. So, we are in a relatively cold period of Earth’s history. 

During that whole time, as atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations were changing, oxygen concentrations were changing, 

and sea water chemistry was changing dramatically. But, these 

were very slow changes—they weren’t changes that occurred on a 

scale of tens of years to hundreds of years. These were changes on 

a scale of 5 million, to 10 to 100 million years. 

Coming close to the present, during this last great Ice Age, the 

Pleistocene glaciation developed 1.8 million years ago. Since then, 

we have seen a series of warm and cold stages. The last glacial 

maximum ended 18,000 years ago, and we are currently in an 

inter-glacial, a warming phase of those great inter-glacial warm/ 

cold cycles, each lasting about 100 million years. 

Those cycles had nothing to do with the anthropogenic CO2. Those cycles were driven mainly by what is known as the 

Milankovitch Hypothesis, which is a hypothesis which shows how 

much more or less radiation the Earth receives as it moves about 

its sun, and its orbit about the sun changes with time. Even then, 

when the Milankovitch 4 scene changed, the carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide levels in the atmosphere also changed. So 

that, during the ice ages, carbon dioxide was very low—on 180 

parts per million by volume, 18,000 years ago. Methane was low, 

nitrous oxide was low. Going back to the last, but ultimate, interglaciation, the converse was true—carbon dioxide was about 280 

parts per million by volume, almost like late pre-industrial age 

time, methane was high, and nitrous oxide was high. 

But during this whole—the record now, the ice core record, which 

is the observational data for what I’ve just said—goes back more 

than 600,000 years. And at no time during that period of time, did 

we have atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations above 280 parts 

33 

per million. That only started when humans began to influence the 

system in the 18th century. 

And so, the rise in CO2 from the late 19th century, on up until 

today, is totally due to fossil fuel burning, and land use activity. 

And anyone that denies that is sadly mistaken. 

The same is true for all of the other anthropogenic gases. They 

have risen far above their pristine levels in the atmosphere. 

The CHAIRMAN. Do most of the scientists involved in these studies agree that the sea level in the next 50 years will rise about a 

meter? 

Dr. MACKENZIE. I think up until the recent news that we received, most people would have believed the IPCC, which in their 

2001 report under a business-as-usual scenario, the largest rise 

they anticipated at that time was on the order of 88 centimeters— 

almost a meter. They have reduced that in their 2007 report to 58 

centimeters. 

However, that report does not take in the recent evidence of 

melting of our ice sheets—not just Greenland, but West Antarctica, 

too. And they’re melting at increasing rates, the ocean is warming 

quickly, and part of the rise in sea level is due to the warming of 

the ocean and its volume increase, because of isothermal expansion. 

I’m a mountaineer by avocation, I’ve climbed all over the world, 

and I can tell you that most of the valley and mountain glaciers 

are melting very rapidly. And so, all of that water is going into the 

ocean. So now the presumptive idea is that we are probably—let 

me, let me phrase in the way the IPCC 2007 phrases it, it is very 

likely we will see a 1 meter rise in sea level by the year 2100. 

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Leong, Mr. Thomas, do you agree or disagree? 

Dr. LEONG. This is not in my field, so I can’t speak as expert, 

as Dr. Mackenzie does. But I do agree that we have to plan for 

that, that this might happen. And we have to plan for thermal 

warming, because our coral reefs will have, within the next 10 

years, many episodes of coral bleaching. 

Mr. THOMAS. Perhaps I can put this more on a policy level, in 

how we integrate our science with policymaking. 

As you know, NOAA is a science agency, and we have a very 

public purposes. And we take our sense of mission very seriously. 

And as part of science, we have to ensure that what we do is justifiable, is defensible, is scientifically significant, and more importantly, it’s socio-economically significant. 

So, I’d like to follow up on Dr. Mackenzie’s comments by not only 

reiterating what he said, but also in addition to the historical 

data—this is something that is really on a global scale. And research takes a long time—to really determine what is scientifically 

significant. 

We have 50 years, and counting, worth of data that backs up everything that Dr. Mackenzie has said. And, you know, to the point 

where NOAA—and, you know, Federal agencies are reluctant, at 

times, to say things very unequivocally, but NOAA has come out 

very publicly, and said unequivocally that warming of the climate 

system is unequivocal, and most of the observed increase in global 

average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due 

34 

to the observed increase in greenhouse gases caused by humans. I 

mean, that is a very clear statement we have from NOAA based 

on its research. 

But there are uncertainties, I mean, with that statement, there’s 

still a lot of things that we don’t know. And, you know, things like 

the rate of warming, including the abrupt and extreme changes, I 

think, which is what some of the scientists that you’ve heard are 

referring to, as well as regional climate variations and change. 

But with that, also, goes the fact that we have to create policies 

that require some mitigation and adaptation, but we don’t really 

know what the effect of those strategies will be. Those things are 

still uncertain. But, I think from our standpoint, based on our understanding of our own data, as well as the data of many other scientists, that we state unequivocally that global warming is here. 

The CHAIRMAN. As you may have concluded, most Members of 

Congress, on a bipartisan basis, are becoming a bit more concerned, 

and a little fearful of what may happen to us. We have passed laws 

that will set certain standards and levels. 

However, a recent report suggests that the two major culprits of 

greenhouse gas emissions are China and the United States. Scientists suggest that even if the U.S. and the rest of the world 

should decide to do something about it, but if one major country 

the size of China continues business-as-usual, it would be an effort 

that might not pay a dividends. 

Do you agree? 

Dr. MACKENZIE. If I understand the question correctly, you’re implying that perhaps the United States may take action but China 

would just continue on, and what that—just our taking action— 

have impact, if China did not. Is that, generally, the—? 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, Congress is now considering laws that may 

be considered unfriendly, such as if products being shipped into the 

United States have been produced without consideration of carbon 

dioxide emissions, they will not be permitted to be sold in the U.S. 

And hopefully, by doing that, influence producers of products. But 

we have no idea whether they will work or not. 

Dr. MACKENZIE. This worries me, and it worries me mostly from 

the standpoint that global warming is not a regional issue, it’s not 

a national, single nation issue, it’s a global issue. 

China is not the only country that’s moving forward quickly, and 

unfortunately in their case, using mainly their coal resource to 

burn, but they are also, now, importing oil. And I believe either 

this year or—well, probably this year, if they haven’t already, because the statistics are hard to get—China has passed the United 

States in total emissions of CO2 to the atmosphere. 

But China’s not the only one. India is growing very rapidly, all 

of Southeast Asia. So, if I were, myself, were doing anything, I 

would rather see global action on the problem, global agreement on 

how we deal with all of this, rather than individual nations being 

punitive, or taking actions simply on their own for whatever reason. 

You know, there’s a lot of talk about mitigation here, in Hawaii, 

but you know, mitigation is not going to do this problem, global 

warming, one bit, in terms of Hawaiian mitigation. I think it’s 

great from a sustainability standpoint. 

35 

The CHAIRMAN. That’s why we’re hoping that the Kyoto Protocol 

would be a good first step, but the U.S. has not adopted it, completely, you know. 

Dr. MACKENZIE. I think the other issue there is we’ve got to reign 

in the deforestation, because that’s 20 percent of the carbon dioxide 

emissions. So, while we’re looking at the fossil fuel issue, and how 

we’re going to deal with that globally, we also have to be looking 

at the deforestation issue, which is mainly in the developing world, 

and how we’re going to deal with that in an equitable way. 

The CHAIRMAN. We’re aware of that, and we are concerned. I’d 

like to thank all of you for your participation here, and we will be 

submitting, if we may, questions that we hope you can respond to. 

Dr. LEONG. Thank you. 

Dr. MACKENZIE. Well, thank you for the invitation. 

The CHAIRMAN. We could have had an informal gathering and 

just have discussions, but because of the severity of the problem, 

we decided to at least give it an official mantle and so that it would 

be on the record. 

And we do intend to do the right thing, but as you may be aware, 

there isn’t a single scientist in the Congress of the United States. 

We have no idea what’s happening, but we have to take your word, 

so your answers to our questions will be very important. 

Thank you very much. 

Dr. MACKENZIE. Thank you. 

Mr. THOMAS. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Our next panel consists of the Director of the 

Hawaii Natural Energy Institute, School of Ocean and Earth 

Science and Technology, University of Hawai‘i, Ma ̄noa; Dr. Richard 

E. Rocheleau, Dr. Karl Kim, Professor and Chair, Department of 

Urban and Regional Planning, University of Hawaii at Manoa; and 

Dr. Goro Uehara, Professor, Department of Tropical Plant and Soil 

Sciences, University of Hawai‘i at Ma ̄noa. 

STATEMENT OF RICHARD E. ROCHELEAU, PH.D., DIRECTOR, 

HAWAII NATURAL ENERGY INSTITUTE, SCHOOL OF OCEAN 

AND EARTH SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF 

HAWAI‘I AT MA ̄ NOA 

Dr. ROCHELEAU. I am the Director of the Hawaii Natural Energy 

Institute at the School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology 

at the University of Hawai‘i. 

And I just wanted to take one moment to acknowledge my co-author on this testimony, Dr. Terry Surles, who prior to joining the 

HNEI faculty was the Associate Lab Director in charge of Energy 

at the Livermore National Laboratory, and has served on the National Academies of Science Committee examining federally funded 

energy research programs. 

Our faculty at HNEI conducts research on many technologies in 

the areas of renewable energy and ocean resources, including hydrogen fuel cells, conversion of biomass to fuels, and high-value 

products, seabed methane hydrates, photovoltaics, battery technology and microbial systems. We are also leading the UH effort 

to establish an ocean energy center in Hawaii. 

Support for this work comes from a variety of government and 

private sources, and HNEI operates a number of laboratories to 

36 

conduct this work. And I just wanted to say, information on these 

specific projects is available on our website, but that wasn’t the 

focus of my talk today. 

While I was asked to discuss our work related to clean energy 

technologies, I want to make a few comments about the relation between global climate change and energy. These largely derive from 

the IPCC report that many people have referred to. And then to 

give a few concrete examples of the magnitude of this issue, in regards to managing CO2 by transforming our energy infrastructure, 

and finally, talk about HNEI’s efforts to develop partnerships to accelerate the development and deployment of renewable energy technologies. 

We’ve heard this before, but at the most basic level, the balance 

between incoming solar radiation and outgoing infrared radiation 

determines the Earth’s climate. And greenhouse gases, including 

CO2, do affect this balance whether naturally occurring or from 

man. 

The most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is 

unequivocal in its conclusion that the Earth is warming, and attributes this to greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. 

And the most often-cited evidence is the increase in the CO2 concentration from the pre-Industrial Revolution level of 280 parts per 

million to today’s level of 380. 

The concerns about global climate change, global warming and 

CO2 emissions has been much more publicly visible and of interest 

since the Kyoto meeting in 1997. In spite of this increased awareness, the rate at which carbon dioxide is being released into the atmosphere continues to increase, from around 6.4 billion tons per 

year in the 1990s to over 7 billion tons per year in the 2000–2005 

time frame. 

In fact, a report that just came out today from U.S. DOE, or at 

least a citation of a report, reported that power plant carbon emissions in the U.S. went up 3 percent between 2006 and 2007. So, 

in spite of the awareness, not much is being done to reverse the 

trend. 

We just heard from a panel that talked about the implications 

of this, and I’ll simply state that the bottom line is that the impact 

on island nations is likely to be significant, and some island nations may simply cease to exist if the sea level rises that are predicted do occur. 

The magnitude of this problem is daunting. I noted just a minute 

ago that we currently emit about, worldwide, about 7.2 billion tons 

of carbon per year. To put this in perspective, I want to talk about 

the energy infrastructure changes that would need to be made just 

to displace one of those 7 gigatons. 

We would need to replace seven hundred 1,000-megawatt coal 

plants that are currently in operation today with coal plants that 

include carbon capture and geological storage. Neither of those 

technologies are available today. 

We will have to install 150 times the current world capacity in 

wind turbines, or replace 2 billion 30 miles per gallon efficiency 

cars with 60 miles per gallon. And that would only make a 1 

gigaton, or a 15 percent reduction in our annual output. 

37 

So, the next question is, what would we need to do to make a 

significant impact on global emissions? The IPCC targets immediate action in an attempt to limit carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to 550 ppm, twice the pre-industrial level, and more than 50 

percent of what we have today. To meet this goal—basically to reduce—we will have to reduce our carbon intensity, which is the 

carbon emissions per dollar of productivity, to approximately 10 

percent of what it is today—it’s a huge reduction. 

To give you some idea of what this would require, we will have 

to generate 75 percent of all our electricity from non-fossil sources, 

we will have to increase energy end-use efficiency by 1 percent per 

year, every year, and nearly double the efficiency of our electricity 

generation, and also increase average passenger car mileage up to 

50 miles per gallon. Even then, we will need additional technological breakthroughs to get to the 10 percent carbon intensity 

level. So, the magnitude of the problem is huge. 

People talk about potential solutions, obvious ones are use less 

energy—helpful, it won’t do it all by itself. Carbon sequestration— 

necessary, not yet available. And significant increases in renewable 

and nonfossil-based energy. And the numbers you just heard show 

how daunting that task is, but we basically need to try to make 

progress in all areas. 

So now I’m just going to discuss for a few minutes, 2 minutes or 

so, remaining, some of the HNEI efforts. 

As we’ve already heard, Hawaii imports a majority of its energy, 

about—over 90 percent. Well, it’s characterized by an unusually 

high dependence on oil for power generation. And this reliance on 

fossil fuel is juxtaposed against an abundance of renewable resources which could be used for energy. And so, our position is, you 

know, with this—and other people in the sdtate—with this array 

of renewable resources, and the opportunity for high-productivity 

energy crops in Hawaii, renewable electricity and bio-derived fuels 

offers great promise for Hawaii to reduce its dependence on fossil 

fuel, and for Hawaii to serve as a model to demonstrate the ability 

to do this for the rest of the Nation. 

As the Chair has already noted, this potential has attracted the 

attention of the Department of Energy, which recently signed an 

MOU with the state identifying 70 percent of our energy from renewable resources by 2030, as a goal, and the state has, itself, enacted renewable portfolio standards, targeting 20 percent of our 

electricity by renewables by 2020. 

Given today’s energy system, and some of the difficulties, even 

the more modest goal is going to be a challenge. HNEI is committing its resources to developing partnerships which will help provide analysis and tools to help identify paths forward—ways to 

make the proper decisions to move forward, and to identify critical 

projects that can demonstrate the ability to integrate today’s technologies into the grid. The ultimate goal is to use Hawaii as a 

model for high-penetration renewable energy generation. And I’m 

going to speak very briefly about two projects that have been underway and are continuing today. 

As documented in my written testimony where I summarize 

some of the energy technologies, there are a number of commercial 

and emerging technologies—wind, solar, ocean energy systems— 

38 

that do offer the potential for large-scale penetration into our grid. 

However, these are inherently more variable and less dispatchable 

than conventional energy. 

The utilities, the operators, and planners will have to change the 

way they do business. HNEI has partnered with the local utility, 

with GE Global Research, with the state and with the U.S. Department of Energy to identify solutions to this problem. The thrust of 

this is to develop models and other tools that can be used to direct 

future development of renewable energy systems on the islands. 

This was initiated on the Big Island, now includes Maui and this 

year is expected to move to O’ahu and Kauai. 

These tools are providing information on approaches for placing 

more renewable energy into the mix, and it will help identify enabling technology so the utility can do so. 

The Department of Energy is interested in this because our current stability/reliability issues on these islands will eventually be 

faced on the mainland, as well. 

In the biomass arena, we do do work on basic research, but 

again, we are trying to develop partnerships to move our technologies forward, using partly what is available today. 

Researchers at HNEI and the College of Tropical Agriculture are 

working collaboratively on new energy production systems. This includes crop screening for high-productivity, high-yielding crops and 

conversion technologies that can be integrated for the maximum 

energy production potential. The economic feasibility of the integrated bio-energy systems will be used to select the appropriate 

technology to move forward. 

We are also working with local and national industry to try to 

demonstrate promising biofuels technologies in a small-scale, tropical bio-refinery. This effort is in its infancy, but the eventual goal 

will be a pre-commercial demonstration of a tropical bio-refinery 

system, which could then be replicated in many of the high-production, high-productivity tropical regions around the world, to provide 

biofuels. 

A quick note—one of the key tools to moving forward with new 

energy technologies is policy, and HNEI is working closely with the 

Department of Energy, the PUC, state energy office, and the energy providers to provide unbiased information to help develop appropriate policy to move the state forward. 

Just kind of going back and repeating again—Hawaii provides— 

and in closing—a very unique environment that will allow quantitative evaluation of grid integration and commercialization of renewable technologies, and it can be a model for our state and our 

county. It’s really unlikely that the public or the private sectors 

alone will be able to solve this—it’s going to take an integrated, 

concerted effort. 

Just as a note, the issue today was global warming, but the 

issues associated with renewable energy also impact our energy security both in the state and in the Nation, so these are objectives 

we should try to meet regardless of your position on global warming. And, as I said, this is going to require concerted and collaborative effort among all of the partners, and continuity of funding 

to move this forward in the national interest, and thank you very 

much for this opportunity to testify. 

39 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Rocheleau follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RICHARD E. ROCHELEAU, PH.D., DIRECTOR AND TERRY

SURLES, RESEARCHER, HAWAII NATURAL ENERGY INSTITUTE, UNIVERSITY OF

HAWAI‘I AT MA ̄ NOA

Introduction 

Good morning, Chairman Inouye and Members of the Committee. Thank you for 

the opportunity to testify on this very important matter—Climate Change Impacts 

and Responses in Island Communities. My name is Richard Rocheleau. I am Director of the Hawaii Natural Energy Institute (HNEI). The Institute is an organized 

research unit in the School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology at the University of Hawai‘i at Ma ̄noa. HNEI’s faculty and staff conduct a range of research 

in the areas of renewable energy and ocean resources and manage several larger 

public-private partnerships to accelerate the acceptance and deployment of renewable energy technologies into Hawaii’s energy mix. Our primary areas of emphasis 

includes development and deployment of hydrogen and fuel cell technologies, conversion of biomass into fuels and other high value products, advanced batteries and 

their applications, photovoltaics, seabed methane hydrates, and analysis of integrated energy systems to facilitate high penetration of intermittent renewable energy technologies into electrical grid systems. As the renewable technologies mature, 

the ability to deploy them in an economic and environmentally sound manner without negatively impacting the reliability of our energy systems becomes of paramount 

importance. 

My own personal research has been in the areas of photovoltaics, hydrogen technology and fuel cells. As Director, I have focused considerable effort on development 

of public-private partnerships directed toward the implementation and deployment 

of renewable energy technologies into the islands’ energy mix. My coauthor of this 

testimony, Dr. Terry Surles, is a member of the HNEI faculty. Prior to joining HNEI 

he was the Associate Lab Director at Livermore National Laboratory for Energy, 

was General Manager of Environmental Programs at Argonne National Laboratory, 

was the head of the Public Interest Energy Research Program at the California Energy Commission, and served on a National Academy of Sciences committee examining prospective benefits of federally funded energy research. Dr. Surles’ primary 

interests are integrated energy systems as they relate to solutions for global climate 

change and energy security issues. 

I have been asked by this Committee to discuss our work related to clean energy 

technologies. Hawaii is very concerned about global climate change and energy security. It is unique among the 50 states in its dependence on oil for the production 

of electricity—about 86 percent of Hawaii’s electricity is produced from oil. The grid 

systems are small by mainland utility standards and on the neighbor islands are 

relatively sparse leading to high costs for transmission and distribution. These factors, and Hawaii’s abundant supply of renewable energy resources, offer a unique 

opportunity for Hawaii to serve as a ‘‘living laboratory’’ to identify the achievable 

limits for the deployment of renewable energy systems and to evaluate the impacts, 

benefits, and issues associated with such deployment to ameliorate global climate 

change and petroleum dependency. 

The problems are not simple. Even renewable energy systems can have a CO2

footprint—some such as ethanol from corn can be almost as large as that from petroleum. Due to intermittency and reliability, there are practical limits to the penetration of renewable systems on the grid. Can these limits be pushed sufficiently 

far and fast enough to have a significant impact on emissions and global climate 

change? HNEI and its partners are attempting to address these issues. In the last 

section of this testimony I do describe a few of HNEI’s activities in this area, ones 

which if successful will impact not only the state but also the Nation. However, before describing what HNEI’s activities are, I would like to take a few minutes to 

address global climate change and energy from the larger context. This discussion 

comes largely from the recent reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change (IPCC) and related publically available studies. 

Energy and Global Climate Change 

At the most basic level, the balance between incoming solar radiation and outgoing infrared radiation (as heat) determines Earth’s climate. Earth, it should be 

noted, is a greenhouse gas planet. Greenhouse gases, which include water vapor, absorb this infrared radiation, thus trapping heat near the earth’s surface. Other 

gases, such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, are also greenhouse 

gases. While these occur naturally, anthropogenic emissions of these gases, as well 

40 

as man-made greenhouse gases (i.e., chlorofluorocarbons), have substantially increased the amount of these heat trapping gases in the atmosphere. 

Warming of the earth, according to the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on 

Climate Change (IPCC, 2007), is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations 

of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of 

snow and ice, and rising global mean sea levels. The IPCC attributes this warming 

to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere. For example, 

the concentration of carbon dioxide, arguably the most important greenhouse gas, 

in the atmosphere has increased from about 280 parts per million (ppm) in the atmosphere prior to the Industrial Revolution to over 380 ppm at present. The continuously recorded data at the Mauna Loa Observatory demonstrate a seasonal, but 

monotonic, increase from about 315 ppm in 1958 to today’s levels. 

There are arguments that these changes are part of the natural climate cycles of 

the earth and not attributable to human factors. However, paleo-climate information 

supports the interpretation that the warmth of the last 50 years is unusual over 

at least the last 1,300 years. The last time the Polar Regions were this warm for 

an extended period was about 125,000 years ago. Vostok (the Russian research station in Antarctica) ice core data suggest that the earth may be as warm as it has 

been in the past 400,000 years. 

Recent data also support the fact that the past 10 years contain many of the 

warmest years since weather data were being recorded. In fact, despite the increasing concerns about climate change and global warming, the rate at which carbon 

dioxide is being released into the atmosphere continues to increase from 6.4 

Gigatonnes carbon (GtC) per year (6,400,000,000 tonnes C/yr) during the 1990s to 

about 7.2 GtC per year between 2000 and 2005, an increase in the rate of emission 

release of over 10 percent in 10 years. 

The IPCC report provides projections for the future of earth’s climate which include significant continued increases in temperature. For temperature change, the 

models are reasonably consistent in predicting increased temperatures based on the 

amount of carbon dioxide being emitted over this coming century. Since carbon dioxide will remain in the atmosphere for a very long time, even an aggressive response 

for reducing emissions is expected to result in an increase in temperature. Thus, a 

best case estimate for a low emissions and related temperature rise scenario will 

be between 1.1 °C to 2.9 °C (a global temperature increase of about 3 °F) by 2100. 

Other scenarios predict likely temperature increases in the range of 2.4 °C to 6.4 °C (a global temperature increase of about 7 °F) by 2100. 

The implications of this considerable increase in temperature have been documented in numerous peer reviewed journal articles. Some of these impacts would 

include changes in cropping patterns due to an increase in drought and precipitation 

in agricultural areas. Other impacts on our food supply can include the introduction 

of invasive species, such as plant and animal pests as the climatic conditions may 

change. Additional impacts may be related to human health as tropical diseases become prevalent in formerly temperate climates. 

The impacts of the changing climate are now beginning to manifest themselves. 

Over the past decade, we have seen increased precipitation in the mid-latitudes, further drying of lower latitudes (leading to increased desertification), and more intense and longer droughts in the tropics and sub-tropics. The lack of water will potentially impact Pacific Island nations in the nearer-term. There is reasonable expectation for these precipitation trends to continue. 

In the longer term, some island nations may simply cease to exist due to rising 

sea levels associated with melting land-based glaciers and sea water expansion due 

to increased water temperature. Conservative projections for sea level rise, even 

under the best of circumstances, are for a rise of slightly over three feet over the 

course of this century. For many low lying islands, this amount of sea level rise 

would have a substantive impact. Sustained temperature increases that are implied 

in the higher scenarios, described in the preceding paragraph, could eventually— 

over the course of this century—melt the Greenland ice sheet, causing a sea level 

rise on the order of twenty feet. 

A substantial amount of carbon dioxide emissions is due to our use of energy. The 

onset of the Industrial Revolution is generally equated with the start of large-scale 

burning of coal in England. The majority of today’s carbon dioxide emissions arise 

from the burning of fossil fuel including coal, oil, and natural gas. In the mainland 

U.S., coal-fired power plants, the worst emitters, account for slightly more than 50 

percent of the electricity generation. In Hawaii, about 86 percent of electricity is 

provided by oil-fired generation and 7.4 percent is provided by coal-fired generation. 

For transportation, the situation is similar and possibly even worse. Almost all 

of our Nation’s transportation fuel is derived from petroleum. It should be noted 

that this dependence on petroleum is also a key contributor to our Nation’s energy 

41 

security issues as well as the foreign debt/balance of payments problems. Thus, 

there is clear reason for linking security and climate change issues for our country’s 

well-being. 

The magnitude of this problem is daunting. For example, we discussed the fact 

that the world is currently emitting 7.2 gigatonnes of carbon a year. To put this into 

perspective we offer some examples of the changes to our energy infrastructure that 

would be required to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide by one gigatonne per year 

(from R. Socolow, Stanford Hydrogen Workshop, 2003). These include: 

• Install 700 1000 MW coal-fired power plants that include carbon capture and 

geological storage (not even available yet); 

• Install two thousand times (2000×) the world’s current supply of photovoltaics. 

• Install 150 times (150×) the current worldwide capacity of wind turbines; 

• Replace two billion 30 mpg efficiency cars with 60 mpg efficiency cars. 

The implication of climate change mitigation is that we must try to stabilize the 

concentration of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere to a doubling of pre-industrial 

concentrations in order to not suffer unknown, but potentially catastrophic effects. 

In other words, we need to take immediate action to limit carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to a concentration of 550 ppm. Since we are already seeing impacts at 380 

ppm concentrations, even this may be too high. However, as discussed in the preceding paragraph, the changes in our energy infrastructure required to control carbon dioxide emissions are daunting. In order to achieve and maintain a 550 ppm 

atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide by the end of the century, we will need 

to reduce our carbon intensity to less than 10 percent of what it is today. (Carbon 

intensity is the measure of carbon dioxide emitted to the atmosphere divided by the 

gross domestic product.) 

Projected requirements to achieve this 10 percent goal include accomplishing all 

of the following: 

• Generate 75 percent of all electricity from non-fossil sources. 

• Increase end-use energy efficiency increases by 1 percent per year every year. 

• Increase electricity generation efficiency to 67 percent (currently about 35 percent) by 2050. 

• Increase passenger car mileage to average 50 mpg by 2050. 

Even if all of these are achieved, we will need additional technological breakthroughs to achieve a carbon intensity goal of less than 10 percent of our current 

value and even that will only limit the planet to a doubling of its atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations from pre-industrial times. 

For our country and for our state, we must pursue all technology solutions. The 

most effective solution is to simply use less energy. The highest priority for many 

state public utility commissions starts with end-use energy efficiency. This needs to 

involve not only the request to change lifestyles, but to develop and commercialize 

new end-use technologies that are more energy efficient in meeting the demands of 

the economy. 

Another mechanism is to sequester (capture and store) carbon dioxide from coalfired power plants. This is currently a technology under development that still faces 

a number of environmental, engineering, and financial challenges before reaching 

any stage of commercialization. Recent estimates report that CO2 capture may require at least 25 percent of a pulverized coal-fired power plant’s total output (C&E 

News, March 3, 2008). Newer technologies, such as oxy-combustor and integrated 

gasification/combined cycle systems, may allow for the continued use of coal and the 

more cost-effective capture and geological storage of carbon dioxide. This will allow 

our country to continue to utilize indigenous national energy resources. 

Another approach—and one which will now be discussed at greater length—is the 

increased utilization of renewable energy resources. The greater use of these indigenous resources will allow us to reduce our dependence on foreign energy resources, 

while at the same time reducing carbon dioxide emissions for the amount of energy 

we consume. As noted earlier, the carbon emissions for any renewable resource technology are not zero. When one takes the technology’s life cycle into consideration, 

carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are emitted during the fabrication or operation of these technologies. 

As indicated, if we are to make progress against increasing CO2 emissions, the 

solutions will necessarily be multifaceted. Renewables offer one potential solution 

for reduction of fossil fuel usage in both the electricity and transportation sectors. 

With its wealth of renewable resources, renewables can be a particularly effective 

approach for the state of Hawaii. The issue before the state is how to utilize these 

42 

resources in an economic, environmentally-sensitive, and societal-acceptable manner. The next section provides a very brief summary of the status of various renewable energy resources and issues related to the deployment of related commercial 

technologies. 

Renewable Energy Technologies 

Hawaii is blessed with almost every renewable energy resource imaginable. With 

its high cost of electricity and fuels, wealth of renewable resources, and stand-alone 

grid systems, Hawaii can serve as a model system for the rest of the Nation in the 

deployment of renewable energy systems. However, before moving onto the Hawaii 

energy situation and HNEI’s energy activities, I would like take a few minutes to 

provide a very brief review of the status, potential and unresolved challenges associated with the various renewable energy technologies. 

Wind 

Other than conventional hydroelectric power, wind is arguably the most developed 

of the renewable technologies. Megawatt (MW) sized wind turbines are available 

from a number of suppliers and have been shown to be cost effective where siting 

and integration are not issues. However, wind is characterized by restrictive operational constraints in terms of its intermittency (on both a second-by-second and 

day-by-day basis) that can have a substantive effect on the stability and reliability 

of the electricity grid limiting the allowable penetration onto the grid system. Siting 

can also be a challenge. Resource maps for wind can be useful, but wind is a localized resource. These resources are not always located where the electricity load is. 

Thus, long distance transmission is a challenge. Additionally, there can be localized 

opposition to wind due to perceived visual, noise, and aesthetic effects. Off-shore 

wind development has been proposed as an answer to land-use issues, but deployment is limited to relatively shallow regions which open the door for visual impact 

concerns. This has been part of the on-going discussions over the development of a 

wind farm in the near-shore area of Cape Cod in Massachusetts. Wind capacity factors (percent of energy relative to nameplate) are typically around 35 percent and 

only 45 percent in best wind regimes. Thus, as with other intermittent renewable 

resources, the utility must have nearly equal back-up capacity for each MW of wind. 

Even when the operating utility has spinning and regulating reserve on line to control power quality and to allow rapid response to sudden losses in wind, sudden 

changes in wind speeds can destabilize the grid. Power quality and response issues 

increase non-linearly as wind penetration increases and become significant at percentages in the 10 to 20 percent range. Issues, as we are finding in Hawaii, are seen 

first on smaller grid systems. However, even on a large continental-based grid, reliability issues may arise. For example, just 2 weeks ago, the Texas grid system almost went down when there was a sudden and significant loss of wind. 

Biomass 

Biomass, organic matter of biogenic origins, is currently used as a feedstock for 

the production of fuels, chemicals, power, and heat. This flexibility to serve both 

fuels and power applications is a major difference between biomass and other renewables. The three primary sources of biomass in the U.S. today are wood, waste 

(e.g., Municipal Solid Waste), and crops for alcohol and plant oil based fuels. The 

first two groups are used almost exclusively for the generation of heat and power, 

and in 2005 accounted for 82 percent of biomass consumption on an energy basis. 

(EIA, http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/biomass/biomass.html). 

The current development efforts for biofuels in the U.S. has focused primarily on 

ethanol produced from corn and biodiesel produced from soybeans. Ethanol production from corn approached 5 billion gallons in 2006 (∼3 percent of overall gasoline 

consumption) and is expected to show continued growth. Biodiesel production was 

significantly less at ∼100 million gallons representing only about 0.25 percent of distillate fuel consumption. The impacts of rising petroleum prices and growth in demand for biofuels have resulted in increased biofuel production and, even at these 

modest levels of production, have led to competition with food supplies. Unlike electricity, where several renewable technologies can be used to displace fossil fuel 

power generation, renewable liquid transportation fuels are expected to come almost 

exclusively from biomass. 

It is generally agreed that current biofuels systems (crops and conversion technology) are not sustainable, certainly not at the scale needed to impact long-term 

energy security or climate change. To achieve sustainable biofuels systems, production of biomass will need to focus on the use of marginal agricultural lands, improved crop yields, reduced production inputs (i.e., water, fertilizer, etc.), development of non-agricultural biomass resources, and improved biofuel production technologies and end-use efficiency. The transition from fossil fuels to biofuels will only 

43 

be achievable with development of appropriate policy that will provide the sustainability and stability needed for long-term investment at all points along the value 

chain. 

The development of technology to produce transportation fuels from materials less 

valuable than corn or sugar has focused on using fiber (i.e., wood, straw, bagasse, 

etc.) as the feedstock. Integrated biochemical and thermo-chemical technologies currently under development are positioned for use in bio-refineries of the future and 

show great promise. However considerable time and investment in R&D and commercialization are required. These efforts need to be afforded a high priority. 

Photovoltaics 

Solar photovoltaics are reliable and commercially available but continue to suffer 

from high costs. The current market is dependent on subsidies and/or tax credits 

with a significant part of the commercial sales taking place in only a few places 

(Germany, California, and New Jersey) where aggressive subsidies are provided. 

The majority of the market today is served by some form of silicon wafer but a number of thin-film and 3rd and 4th generation materials are under development. Since 

a PV system includes the other module components, hardware for mounting and installation, and balance of plant for integration to the household or grid; cost of the 

actual semiconductor is only one of the cost factors that must be addressed. Integration into the grid is simpler than for wind (predictability better) but the relatively 

high cost is likely to limit deployment except in locations with high electricity costs 

such as Hawaii. 

Solar Thermal 

This technology is of interest in that it can provide for the use of power even when 

the sun isn’t shining through the use of heat transfer and storage fluids in its system. Currently, these systems are in use in parts of the world, such as the Negev 

Desert, where there is little scattering of the incident light. Their potential, while 

considerable in Hawaii, still awaits further reductions in operational costs and in 

confirmation of longer term efficacy of stable operation. 

Geothermal 

This is a proven technology where the resource allows use of conventional power 

generation technologies, i.e., geothermal resource provides steam for power generation. Newer technologies such as engineered geothermal systems (EGS) which use 

water injection to utilize dry geothermal heat for steam production are under development. There are positive projections of cost for EGS, but these systems have not 

yet been demonstrated in a commercial setting. Under heavy use, long term viability 

of a geothermal resource can be an issue. Siting for naturally occurring geothermal 

fluid systems is an issue in that they are only available in a limited number of locations. EGS systems however have a much greater area upon which to draw and 

could form the basis of a distributed generation system. Unlike most other renewable technologies, intermittency is not an issue. Thus, geothermal energy can be 

used for base load power. 

Ocean Energy Technologies 

Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC)—Net power production has been demonstrated from OTEC but questions remain about the efficiency of the process, cost, 

demonstrated lifetime, and design efficiency. In addition, there is limited potential 

for the mainland U.S. without some form of chemical energy transfer which today 

is too expensive. At the gigawatt scale, this technology uses enormous amounts of 

deep sea and surface sea water which may have significant long term environmental 

impacts. 

Wave —There are many (up to 40) competing wave energy technologies worldwide. 

While there has been significant progress in recent years, many ocean deployments 

to validate system performance have met with limited success. Capital, including installation costs, is a significant factor. One point that is seldom made, although obvious, is that the ocean environment is harsh from both corrosion and simple wear 

and tear. Therefore, longer term efficacy related to O&M needs to be demonstrated. 

Intermittency will require back-up energy generation technology, but rapid transients such as those associated with wind are not expected to be apparent. Thus, 

high penetration is theoretically possible. 

Hydrogen and Fuel Cells 

Hydrogen is an energy source, such as the sun or a fossil fuel. Rather, hydrogen 

is an energy carrier like electricity. While hydrogen is the most plentiful element 

in the universe it does not occur freely. It must be manufactured from compounds 

44 

in which it is bound. Hydrogen can be produced by electrolyzing water and from the 

gasification of biomass. 

Hydrogen can be used to generate electrical power electrochemically in a fuel cell 

or to produce mechanical energy by thermo-chemical combustion in an internal combustion engine. In the case of a fuel cell, the product of combustion is pure water; 

in an engine it is water and some nitrogen oxide. Economics dictate that renewable 

electricity is best utilized to power the utility grid with any surplus used for hydrogen production via electrolysis. 

When considering hydrogen as a potential energy carrier, all of the elements making up the system must be considered. These elements include the production, storage, and transport requirements, plus the end-use utilization of the hydrogen. Although considerable progress has been made over the past 10 years, all of these 

components of the hydrogen system are in the development stage and not yet commercial. However as the price of oil increases, the value of clean energy solutions 

becomes more important, and technical progress is made, hydrogen is expected to 

become an important component of future energy systems, and Hawaii could be one 

of the earliest adopters. 

HNEI Activities Related to Clean Energy Technologies 

Hawaii imports fuel for generation of the majority of its energy (93 percent) characterized by an unusually high dependence on oil for power generation. This substantial reliance on fossil fuels is juxtaposed against an abundance of renewable resources which could be used for energy. With this array of renewable resources and 

the opportunity for high productivity energy crops; renewable electricity and bio-derived fuels offer great promise to reduce the states’ dependence on fossil fuels and 

for Hawaii to demonstrate for the Nation, the potential of energy independence 

through renewable energy. This was recognized in the recent MOU between the 

State of Hawaii and U.S. Department of Energy where a goal of 70 percent of the 

state’s energy from renewable sources by 2030 was announced. While an admirable 

goal, and arguably one that is necessary nationally and internationally if we are to 

impact CO2 emissions and climate there are very significant hurdles—technical, economic, and policy—to be overcome if there is to be significant progress toward this 

goal within the critical 10 to 15 year time-frame in which consensus estimates agree 

that world-wide conventional oil and gas resources will not meet demand. Although 

the goals are less aggressive, in 2004, the State enacted a new Renewable Portfolio 

Standards law (S.B. 2474) setting a renewable energy goal of 20 percent for 2020. 

However, implementation even at this modest level of penetration remains a challenge. 

As summarized in the introduction, HNEI conducts research and development in 

a number of technology areas. HNEI has also committed substantial resources and 

effort to development of public-private partnerships which will: (1) provide for development of analysis and tools to identify the optimal path(s) forward and (2) identify 

critical projects to validate key renewable technologies and the ability to integrate 

these technologies into the energy mix. It is these latter integration activities which 

can most quickly effect change in the state and for that reason, will be the focus 

on my discussion today of HNEI activities. 

Renewable Energy Deployment: There are a number of commercial and emerging 

technologies such as wind, solar, and ocean energy systems that offer the potential 

for large scale penetration of renewable electricity into the grid. However, each of 

these technologies is inherently more variable and less dispatchable than conventional generation. Their implementation will require utility system planners and operators to adopt new technology and new strategies to ensure reliable and efficient 

electric grid operation. HNEI, in partnership with the local utility, GE Global Research Center, the state, and U.S. DOE, has developed a substantial program to 

identify potential solutions to high penetration of renewables. HNEI holds a unique 

position in being able to merge interests and funding from a variety of public and 

private resources. 

The thrust of this current project is to develop models and other analytical tools 

that can be used to evaluate the future development of renewable energy systems 

on each of the islands, addressing specific island energy systems and resources. This 

effort was initiated on the Big Island, now includes Maui, and is expected later this 

year to include Oahu and Kauai. Using the Big Island effort as an example, operations and modeling show that the electricity that is available from existing wind 

power on the island can compromise the stability and reliability of the grid. At the 

same time, the state Renewable Portfolio Standard is mandating additional renewable energy installation between now and 2020 and independent power producers 

are pushing for increased use of wind by the utility. Use of these scenario analysis 

and management tools is providing information on approaches for placing more reVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:05 Jul 24, 2012 Jkt 052754 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\75205.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
45 

newable energy systems on the Big Island. These analyses also demonstrate the 

need for development, demonstration, and deployment of enabling technologies for 

renewable systems. These enabling technologies will necessarily include electricity 

storage systems (for both second-by-second response and for bulk storage), advanced 

power electronics, and demand-response technologies. 

These scenario analysis and management tools also allow characterization of the 

benefits, costs, performance issues, environmental and societal issues, and impacts 

of various solution scenarios for each of the main islands. 

Additional projects in these areas have been proposed using the existing partnerships to leverage resources to validate technology integration solutions through field 

demonstrations. As discussed in more detail below, these analyses also help provide 

robust policy analysis to support legislative solutions to ensure a systematic and reliable transformation of Hawaii’s energy systems. The Department of Energy is interested in this work, since the current stability and reliability issues facing the Big 

Island are expected to be replicated on the mainland. 

Tropical Biofuels: In the biomass arena, there are numerous technologies in various stages of development in Hawaii and elsewhere with potential to contribute to 

Hawaii’s energy solutions. Analogous to the integration issues being addressed for 

high penetration of renewables onto the electricity grid, cost-effective deployment of 

these emerging biomass conversion technologies for power or fuels production require substantial integration to effectively utilize the biomass resource. Additionally, 

many of the biomass resources and conversion technologies are yet to be validated 

for commercial deployment. HNEI has embarked on a number of partnerships to address these issues. 

Researchers in HNEI and the College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources are working collaboratively to develop new bioenergy production systems for 

Hawaii. Crop production research activities include screening candidate crops suited 

for the tropics under different soil and climatic conditions (benchmark locations) and 

selecting for high yielding varieties with the greatest energy production potential. 

The feedstock properties that are important in bioenergy conversion vary between 

crops and may depend on environmental factors. These properties are quantified for 

selected candidate feedstocks and conversion tests are performed in laboratory or 

bench-scale equipment to optimize biomass conversion methods across the range of 

fuel properties. The economic feasibility and energy productivity of an integrated 

bioenergy system based on the production of candidate crops and selected conversion 

technology options are evaluated. This integrated approach provides necessary analysis in support of bioenergy systems development. 

Finally, HNEI is working with private industry to demonstrate promising biofuel 

technologies in small scale tropical biorefinery. Under this activity, HNEI is undertaking technology assessment including models of resource requirements for crop 

production and conversion technologies, integrated systems evaluation including 

characterization of benefits, costs, performance issues, and environmental and societal impacts of various systems. The eventual goal of this work is pre-commercial 

demonstration of a tropical biorefinery system. 

The latter activity will be used to validate key process components and production 

targets and provide continuous, operational data at a scale sufficient to lower the 

technical risks associated with financing future commercial plants. All three tasks 

will seek to build partnerships with entities (land owners, businesses, State agencies, etc.) in the Hawaii biomass community and with groups from outside Hawaii 

that can provide technology, capabilities, and significant leveraging of project funds 

to help overcome the technical, economic, and resource barriers which have, to date, 

prevented significant progress in the development of new bioenergy projects in Hawaii. 

Policy: HNEI is working closely with the U.S. DOE, the State Energy Office, the 

PUC, and energy providers to provide unbiased information for development of a set 

of policies which can help move the state forward. This project effort and other 

HNEI activities allow for the integration of knowledge gained from technology assessment with public policy analysis. One of the most efficient paths forward for 

commercializing new technology in this area is to link technology advances with 

public policy tools and initiatives. The information gained from this effort will provide the state Public Utilities Commission, for example, with information on how 

new power purchase agreements may be configured to reduce costs to the rate 

payer. This project can also provide information to commercial technology interests 

on how best to modify and configure their technologies for emerging electricity markets that are increasingly dependent on renewable and distributed energy. In short, 

there are many means and mechanisms for how public policy initiatives and technology development can be linked to provide benefits to consumers and—more 

46 

broadly—to the state and nation. HNEI is working on ensuring that these mechanisms are as effective as possible. 

Closing Remarks 

Hawaii can and should be a ‘‘living laboratory’’ to explore the potential for validating the performance of various renewable energy technologies in commercial deployment. Our state also can provide a unique environment to allow for a quantitative evaluation of grid integration and commercialization of new technologies, 

not only for our state, but for the country as a whole. The active interest by state 

government, Congress, the energy community and the private sector allows for the 

integration of technology, commercial deployment and policy. While these are initially directed to Hawaii, in the future they can be applicable to national needs. This 

is particularly important for many of the larger scale issues facing our energy systems. It is unlikely that either the public or the private sectors can solve any of the 

large scale issues independently of the other. These issues—global climate change, 

energy security, grid modernization, and critical infrastructure, to name a few—require concerted and collaborative efforts and continuity of funding to be solved in 

the national interest. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Dr. Kim? 

STATEMENT OF KARL KIM, PH.D., PROFESSOR AND CHAIR, 

DEPARTMENT OF URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING, 

UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI‘I AT MA ̄ NOA 

Dr. KIM. Good morning, Senator Inouye. Thank you very much 

for this opportunity to testify. I’m honored to have this opportunity 

to speak about the impacts of climate change, and the response in 

island communities. 

I’m also happy to follow my distinguished colleagues which make 

my testimony all that more easy. 

I’ve just come from Tokyo, and the United Nations University, 

where I’ve been participating in meetings related to climate 

change, sustainability, disaster management and renewable energy. I’m also engaged in some research related to the modeling of 

efforts to reduce carbon emissions through urban planning and 

transportation, with the National Institute for Environmental 

Studies in Japan, and I’d like to report to you that these organizations are very much concerned about the anthropogenic sources of 

greenhouse gases. 

Earlier today there was mention of a report issued by the Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, which I’m a 

member of. Next year, they will be focusing on the impacts of climate change on transportation infrastructure. I’ve prepared a 

paper for presentation at that meeting, so I want to again reiterate 

that there are many science-based organizations that are taking, 

very seriously, these issues of climate change, global warming and 

sea level rise. 

Much of my research involves modeling the impacts of climate 

change, especially on critical infrastructure and on the social and 

economic life of communities, particularly in Hawaii. Cities or 

urban areas are, at once, both a cause and a solution to the problem of climate change. 

On the one hand, as we’ve heard this morning, they consume tremendous amounts of land, resources, and energy, and generate 

vast amounts of greenhouse gases—cities store heat and are constructed of impervious surfaces contributing to runoff, flash-flooding and other ecological problems. And urban expansion, then, has 

47 

also meant, globally, the loss of forests, agricultural lands, and 

other sinks for carbon sequestration. 

So, but at the same time, cities also provide opportunities for increased density of development—reduction of travel distances for 

work, shopping, education, and opportunities to use new technologies for energy, communications, commerce and economic development. Adoption of sustainable, renewable green design planning and building techniques will not only help reduce the ecological footprint of cities and urban areas, but will also provide a pathway for continued growth and prosperity. 

And it’s really critical that our planning regime, including our 

comprehensive plans, our general plans, our development plans, 

our zoning codes, our building codes and other various community 

plans and project plans are realigned to address the conditions and 

needs created by climate change. If we start now, we can change 

this regime. 

There have been some really important recent studies that have 

looked at, for example, the costs and benefits of hardening the 

shoreline versus managed realignment strategies, in which you encourage development to occur further inland. This is work that we 

can do now over the long term that will make a lot of sense. 

And there are obvious technological issues, as well as political 

and social issues associated with these policy changes. And I think 

our University can play a critical role, in not just developing these 

technologies, but also working to re-train planners and other policymakers that are involved in this type of forward-thinking, forward decisionmaking. 

As you’ve noted in your introductory comments, and as we’ve 

heard this morning, already, climate change greatly impacts island 

communities. In my written testimony, I’ve summarized some of 

the key research. Fortunately, most of it was published after 2005, 

so I feel safe with it. 

Some of the pieces that I cited were done in 1998, and before the 

more dire predictions of sea level rise were identified. The way that 

I look at this is, even back before these dire predictions came out, 

the impacts upon Pacific Islands, on small island settings, were 

well-noted. So, it can only get worse. 

In order to lessen the probability of these natural events, and climate-induced events from turning into disasters, there’s a need to 

develop effective programs, training and an integrated system of 

disaster preparedness, response, and recovery. An integrated system includes Federal, State and local governments, as well as 

international agencies, non-governmental organizations and the 

private and volunteer sectors. 

A comprehensive approach includes consideration of all phases of 

the disaster cycle, including preparedness response, recovery, mitigation, development and adaptation to environmental change. 

While there’s been research and training on various aspects of 

response and preparedness, there’s a need for more research and 

training on adaptation, and addressing the vulnerabilities of populations exposed to natural hazards. There is particular need to address natural hazards in the Pacific Region, and in many areas 

throughout the Nation. 

48 

With the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, significant effort has gone toward the prevention and response to acts 

of terrorism. The National Domestic Preparedness Consortium was 

established in September 1998, and reconfirmed in public law in 

2001. The original members, the Center for Domestic Preparedness, LSU, Nevada Test Site, New Mexico Tech, Texas A&M— 

these original members of the consortium addressed counterterrorism preparation needs, within the context of chemical, biological, 

radiological and explosive weapons of mass destruction. Not a one 

of these centers is focused on natural hazards. 

Reauthorized in the Homeland Security legislation in 2007 

through 2011, the consortium was expanded, as you know, to include all hazards, including technological and natural hazards. The 

two new members that were added include the Transportation 

Technology Center in Colorado, and the National Disaster Preparedness Training Center at the University of Hawai‘i. And, within the DHS, the consortium is located within FEMA now, under the 

National Preparedness Directorate. 

The focus of our center, the National Disaster Preparedness 

Training Center, is on building community resiliency to all hazards, by developing and providing training to first responders, decisionmakers, policy analysts and urban planners. Our center will 

partner with key Federal, State, local, international partners to develop and implement training on disaster preparedness, response, 

recovery, relevant to the special needs and conditions of Pacific Island communities, and others at risk from natural and technological hazards. 

We will provide training consisting of formal degrees and certificate programs, as well as specialized courses, workshops, conferences, and coordinate the sharing of data and information related to preparedness, mitigation, response and recovery, and serve 

as an incubator for new ideas, technologies, businesses and partnerships between the University, business and government. 

To date, we have attended two meetings, two quarterly meetings, 

of the consortium, to learn about the training activities of the other 

six centers. We’ve also had productive and informative meetings 

with the Emergency Management Institute under FEMA, and others within the Department of Homeland Security. 

We’ve interacted with the Natural Hazards Center at the University of Colorado, Boulder, as well as other national and international training partners. 

We’ve also been working very closely with entities and organizations within Hawaii, involved with disaster management to become 

a model of how information and technology can be shared across 

our community. And it is evident that the Center will play an important role in addressing the needs of both island communities as 

well as other coastal communities and those affected by natural 

disasters throughout the Nation. 

I want to, on behalf of the University and the State and others 

involved in this area, I want to thank you for your efforts in this 

area, in creating the National Disaster Preparedness Training Center. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Kim follows:] 

49 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KARL KIM, PH.D., PROFESSOR AND CHAIR, DEPARTMENT OF

URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING, UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI‘I AT MA ̄ NOA

Introduction 

Good morning, Senator Inouye and Members of the Committee. I am Karl Kim, 

Professor and Chair of the Department of Urban and Regional Planning at the University of Hawaii. I am honored to have this opportunity to speak to you about the 

impacts of climate change and responses in island communities. I have just come 

from Tokyo and the United Nations University where I have been participating in 

meetings related to climate change, sustainability, disaster management, and renewable energy. I am also engaged in research related to modeling of efforts to reduce carbon emissions through urban and transportation planning with the National Institute for Environmental Studies in Japan. I also serve as an Advisor to 

the Korea office of the International Council of Environmental Initiatives, which is 

focused on sustainable development in the Asia-Pacific region. I would also note that 

I am a member of the Transportation Research Board, National Research Council 

which will also be addressing the impacts of climate change on transportation at 

its Annual Meeting in 2009. I am currently working on a study estimating the impacts of climate change and sea level rise on coastal roadways and business activities in Hawaii. My current research also involves modeling evacuation decision-making in coastal communities. Much of my research over the past two decades has involved sustainable development and urban and transportation planning. 

Climate Change and Urban Planning 

Cities are both a cause of and a solution to the problem of climate change. They 

consume tremendous amounts of land, resources and energy and generate vast 

amounts of greenhouse gases. Cities store heat and are constructed of impervious 

surfaces, contributing to urban runoff, flash flooding, and other ecological problems. 

Urban expansion has also meant the destruction and loss of forests, agricultural 

lands, and other sinks for carbon sequestration. Cities also provide opportunities for 

increased density of development, reduction of travel distances for work, shopping, 

and education, and opportunities to utilize new technologies for energy, communications, commerce, and economic development. Adoption of sustainable, renewable, 

green design, planning, and building techniques will help to not only reduce the ecological footprint of cities, but also provide a pathway for continued economic growth 

and prosperity. It is critical that the planning regime, including comprehensive and 

general plans, development plans, zoning and building codes and various community 

and project plans, is realigned to address the conditions and needs created by climate change. Turner, et. al. (2007) have recently examined the costs and benefits 

of hardening the shoreline versus managed realignment of development further inland. There are technological issues with obvious political and economic consequences to these policy changes. The University of Hawaii plays a critical role in 

not just developing but also applying new technologies to the planning and design 

of human settlements. Islands provide a unique opportunity for studying the impacts of climate change, and, more importantly, for designing and implementing appropriate responses. 

Climate Change Greatly Impacts Island Communities 

Island communities are disproportionately affected by climate change. See Huang 

(1998) for a summary of the vulnerabilities of small islands to the impacts of climate 

change and State of Hawaii (1998) for a comprehensive discussion of the impacts 

of climate change in Hawaii. Like all coastal communities, the effects of sea level 

rise in terms of erosion and inundation of roadways, urban infrastructure, and 

coastal assets have become a matter of national concern. In addition to the potential 

loss of beaches and other areas important to our island economy, sea level rise also 

threatens our water system and increases the risk of sewage spills and toxic releases into our environment (Schiedek, et. al., 2007). Climate change means increased variability in weather conditions with an increase in extreme events such 

as both heavy rainstorms and also periods of drought. See New Scientist (2007) for 

a discussion on how climate change will lead to more wild weather. Heavy rainfall 

increases the probability of urban floods while drought increases the risk of wildfire. 

Native trees, especially in rainforest areas are not as resistant to either drought or 

wildfire, so climate change can also affect the make-up of forests and in turn affect 

wildlife habitat. Drought also increases municipal and agricultural ground water 

use which increases the chance of salt water intrusion into the aquifer. Increased 

temperatures as well as prolonged rainfall can also contribute to the increase in vector-borne diseases such as dengue fever which is also spread by both urbanization 

and the increased movements of human hosts between remote locations across the 

50 

planet. See Haines, et. al. (2006) for more discussion of the impacts of climate 

change on public health. 

In the Pacific region, climate change, global warming, sea level rise, and extreme 

weather events have increased the risk of natural events becoming disasters. Because more people and activities have located in coastal and other hazard prone 

areas, the risks of weather and natural events (hurricanes, storms, tsunamis, earthquakes, floods, droughts, wildfires, and others) turning into disasters where people 

are killed, injured, or lose their homes, property, businesses, jobs, and other assets 

are increased. Worldwide, there is increasing concern about the impacts of climate 

change on visitor destinations (Phillips and Jones, 2006). More people living and 

working in hazard prone areas means more exposure to disaster. The International 

Red Cross/Red Crescent describes a disaster as ‘‘an exceptional event which suddenly kills or injures large numbers of people.’’ The Center for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED) defines a disaster as a ‘‘situation or event which 

overwhelms local capacity, necessitating a request to a national or international 

level for external assistance.’’ Because of the increased risks of natural disaster, 

there is need for further efforts focused on preparedness, response, relief, recovery, 

and mitigation in the region. 

Response to Climate Change 

In order to lessen the probability of natural events turning into disasters, there 

is a need to develop effective plans, training programs, and integrated systems of 

disaster preparedness, response, and recovery. An integrated system includes Federal, state, and local governments as well as international agencies, non-governmental organizations, and the private and volunteer sectors. A comprehensive approach involves consideration of all phases of the disaster cycle including: (1) preparedness; (2) response; (3) recovery; (4) mitigation; (5) development; and (6) adaptation to environmental change. While there has been research and training on various aspects of response and preparedness, there is need for more research on adaptation and vulnerability (Smit and Wandel, 2006). Each of these phases require different tools, methods, technologies, resources, and commitments. It should be noted 

that an ‘‘all-hazards’’ approach is one in which many of the same concepts, methods, 

and resources are transferable across different natural, technological, and human 

caused disasters. 

There is a particular need to address natural hazards in the Pacific region and 

in many areas throughout the Nation. With the creation of the Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS), significant effort has gone toward the prevention of and 

response to acts of terrorism. The National Domestic Preparedness Consortium was 

established by Congressional Mandate in September 1998 (House Conference Report 

[H.R. 2267]) and reconfirmed in Public Law 107–273 in 2001. The original members 

(Center for Domestic Preparedness, Louisiana State University, Nevada Test Site, 

New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, and Texas A&M University) of the 

Consortium addressed counterterrorism preparedness needs of our Nation’s emergency responders within the context of chemical, biological, radiological, and explosive (Weapons of Mass Destruction [WMD]) hazards. Re-authorized in Homeland Security legislation (H.R. 1) in 2007 through FY 2011, the Consortium’s mission was 

expanded to include all hazards, including technological and natural hazards. Two 

new members were added to the Consortium (Transportation Technology Center, 

Inc. and the National Disaster Preparedness Training Center at the University of 

Hawaii). Within DHS, the Consortium is located within the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA) under the National Preparedness Directorate. 

National Disaster Preparedness Training Center 

On August 3, 2007, President Bush signed H.R. 1 ‘‘Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007’’ which authorized the establishment of 

the National Disaster Preparedness Training Center (NDPTC) at the University of 

Hawaii. Housed at the University of Hawaii, a premier research university, the 

NDPTC is uniquely positioned to develop and deliver natural disaster preparedness 

training to governmental, private, and non-profit entities, incorporating urban planning with an emphasis on community preparedness and at-risk populations. 

The focus of the NDPTC is on building community resilience to all hazards by developing and providing training to first responders, decisionmakers, policy analysts 

and urban planners. 

The NDPTC will partner with key Federal, state, local and international partners 

to develop and implement training on disaster preparedness, response, and recovery 

relevant to the special needs and conditions of Pacific island communities and others at risk from natural and technological hazards. 

51 

The NDPTC will provide training consisting of formal degrees and certificate programs, as well as specialized courses, workshops and conferences; coordinate the 

sharing of data and information related to disaster preparedness, mitigation, response and recovery; and serve as an incubator for new ideas, technologies, business 

and partnerships between academia, business and government. 

As a land, sea, and space grant institution with national and international recognition for its academic and research excellence in the fields of urban planning and 

earth sciences, the University of Hawaii has the expertise and research and training 

programs in the fields of disaster management and related topics to conduct research and develop specific models and tools for monitoring natural hazards and 

evaluating risk to urban areas. Planning for the response, recovery and reconstruction of communities affected by natural disasters will include a special emphasis on 

islands and at-risk, vulnerable populations. 

To date, we have attended two quarterly meetings of the Consortium to learn 

about the training activities of the other six centers. We have also had productive 

and informative meetings with the Emergency Management Institute (FEMA) and 

others within the Department of Homeland Security involved with training and 

community preparedness, response and recovery. We have also interacted with the 

Natural Hazards Center at the University of Colorado, Boulder as well as other national and international training and research partners. We have been also working 

closely with other entities and organizations within Hawaii and the region involved 

with disaster management. It is evident that the work of the NDPTC will play an 

important role in addressing needs of both Pacific island communities and also other 

coastal communities as well as those affected by natural disasters throughout the 

Nation. 

References 

Haines, A., R.S. Kovats, D. Campbell-Ledrum, and C. Corvalan. (2006) Climate Change and 

Human Health: Impacts, Vulnerability and Public Health. Public Health. 120. Pp. 586–596. 

Huang, J.C.K. (1998) Climate Change and Integrated Coastal Management: A Challenge for 

Small Island Nations. Ocean and Coastal Management. Vol. 37. No. 1. Pp. 95–107. 

New Scientist (2007). 2100: A World of Wild Weather. January 20, 2007. Pp. 6–7. 

State of Hawaii (1998). Hawaii Climate Change Action Plan. Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism, Energy, Resources and Technology Division and Department 

of Health, Clean Air Branch. State of Hawaii. Honolulu. HI. 

Phillips, M.R. and A.L. Jones (2007) Erosion and Tourism Infrastructure in the Coastal Zone: 

Problems, Consequences and Management. Tourism Management. 27. Pp. 517–524. 

Schiedek, D., B. Sundelin, J. Readman, and R. Macdonald. (2007) Interactions Between Climate Change and Contaminants. Marine Pollution Bulletin. 54. Pp. 1847–1856. 

Smit, B. and J. Wandel. (2006) Adaptation, Adaptive Capacity and Vulnerability. Global Environmental Change. 16. Pp. 282–292. 

Turner, R.K., D. Burgess, D. Hadley, E. Coombes N. Jackson. (2007) A Cost-Benefit Appraisal 

of Coastal Managed Realignment Policy. Global Environmental Change. 17. Pp. 397–407. 

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Uehara? 

STATEMENT OF DR. GORO UEHARA, COLLEGE OF TROPICAL 

AGRICULTURE AND HUMAN RESOURCES, UNIVERSITY OF 

HAWAI‘I AT MA ̄ NOA 

Dr. UEHARA. Thank you, Senator Inouye for this opportunity to 

describe some opportunities and challenges when climate change 

hits us. 

Agriculture in Hawaii is undergoing constant change, and for 

over the 30 years we have been involved in finding new crops in 

new locations in Hawaii, and involved in obtaining grants with 

your help, and looking at international transfer of technology from 

one location to another. 

And, basically, in the past these changes have been compelled 

and forced upon Hawaii by economic reasons. From here on, we 

will be forced to look for new crops, because of climate change. This 

presents new challenges for agriculture. 

One of the crops we are currently looking for in Hawaii is to replace, not only food and fiber crops, but to begin to introduce energy crops to Hawaii. We feel that Hawaii presents tremendous opVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:05 Jul 24, 2012 Jkt 052754 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\75205.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
52 

portunity with new technologies to provide Hawaii with alternative 

feedstock for biofuels production, as Dr. Rocheleau has indicated. 

Hawaii and the Pacific Islands vary in environments, greatly. 

Hawaii’s environment ranges from balmy beaches, to snow-capped 

mountains. It ranges from drenching rainforests to scorching 

deserts, and we must find different crops for these environmental 

niches. The question is, how do we do this? 

Hawaiians—the early Hawaiians brought taro and sweet potato, 

they brought ulu. And over the years, over 100 years, they were 

able to transform the few taro varieties they brought to Hawaii, 

into 100 varieties. So, we have the capacity to find new crops for 

new locations. 

There are three ways to find new crops for new locations, we call 

this matching the biological requirements of crops to the physical 

characteristics of land. Climate change will bring about a mismatch 

between crops and environment, and we now must find new crops 

to match the changing environment. 

The three ways of matching crops to land is one, the most common way, is trial and error. Now, we have been doing this for 

years, since Captain Cook, we have been introducing hundreds of 

varieties to Hawaii—pineapple, papaya, sugar cane—these are all 

introduced crops. We have also introduced hundreds of other crops 

which are, today, invasive species. We can no longer depend on the 

slow and costly process of introducing new crops to Hawaii by trial 

and error. 

There is a second way of looking for new crops when climate 

changes. This is called ‘‘transfer by analogy.’’ We must travel 

around the world, look for similar environments, and see what 

grows in different environments that are similar to Hawaii’s. And 

we have been introducing crops to Hawaii from different parts of 

the tropics based on this analogy concept. And if you travel around 

the world, you also see Hawaiian sola papaya, you see Hawaiian 

pineapple, you see Hawaiian macadamia nut, and how would these 

technologies take into different areas? By analogy. So, we have 

trial and error, and we have analogy. 

Unfortunately, these methodologies are too slow and too costly, 

and will not allow us to accommodate the rapid changes that climate change will bring about. 

There is a third way of bringing technology and crops to Hawaii, 

and this is called systems analysis and simulation, using crop models. And some 20 years ago, the University of Hawai‘i established 

an international project to begin to use—not trial and error experiments to find new crops, but to use knowledge—to capture and condense this knowledge in computer simulation models, to show how 

crops will perform in different environments at different times. 

There are two things that are needed to drive these simulation 

models, and I have given in my written testimony, an example of 

how we have used these techniques to try to locate new crops for 

Hawaii by this method. It is fast, it is simple, and it is relatively 

accurate. 

Unfortunately, this method requires historical weather as inputs 

into the simulation models. The historical weather gives you a full 

range of variability in the climate, it needs a mean, the average cliVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:05 Jul 24, 2012 Jkt 052754 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 S:\GPO\DOCS\75205.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
53 

mate, and the variance, extremes, the tails of the distributions, the 

storminess. Means and variances. 

Unfortunately, these models which are currently used, these 

models developed by the University of Hawai‘i, currently used by 

NOAA, it’s also used by world meteorological organizations, used 

widely, globally today, will not be useful during climate change, because we can no longer use historical weather to drive these models. It’s the problem of stationariness, scientists call this. 

So, I will just simply close that we have trial and error, we have 

analogy, and we have system simulation. We will all use these 

three methods to find new crops for Hawaii. However, the success 

and the capability of Hawaii and the Pacific Islands to find replacement crops for Hawaii will depend not on what agricultural scientists do and what economists do, but it will depend on atmospheric science to be able to forecast with a high degree of accuracy, 

means and variances of climate in the future. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Uehara follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. GORO UEHARA, COLLEGE OF TROPICAL AGRICULTURE

AND HUMAN RESOURCES, UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI‘I AT MA ̄ NOA

Agriculture cannot remain constant in the face of climate change and thus must 

change as climate changes. The question, therefore, is when and how this change 

will occur, and what options decisionmakers ranging from policymakers to producers 

will have to meet this challenge. But before we answer this question, we need to 

know the bio-physical factors that link agriculture to climate. 

Agriculture is the art and science of matching the biological requirements of crops 

(plants and animals) to the physical characteristics of land. Farming is about minimizing mismatches between crops and environment to optimize agricultural performance, and abrupt changes in the amount and distribution of rainfall and temperature will widen mismatches and lower performance. 

It is important to note that reduced yields associated with climate change will not 

necessarily be caused by diminished land quality, but will primarily be a consequence of mismatches between crops and land characteristics currently cultivated 

on a given parcel of land. In fact climate change may transform land now too dry 

or cold into prime agricultural land to expand the land area suitable for food production. The issue therefore is to have in hand, effective methods to match crop requirements to changing land characteristics in a timely and cost-effective manner. 

There are three ways to match crops to suitable agro-environments. The first and 

most frequently used method is by trial-and-error. Our ancestors carried seeds of 

their favorite crops as they migrated to new unoccupied lands, and preserved seeds 

of those plants that performed well in the new location. Some wise farmers saved 

seeds from the best performing plants, and were able to improve farm productivity 

by repeating this process for many plant generations. The early Hawaiians were 

able to produce over a hundred taro varieties through this process. But the Hawaiians had centuries to complete this task and taro is no longer the primary food staple in Hawaii. The trial-and-error method of matching crops and crop varieties to 

locations with suitable growing conditions is too slow and costly. With climate 

change already upon us, we no longer have the luxury of time and resources to conduct endless trial-and-error field trials. 

There is second and better ways to find crops that will do well on your land. This 

method called matching by analogy depends on assuming that crops that perform 

well on land similar (analogous) in soil and climate to your land will perform well 

on your land. This approach is possible in the U.S. and Hawaii because the entire 

country has been or is in the process of being inventoried and mapped in detail according to soil type and climate. This system of inventorying our land resources on 

the basis of soil and climate was developed by the Natural Resource Conservation 

Service of USDA (USDA Staff, 1999). Using this method, one can search for crops 

that are suitable for a particular location in Hawaii by looking for analogous soils 

in Botswana, Guam, India or Panama and see what crops perform well there. In 

1974, the University of Hawai‘i conducted a 10-year project to test the applicability 

of the approach on an international scale and showed that test crops not only perVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:05 Jul 24, 2012 Jkt 052754 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\75205.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
54 

formed well in similar soils and climates in Brazil, Indonesia, Cameroon, Philippines and Hawaii, but responded to similar management practices to attain high 

grain yields (Silva, 1985). The limitation of matching crops to land characteristics 

by analogy is its exclusion of crops that have never been grown in that particular 

type of environment. We need a method that enables growers to evaluate the profitability of growing the widest possible range of crops on their land quickly and at 

prices they can afford. 

This brings us to the third methods of identifying crops to replace those that have 

become unprofitable from the effects of climate change. It is worth repeating that 

a crop or crop variety that performs poorly in one location can regain its yield potential in another location where its biological requirements are more adequately met. 

Climate change does not require us to abandon or discard existing crops and crop 

varieties, but requires finding new environments for them. In Hawaii this may 

mean growing Kapoho papaya in Mountain View. Does this also imply that Mississippi soybean can be transferred to Minnesota with global warming? Unfortunately Mississippi and Minnesota differ in day length and photoperiod sensitive soybean that performs well in the southern U.S. will not do well in the northern states. 

But should climate change shift moisture from Mississippi to Arizona, it should be 

possible to transfer photoperiod sensitive crops between the two states. 

Mismatches between crops and land characteristics caused by climate change will 

not only cause yields to decline but most probably will also cause yield variances 

to increase. Every grower’s goal is to produce high yields and profit, and to avoid 

high yield variances, or feast to famine fluctuations in yield and profit. High yield 

variance adds risk and uncertainty to farming and is sufficient in itself to cause 

farmers to abandon farming. Random, uncontrollable meteorological factors introduce risk and uncertainty to farming and compel decisions to gamble with nature. 

Gambling is a risky game of probabilities. Thus, to determine how a crop will perform in a new climate requires many years of testing to expose hidden dangers 

which one or 2 years of on-farm trials cannot reveal. Since the risk of crop failure 

and income loss resides in the tails of probability distributions, climate change requires scientists to develop tools capable of generating whole probability distributions of production outcomes. 

Whole probability distribution cannot be generated by conducting trial-and-error 

experiments or by searching for crops in analogous environments. Whole probability 

distributions can only be generated by systems analysis and simulations using dynamic, process-based models. There are too many factors that influence means and 

variances of crop yield and profit, and there are insufficient resources and time to 

conduct experiments to explore even a fraction of the range of outcomes. 

In the next three to four decades, the world must double production with a new 

kind of agriculture to feed, cloth and house a global population that will increase 

not only in size but in aspirations. It will be challenging enough just to double production, but we are now being asked to do so without compromising the stability 

and resiliency of the ecosystem, and to complicate matters even more, this increased 

production will now need to be achieved in the context of uncertain global climate 

change. It is not surprising then, that there is now widespread agreement that business as usual will not do and a new kind of agriculture will need to be created to 

meet the challenge of food security for all. 

In 1983, the College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources of the University of Hawaii established a project called the International Benchmark Sites Network for Agrotechnology Technology Transfer (IBSNAT) project with Federal funds 

to produce a software called Decision Support System for Agrotechnology Transfer 

(DSSAT) capable of predicting the growth, development and yield of the major food 

cereal, grain legume and root crops anywhere in the world using historical weather 

data to drive the model. 

DSSAT generates whole probability distributions of outcomes based on simulated 

crop yields taking into account daily, seasonal and annual weather variations over 

many decades. This ability to generate and display means and variances of production outcomes enables users to analyze risk and seek alternative crops and/or crop 

management strategies to maintain high yields and minimize risk. DSSAT not only 

generates information on crop yields, days to maturity, crop responses to rate and 

timing of inputs, but enables users to compute cost of production and perform economic analysis. 

The capability of DSSAT is illustrated by the attached paper (Ogoshi et al., 1998), 

which describes the authors’ response to a request to assess the economic feasibility 

of producing soybean on land formerly used to grow sugar cane. To simulate performance in different locations of the land area, DSSAT needed input information 

on soil, weather and soybean varieties. Since no soybean study had been conducted 

in the area, DSSAT was asked to determine the best variety based on yields obVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:05 Jul 24, 2012 Jkt 052754 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\75205.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
55 

1Department of Agronomy and Soil Science. 

2 Rural Economic Transition Assistance program. 

tained at multiple locations, planted at 12 different date, at several different planting densities. A typical task DSSAT would be asked to perform might be to evaluate 

4 varieties at 6 locations at 12 (monthly) planting dates and 4 population densities 

for 30 consecutive years. DSSAT can complete this task in a few hours, but a trialand-error field experiment would involve installing 34,560 field plots over a 30 year 

period. 

As powerful as DSSAT is today, climate change adds a new dimension to the task 

of matching crops to land and compels DSSAT to look for help to remain relevant 

and useful. DSSAT now operates on the assumption that historical weather data 

mimics means and variance of current weather. Climate change will invalidate this 

assumption. 

DSSAT is a product of agricultural scientists and economists. It now needs the 

help of atmospheric scientists to develop climate models that can generate means 

and variances of weather conditions that apply to a given parcel of land. Our capacity to match crops to land will depend on the climate forecasting capability of atmospheric science. 

References 

USDA, Staff. 1999. Soil Taxonomy. A basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd ed. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402. 

Silva, J.A. ed. 1985. Soil-based Agrotechnology Transfer. Benchmark Soils Project, Department of Agronomy and Soil Science, Hawaii Institute of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources, University of Hawaii. 292 pp. 

Ogoshi, R.M., Tsuji, G.Y., G. Uehara, and N.P. Kefford. 1998. Simulation of Best Management 

Practices for Soybean Production in Hawaii. Cooperative Extension Service, College of Tropical 

Agriculture and Human Resources, University of Hawaii. 

Soil and Crop Management—Oct. 1998—SCM–2—Cooperative Extension Service—College of Tropical 

Agriculture and Human Resources, University of Hawai‘i at Ma ̄noa 

SIMULATION OF BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR SOYBEAN PRODUCTION IN HAWAII

Ogoshi, R.M,1 Tsuji, G.Y.,1 G. Uehara,1 and N.P. Kefford 2

A method is presented that assesses economic profit, management practices, and 

risk involved with soybean production for three locations on the North Shore of 

Oahu, Hawaii, where soybean has not been planted before. Simulations of soybean 

growth and economic analysis using 768 combinations of cultivar, plant density, irrigation, and planting date over 20 seasons for each of three locations were made 

using the computer program Decision Support System for Agrotechnology Transfer 

(DSSAT. v. 3.0). Economic profit was calculated as the difference between revenue 

generated from grain yield and the total cost incurred from water, seed, labor, and 

other inputs. High economic profit and low variation of the profit from season to 

season were the criteria that identified the best management scheme out of the 768 

for each location. Results from the simulations indicate profitable soybean production at each location is possible if a cultivar adapted to the mid-Atlantic states, 

‘‘Bragg,’’ is planted in the spring. In addition, high plant density and irrigation are 

necessary. Revenue from increased yield outweighed the costs accrued from extra 

seed and water. The expected economic profit ranged from $789 to $829 per hectare 

(2.47 acres; see conversions). Agronomic modeling with economic analysis was 

shown to be an effective tool for the rapid generation of knowledge necessary for 

decision-making on crop production based on expected economic profit and an assessment of risk. Such decisions are key to the timely selection of alternative crops 

and practices in areas previously planted to other crops. 

Introduction 

Two critical objectives in any agricultural enterprise are to minimize cost and 

maximize production. Economic feasibility of the enterprise depends on revenue 

being greater than cost. Other worthy objectives such as minimizing environmental 

impact or maintaining biodiversity may be included, but for this study, minimizing 

cost and maximizing revenue are the objectives. 

Minimizing cost and maximizing production depend on the local environment 

where the crop is grown. An effective way to minimize cost is to match crop growth 

requirements to the biophysical environment, which includes soil fertility, rainfall, 

and temperature. With a good match, inputs and their associated costs are minimized. However, environments seldom match crop requirements perfectly. IrrigaVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:05 Jul 24, 2012 Jkt 052754 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\75205.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
56 

tion, fertilization, and liming are often necessary to correct fertility or moisture deficiencies, or an alternative location must be used to fulfill temperature requirements. 

At each location, the combination of these interventions to correct mismatches is 

probably unique. Therefore, determination of the best management practices to 

produce crops will require information on the crop, weather, and soil; the effects of 

particular management practices; and their combined impact on yield. 

Information needed to manage environmental mismatches for crop production is 

generated in one of two ways: through trial-and-error field experimentation or systems simulation. The scope of the information generated in these two ways is different. In field experiments, the scope includes the specific responses of a crop to 

the environment as influenced by genetics, plant competition, and soil amendments 

at a particular time and place. Field experiments seldom integrate climate with crop 

response to soil and soil amendments because this involves multi-year and multilocation experiments, which are extremely expensive. Because field experiments can 

rarely be conducted over many years and locations, simulated outcomes of such experiments are useful. Crop simulation models are designed to imitate the behavior 

of real plants by integrating their known response to weather, soil, and amended 

conditions. Models can estimate crop production under many conditions to define 

precise differences that can occur from year-to-year or location-to-location, or as a 

consequence of finely graded management practices. Specific field experiments are 

still necessary to generate the new information on crop responses to factors that are 

not included or not well simulated in the model. Trial-and-error experiments and 

systems simulations generate information that are complementary. Field experiments produce new data that improves our understanding of plant and soil processes. Crop models integrate the improved understanding into new knowledge of 

crop performance. 

The purpose of this study was to determine the agronomic and economic feasibility of soybean (Glycine max L. Merr.) production at selected sites on the North 

Shore, Oahu, Hawaii, as part of a rural stabilization program based on alternative 

crops for former sugarcane land. Feasibility will be appraised with projections from 

a soybean simulation model. Since large-scale soybean production has never been 

done on the North Shore, the model will be used to estimate yields that result from 

management decisions such as location, planting date, cultivar, plant density, and 

irrigation. With this information, the combination of management practices likely to 

give high, stable yield and economic profit will he determined. 

Procedure 

Predicting soybean yield requires a biophysical description of the sites to give the 

model information on the environmental factors that affect soybean growth. 

Kawaihapai, Waialua, and Opaeula, sites on the North Shore, were selected for simulating soybean growth and yield (Fig. 1). Based on experience with soybean production outside Hawaii, these three locations were assessed to contain the fewest constraints. 

57 

Records characterizing the unique weather and soil of each site were found in the 

archives of the Hawaii Agricultural Research Center (Osgood, personal communication) and Ikawa et al., (1985). All sites have a weather pattern typical of low-elevation, leeward areas in Hawaii. Solar radiation and temperature are high in the 

summer months, and rainfall is high in the winter months. Annual solar radiation 

is highest at Waialua, while Kawaihapai and Opaeula have similar, lower values 

(Fig. 2). Mean daily temperature is highest at Kawaihapai and lowest at Opaeula 

throughout most of the year (Fig. 3). Opaeula receives the most rainfall, 1046 mm 

a year, while Kawaihapai and Waialua receive 880 and 846 mm, respectively. (Fig. 

4). Soil texture, bulk density, pH. and organic carbon content determine the amount 

of water the soil can hold, water movement in the soil profile, and root penetration. 

These soil attributes are derived from soil physical and chemical characteristics in 

each layer of the soil profile at Kawaihapai (Ustollic Camborthid, fine, kaolinitic. 

isohyperthermic), Waialua (Vertic Haplustoll, very fine, kaolinitic, isohyperthermic), 

and Opaeula (Tropeptic Eutrustox, clayey, kaolinitic, isohyperthemic) (Table 1). 

Each combination of weather and soil characteristics establishes the environmental 

conditions in which soybean growth was simulated. 


319UEHAR1.eps
58 

Climatic conditions at the three study sites. 


319UEHAR2.eps 319UEHAR3.eps
59 

Table 1. Soil physical and chemical characteristics of the top layer of soils at the test sites. 

Site 

Soil characteristic Kawaihapai y Waialua z Opaeula z

Clay % n.a. 51.1 43.7 

Silt % n.a. 38.9 37.7 

Sand % n.a. 10.0 18.6 

Bulk density (g/cm3) 1.33 1.28 1.31 

Organic carbon % 2.0 4.1 1.5 

pH 7.7 7.2 5.2 

ySCS 1976, z Ikawa et al., 1965 

After specifying the environmental conditions, management practices can he chosen to test how well soybean would yield under a prescribed set of practices. Options 

for management practices may include cultivar, plant density, irrigation regime, 

planting date, fertilization, row spacing, and organic residue application. For this 

study, cultivar, plant density, irrigation, and planting date were combined in the 

simulations to identify the best management scheme to grow soybean on the North 

Shore. Four cultivars (cvs. ‘Evans’, ‘Clark’, ‘Bragg’, and ‘Jupiter’), four plant densities (150, 300, 450, and 600 thousand plants per hectare with rowspace 0.6 m), 

four irrigation regimes (no irrigation, 25 percent trigger, 50 percent trigger, and no 

stress), and 12 planting dates (the first day of every month) were combined for a 

total of 768 schemes (equal to 4 × 4 × 4 × 12). The four cultivars represent types 

that are grown in latitudes from Minnesota (cv. ‘Evans’) to Florida (cv. ‘Jupiter’). 

The irrigation regimes of 25 percent trigger, 50 percent trigger, and no stress were 

implemented by allowing the soil water-holding capacity at a 20 cm depth dry down 

to 25 percent, 50 percent, and 99 percent of field capacity, then irrigation was applied to reach field capacity. The 99 percent trigger was used as a control treatment 

and will be referred to as ‘‘no stress.’’ Soybean growth was simulated for each of 

the 768 possible schemes over 20 unique weather sequences. 

Predicted soybean growth and yield were simulated using CROPGRO-soybean 

(Hoogenboom et al., 1994a). CROPGRO-soybean simulates soybean progress through 

its life cycle at a daily time-step and is dependent on the cultivar, temperature, and 

daylength. Photosynthesis is simulated through the capture and conversion of sunlight and carbon dioxide to carbohydrate, the building material for plant tissue. Protein production is simulated from nitrogen uptake through the roots and biological 

nitrogen fixation. CROPGRO-soybean distributes the carbohydrate and protein 

among plant organs (roots, stems, leaves, pods, and seeds) as affected by the stage 


319UEHAR4.eps
60 

of its life cycle, water or nitrogen stress, daylength, and temperature. At the end 

of the simulated season, the final seed weight is designated to be the yield. 

CROPGRO-soybean was designed to mimic soybean behavior and has been successfully tested under a wide range of environments (AVRDC 1991, Egli and Bruening 

1992, Hoogenboom et al., 1994b, Swaney et al., 1983). 

Simulation of the 768 combinations of cultivar, plant density, irrigation, and 

planting date over 20 seasons was facilitated with the software package Decision 

Support System for Agrotechnology Transfer v3.0 (DSSAT v3) (Tsuji et al., 1994). 

To decide which management scheme was best, a mean-variance analysis was 

conducted for each location. This technique presumes that the two important factors 

in deciding which strategy is best are the amount of economic profit and its riskiness. Economic profit is simply the revenue generated from selling the grain minus 

the cost of its production. Since the alternative to producing soybean in Hawaii is 

shipping grain from Seattle, Washington, the price of soybean grain was assumed 

to be the market price of the grain on the U.S. mainland plus shipping, or $449 per 

metric ton of dry grain in March 1997. Local production cost scenario was based on 

a 300 hectare farm on leased land and equipment purchased with a loan (M. 

McLean, personal communication) (Table 2). The basic production cost for the nonirrigated and irrigated farm was $1,602 and $1,772 per hectare. The costs for irrigation water, irrigation application, and seed were $0.10 per 1,000 gallons, $1.30 per 

application, and $0.66 per kg, respectively (M. McLean, personal communication). 

The riskiness of a strategy is represented by the standard deviation of profit derived 

over the 20 years. 

Table 2. Base production cost for producing irrigated soybean in Waialua on a 300-hectare farm. 

Operating costs 

A. Pre-harvest costs units/ha in units $/unit $ cost/ha 

1. Land preparation 

a. Labor to clear land 6.7 hours 20 134 .00 

b. Machinery to clear land 6.7 hours 35 234 .50 

2. Planting 

a. Labor to plant seed 3.7 hours 20 74 .00 

b. Machinery to plant seed 1.9 hours 35 66 .50 

3. Pest control 

a. Herbicide: Roundup 1.4 gallons 75 105 .00 

b. Labor to spray 2.47 hours 20 49 .40 

c. Sprayer operation 2.47 hours 35 86 .45 

4. Irrigation 

a. System setup costs 3 sprinkler 20 60 .00 

B. Harvest costs 

1. Harvesting 

a. Labor to harvest 1.2 hours 20 24 .00 

b. Combine operation 1.2 hours 35 42 .00 

2. Commission and excise tax 294,852 $ gross 0.0417 40 .98 

Ownership costs 

A. Management resource gross $ % gross 

1. Management 294,852 5 49 .14 

2. Office overhead 294,852 2 19 .66 

B. Capital resources 

1. Depreciation (est.) on invested $ % depreciation depreciation $ 

a. Machinery and equipment 270,000 14 37,800 126 .00 

b. Irrigation system 300,000 5 15,000 50 .00 

loan $ % interest interest $ 

2. Interest expense on loan 270,000 10 27,000 90 .00 

equity $ % equity opportunity $ 

3. Opportunity cost on equity 300,000 6 18,000 60 .00 

C. Land resource assessed $ % tax tax 

1. Property tax 300,000 1 30,000 100 .00 

premium $ 

2. Property insurance 16,000 53 .33 

payment $ 

3. Leasehold 92,000 306 .67 

Total 1771 .63 

With the mean profit and its standard deviation, the best strategy to produce soybean can he found based on a few assumptions. Mean-variance analysis assumes 

that most people prefer high profit and low risk, and most are willing to accept a 

lower profit if risk can he reduced to a ‘‘comfortable level.’’ When the mean profit 

is plotted against the standard deviation, the best strategies are those with high 

mean and low standard deviation found in the upper left corner of the graph (e.g., 

Fig. 9). 

61 

Further discrimination among the remaining strategies was done with stochastic 

dominance analysis (Thornton et al., 1994). Ultimately, only one strategy was selected as best for each location. 

Outcome 

Results from the Simulation 

The simulation showed that differences in the daylength sensitivity of cultivars 

profoundly affected yield. The yield differences result from increases in the time 

from planting to flowering as daylength increases, i.e., in spring (Fig. 5). This permits more leaf growth, which supports greater yield. ‘Jupiter’, the cultivar adapted 

to low latitudes, is the most daylength-sensitive cultivar as seen in its greatly prolonged time to flowering when planted in the summer months. The least daylength 

sensitive cultivar, ‘Evans’, had a relatively constant time to flowering regardless of 

planting date (Fig. 5). 

The greatest yield for the daylength-sensitive cultivars was obtained with spring 

planting dates, while the lowest was with fall planting dates (Fig. 6). Meanwhile, 


319UEHAR5.eps
62 

the daylength-insensitive cultivar ‘Evans’ had a relatively stable yield regardless of 

planting date. The close relation between yield and time to flowering suggest that 

yield depends on leaf area. However, yield differences among cultivars across planting dates were not completely dependent on leaf area differences. For any planting 

date, ‘Jupiter’ was a larger plant than ‘Bragg’ (data not shown), yet ‘Bragg’ had 

greater yield than ‘Jupiter’ in the spring plantings (Fig. 6). The yield reduction in 

the spring for ‘Jupiter’ resulted from nitrogen deficiency stress that may have been 

induced by excessive top growth. So, the best yielding cultivar changes with planting date: ‘Bragg’ had the highest yields when planted from March to June, while 

‘Jupiter’ produced the highest yields for other planting dates. 

Increased plant density can increase yield, but seed costs make the yield gain expensive. At all planting dates, increased plant density raised soybean yield (Fig. 7). 

The mean yield for plant densities was 1,739 kg/hectare at 150,000 plants/hectare, 

2,059 kg/hectare at 300,000 plants/hectare, 2,286 kg/hectare at 450,000 plants/hectare, and 2,437 kg/hectare at 600,000 plants/hectare. The diminishing gain in yield 

for each increase in plant density indicates that yield per plant was greatly lowered 


319UEHAR6.eps
63 

as plant density was raised. The reduced yield per plant resulted from increased 

competition among plants for water, sunlight, and nutrients. 

While irrigation generally increased yield over raided soybean, efficient water use 

in soybean production depended on the planting date and location. Except for the 

fall plantings, which had virtually the same yield for all regimes, irrigation increased yield over rainfed crops for all planting dates (Fig. 8). The 25 percent trigger 

irrigation regime gave a larger yield than the rainfed crop, but smaller than the 50 

percent trigger and no stress regimes. The 50 percent trigger irrigation regime generated yield nearly the same as the no stress regime, but was sometimes higher, 

probably due to waterlogged conditions in the no stress regime. The most water-use 

efficient irrigation regime to produce soybean can be calculated from irrigated yield 

minus rainfed yield, divided by the amount of irrigation water used (Table 3). With 

the ratios 8.23 and 8.40 kg/hectare per mm of water, the 25 percent trigger regime 

was most efficient for producing soybean grain at Kawaihapai and Opaeula. At 

Waialua, the 50 percent trigger irrigation regime was the most efficient at 7.90 kg/ 

hectare per mm of water. 


319UEHAR7.eps
64 

Table 3. Ratio of difference between irrigated soybean grain and rainfed yield (kg/ha) to 

irrigation water used (mm) for soybean grown at three sites on Oahu. 

Ratio (kg/ha per mm of water) z

Location 25% trigger 50% trigger No stress 

Kawaihapai 8.23 7.74 4.57 

Waialua 7.80 7.90 3.41 

Opaeula 8.40 7.77 4.19 

z Yields and irrigation water averaged over four cultivars, four plant densities, and 12 planting dates. 

Agronomic Interpretation of the Simulation Results 

In summary, simulated soybean yields varied with site and the management practices of cultivar, plant density, irrigation, and planting date. 


319UEHAR8.eps
65 

Daylength sensitivity among the cultivars had the greatest effect on yield. Soybean flowers earlier in short days, and delays flowering in long days resulting in 

a larger plant with more leaves capable of supporting greater yield. However, too 

much vegetative mass can divert carbohydrate and protein resources away from 

grain growth. Hence, the cultivar of choice should be one that increases leaf area 

and supports greater yield, not one with vegetative growth that curbs yield. 

Plant density must balance the beneficial effect of capturing the greatest amount 

of sunlight and the harmful effect of increased plant competition for water and nutrients. 

Irrigation supplies essential moisture to plants, but in excess can create waterlogged conditions that inhibit root growth with increased water cost. 

Because weather patterns proceed through annual cycles, changing the planting 

date alters the daylength, rainfall, solar radiation, and temperature the plant is exposed to. As previously discussed, seasonal daylength, in conjunction with the 

daylength sensitivity of the soybean cultivar, greatly affects plant size and yield potential. 

Cyclical rainfall governs soil moisture status that influences water stress and irrigation frequency as planting date changes. With an inverse relation to rainfall, solar 

radiation exhibits an annual cycle that affects yield as plants compete to intercept 

the sun’s energy. Planting date has important implications on yield as affected by 

plant size, soil moisture, and plant competition. 

Given the above information, estimates on profit can be based on the expected 

yield and the expected costs of seed, water, and ‘‘overhead.’’ However, this information is inadequate to provide options to make a decision on the best production 

scheme since a trade-off exists between seed and water costs and revenue, and that 

tradeoff depends on weather that changes from year to year. 

Selecting the Best Management Scheme 

The better management schemes based on economic profit and riskiness show 

that generating more revenue can overcome the extra costs incurred to increase 

grain yield. For each location, the mean economic profit per hectare for each management scheme was plotted against its standard deviation for the 20 seasons (Fig. 

9). The better schemes are those found along the outer edge of the upper left quadrant in the scatter. These schemes have high profit, low risk, or both. Generally, 

these better schemes result when fields are planted with ‘Bragg’ or ‘Clark’, are 

planted in April or May, and mostly irrigated when the soil moisture reaches 50 

percent of field capacity. The plant density for the better schemes range from 300 

to 600 thousand per hectare. While irrigation and high seeding rate increased the 

cost of production, the revenue generated from higher yield of irrigated crops planted in these 2 months offset the cost. 

66 

The best management scheme is the same for the three locations, but the expected profit is different. Stochastic dominance analysis was applied only to the better management schemes. The best management scheme is identified as the function furthest to the right that does not cross over other functions (Fig. 10). The best 

management scheme was ‘Bragg’ planted in April at 600, 000 plants per hectare 

with irrigation triggered when soil moisture reached 50 percent of field capacity. 

This management scheme was the best for all three locations. The expected profits 

for Kawaihapai, Waialua, and Opaeula were $789, $811, and $829 per hectare, respectively. 


319UEHAR9.eps
67 

The worst schemes, in terms of mean economic profit, had several management 

practices in common. A negative mean economic profit resulted from schemes with 

any one of the following practices: cultivar ‘Evans’, a plant density of 150,000 plants 

per hectare, rainfed, or a planting date in January, February, July, August, September, October, November, or December. The cultivar ‘Evans’ had consistently 

lower yields, because of early flowering as discussed previously, that did not generate enough revenue from yield to compensate for the costs incurred for basic production. Planting at a density of 150,000 per hectare was too low to produce high 

yield. Rainfed crops lacked the moisture to produce adequate yield and planting 

from July to February either did not place the crop in favorable moisture or solar 

radiation conditions to yield well as previously discussed. 

Conclusions 

This study shows that an agronomic model and economic analysis are useful tools 

for agricultural decision-making. In Hawaii, the agricultural environment is complex 

due to the fact that crops can grow year-round and topographical influences on 

weather and the many soil types create many unique niches. Finding agricultural 

management practices to deal with this complexity has been difficult but is possible 

with careful extrapolation of results from field experiments. However, field experiVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:05 Jul 24, 2012 Jkt 052754 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\75205.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE

319UEHAR10.eps
68 

ments are time-consuming and do not quantify the variation in yield that can be 

expected from month to month and year to year. The soybean model coupled with 

economic analysis helps to overcome both of these problems. 

In this study, crop models shortened the time needed to test and determine suitable management schemes to produce crops in specific locations. This analysis took 

approximately 1 week to complete. To achieve the same results, 768 field experiments would have had to be done over 20 years. The faster result is possible because the crop model has the ability to integrate weather, soil, and management information from a site and make realistic predictions on crop performance. With predicted yields, a fast economic analysis can be done to identify feasible management 

schemes based on profit and risk. 

Predicting crop performance can have a profound impact on land-use decisions requiring this information. For this study, the question of whether soybean can be 

produced on the North Shore was answered from the viewpoint of an entrepreneur. 

Others who may benefit from this information include farmers who want to know 

whether alternative crops can be produced on their land, bankers who need to quantify the risk involved in an agricultural enterprise applying for a loan, and policymakers who need information on land capabilities. Armed with this information, decisions to commit a plot of land or investment capital to crop production are not answered with a simple yes or no but with estimates of economic profit, options for 

management practices to produce this profit, and an assessment of risk. 

Acknowledgments 

The authors extend their appreciation to Dr. PingSun Leung for his help with the 

economic analysis, Dr. Robert Osgood for making weather data available, Dr. Michael McLean for providing the cost-of-production spreadsheet, and Ms. Juvi Pagba 

for production assistance with this publication. 

This work was supported in part by the U.S. Department of Agriculture through 

a special research grant under the Tropical/Subtropical Agricultural Research program Special Agreement No. 93–34135–8811 managed by the Pacific Basin Advisory 

Group (PBAG) and a contract with the Rural Economic Transition Assistance program. 

References 

AVRDC, 1991. 1990 Progress Report. Asian Vegetable Research and Development Center. 

Shanhua, Tainan, Republic of China. 

Egli, D.B. and W. Bruening, 1992. Planting date and soybean yield: Evaluation of environmental effects with a crop simulation model: SOYGRO. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 

62:19–29. 

Hoogenboom, G., J.W. Jones, P.W. Wilkens, W.D. Batchelor, W.T. Bowen, L.A. Hunt, N.B. 

Pickering, U. Singh, D.C. Godwin, B. Baer, K.J. Boote, J.T. Ritchie, and J.W. White. 1994a. Volume 2–2: Crop models. In: Tsuji et al, op. cit. 

Hoogenboom, G., J.W. Jones, K.J. Boote, N.B. Pickering, W.T. Bowen, and W.D. Batchelor, 

1994b. A new and improved soybean simulation model: CROPGRO-Soybean. World Soybean Research Conference V, Chiang Mai, Thailand, Feb. 20–27, 1994. 

Ikawa, H., H.H. Sato, A.K.S. Chang, S. Nakamura, E. Robello, Jr., and S.P. Periaswamy, 

1985. Soils of the Hawaii Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Hawaii: Soil survey, 

laboratory data, and soil descriptions. HITAHR Res. Ext. Series 022. 

Soil Conservation Service, 1976. Soil survey laboratory data and descriptions for some soils 

of Hawaii. Soil Conservation Service, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Soil Survey Investigations Report No. 29, U.S. Government Printing Office 212–613. 

Swaney, D.P., J.W. Jones, W.G. Boggess, G.G. Wilkerson, J.W. Mishoe, 1983. Real-time irrigation decision analysis using simulation. Trans. American Society of Agricultural Engineers 

26:562–568. 

Thornton, P.K., G. Hoogenboom, P.W. Wilkens, and J.W. Jones, 1994. Volume 3–1: Seasonal 

Analysis. In: Tsuji et al., op. cit. 

Tsuji, G.Y., G. Uehara, and S. Balas (eds), 1994. DSSAT v3. University of Hawaii, Honolulu, 

Hawaii. 

Conversions 

1 kg = 2.2 lb 

1 lb = 0.454 kg 

1 hectare (ha) = 2.47 acre 

1 acre = 0.405 hectare 

$1.00/ha = $0.405/acre 

1 kg/ha = 1.12 lb/acre 

1 lb/acre = 0.89 kg/ha 

1 mm = 4⁄100 inch 

1 inch = 25.4 mm 

20 °C = 70 °F, 25 °C = 77 °F 

69 

The CHAIRMAN. All right, thank you very much, Dr. Uehara. 

Your testimony has been most helpful. 

I think I should point out a few facts of life in the Congress. 

After about 30 years, I’m pleased to tell you that my Committee 

passed a fuel efficiency law. It was carried out with the opposition, 

powerful opposition, of automobile companies and such, but it’s 

now part of the laws of the United States. 

The Center that you spoke of, Dr. Kim, and the other programs, 

like the Tropical Agricultural Center on the Big Island, and the 

grants that you speak of, have been calculated, but they’re all earmarks. I’m certain you’ve heard of that nasty word ‘‘earmark,’’ and 

‘‘add-ons.’’ 

As you know, I’ve been condemned because of my success in getting these earmarks, and I’m not embarrassed by them. If we didn’t 

have the earmarks, you wouldn’t have your Center, you won’t have 

the Tropical Agricultural Center on the Big Island. So, it may interest you to know, although you’re not involved in it, the very popular East-West Center is an earmark. 

And so, you’ll hear all of these politicians speaking about doing 

away with earmarks. I hope they’ll look at the Constitution, because the Constitution says the Congress of the United States has 

a role to play. 

Well, if these grants and earmarks were not provided, what 

would your operation be like, Dr. Kim if your Center wasn’t there? 

Dr. KIM. Well, the Center provides a tremendous opportunity to 

do things that we are doing right now, but to a much larger scale. 

In part, what we have is a tremendous amount of research, good 

research, outstanding, world-class research that’s conducted at the 

University of Hawai‘i. What’s needed is to translate this research 

into effective policies, programs and training programs. And what’s 

needed is some special sensitivities that, I believe, that we have at 

the University of Hawai‘i, and in this region. 

I mean, the first is our exposure to a broad range of natural hazards. The second issue that we have that makes us all the more 

important is our vulnerability—our remote location. It’s the combination of these risks that we face, but also what would happen 

in the event that we have a very serious natural disaster occurring, 

and we’ve had so many recent disaster declarations that suggest 

this is a problem. 

So, it’s something just about improving our community, but by 

developing effective programs to prepare, respond and recover from 

these hazards, we can really serve as a model. We can avert the 

disaster which happened with Katrina, and in other places as well, 

too, because we have both the resources and the concentration of 

policymakers and decisionmakers and others, in this community, 

that’s really unlike any other place in the world. 

One of those things that I would like to point out, is I went to 

graduate school in Massachusetts, which has 351 cities and towns. 

As you’re aware, in Hawaii, we have four units of local government. 

We have a tremendous degree of centralization, and good programs 

that have been developed at the local level, and a real opportunity 

to work closely with State, local, and Federal Government, and 

with the University of Hawai‘i. I think that’s unlike any other Center. 

70 

And when I’ve talked with my counterparts, they realize that we 

do have certain locational advantages, both in terms of the hazards 

that we face, the vulnerabilities, but also the opportunities to build 

a training program. 

You know, I came from these meetings with the United Nations 

University, and there were many of our Pacific Island partners attending this meeting—from American Samoa, from Guam, from 

other parts of the flag territories, Vanuatu, Fiji, even places that 

are not part of the United States, but—and they really look to Hawaii for leadership, assistance, technical support, training in this 

area, and in other areas. 

And so, I think we have a broad mission, in addition to addressing the needs of the Nation, as a whole, coastal communities, in 

particular, others exposed to the range of similar natural hazards 

from flooding to earthquakes to hurricanes—I think we also have 

a special obligation and responsibility for work in the region. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I hope you’ll speak up when someone says 

nasty things about earmarks. 

Dr. KIM. Absolutely. 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I can assure you that your Congressional 

delegation is well aware of the importance of Hawaii in this battle 

to keep our planet viable. 

We know, as Dr. Leong pointed out, 85 percent of the coral beds 

in the United States are found here. We also know that because 

of its isolation, Hawaii is the most dependent State on fossil fuels. 

As a result, we have been doing our best to bring in activities here 

that could make Hawaii a model, could make Hawaii a test lab. 

For example, it may interest you to know that the first military 

hydrogen bus operated here in Hawaii. And I can assure you, the 

military didn’t want to get involved with that, because they said, 

‘‘It’s none of our business,’’ you know? The first electric bus was developed at the University of Hawai‘i. 

And so, we do get involved in activities of this nature, and if it 

weren’t for the grants, I think that your research program would 

be nil. 

Dr. KIM. That’s correct. 

The CHAIRMAN. And, I’d like to, if I may, because these questions 

would take much concern, can we submit to you, questions that you 

can respond to? They are highly technical in nature, I want to be 

able to present to my Committee, a full portfolio of issues, reactions, and what we can do about it. 

So, with that, I’d like to thank you all for your testimony, it’s 

been extremely helpful. And I can assure you that it won’t be wasted. 

Thank you very much. 

[Whereupon, at 11:36 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

(71) 

A P P E N D I X 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE TO

FRED T. MACKENZIE, PH.D. 

Question 1. NSF expects the impact of the FY08 cuts to be 1,000 fewer new research grants awarded, 230 fewer Graduate Research Fellows hired, and several 

major solicitations delayed for at least a year, including in the areas of computer 

science, cyber-infrastructure, and mathematics and physical sciences. Do you anticipate your programs experiencing repercussions from the lower than expected FY 

2009 President’s request? 

Answer. Yes, our programs have not been keeping up over the years with grant 

needs of excellent scientists and a budget that only meets last fiscal year’s will result in proposal success rates that are at even lower levels than 10–20 percent. 

Question 2. Do you feel that more could or should be done to explicitly bolster education programs at the University of Hawaii and Hawai‘i Pacific University? 

Answer. Yes definitely, and especially in earth system and global environmental 

science. Every educated university undergraduate student should be required to 

take such a course, just like they take freshman English. 

Question 3. Since 2004 the state has been making climate change mitigation and 

adaptation a priority through increased dedication and investment in the research 

and development of clean energy technologies. How has legislation passed in recent 

years benefited your research or commercial goals? 

Answer. No direct benefit and I do not feel the state is making the effort needed 

to meet the challenges of peak oil, the fact that 90 percent of our energy comes from 

oil, mainly foreign, and is doing little to adapt to the global climate changes of the 

future. Mitigation is almost useless for Hawaii since we produce so little greenhouse 

gas relative to much of the rest of the world. We need to pay more attention to adaptation. 

Question 4. Dr. Mackenzie, in your testimony, you indicated that regional climate 

models are not yet as robust as global climate models. What do we need to get to 

the point where the regional models are as useful as the global models? 

Answer. I feel there are at least two major things we require—more regional data 

on climate variables like temperature, precipitation, and seawater CO2 and carbon 

chemistry and development of new models for the influences of global climatic 

change on the regional scale ocean-atmosphere system and marine and terrestrial 

ecosystems. The model complexity needs to be on the order of the models that have 

been developed for El Nin ̃ o-Southern Oscillation events. Data acquisition requires 

more use of satellite technology and in situ networks of instrumentation to measure 

the changes in the major physical variables of climate and the important physical, 

chemical and biological properties of the oceans on a regional scale. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE TO

JO-ANN C. LEONG, PH.D. 

Question 1. Have you found evidence of increasing ocean temperature around Hawaii’s reefs and have you observed a correlation to bleaching events or disease? 

Answer by Paul Jokiel, Research Professor, HIMB. HIMB scientists have been 

working on this question for the past 40 years. In the early 1970s studies on the 

impact of elevated temperature on coral reefs were initiated by Paul Jokiel and 

Steve Coles in order to understand the possible impact of a proposed Hawaiian Electric Co. power plant in Kaneohe Bay. Their reports show that a warming of one degree above summer maximum temperature will lead to bleaching of corals and high 

mortality (Jokel and Coles 1974, 1977). Field and laboratory studies at Kaneohe Bay 

and at Enewetak Atoll led to the generalization that corals in the tropics as well 

as the subtropics are living within 1 degree of bleaching during the summer months 

(Coles et al., 1976). This generalization has been shown to be true throughout the 

72 

world (Jokiel 2004). Jokiel and Coles (1990) also predicted that Hawaii would experience a major coral bleaching event with rising sea water temperature in a manner 

similar to locations throughout the tropics. The first major bleaching occurred in the 

main Hawaiian Islands in 1996 followed by bleaching in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands in 2002. These events are documented in by Jokiel and Brown (2004), 

and they clearly link rising global temperature to the bleaching events. The history 

of Jokiel’s involvement in this question is summarized in Fig.1. 

Fig. 1. Increasing temperature in Hawaiian waters, prediction of bleaching (1990) and bleaching event summary. 

At the present time Paul Jokiel is continuing his global climate change studies 

in collaboration with Dr. Bob Buddemeier (Univ. Kansas) and others. They have 

produced a model that quantitatively describes the future changes on Hawaii coral 

reefs over the next century given various scenarios of carbon dioxide emissions 

(Buddemeier et al., in press). Other studies by Jokiel and colleagues show that 

ocean acidification, expected to occur in this century as a result of anthropogenic 

carbon dioxide emissions, will have severe impact on coral reefs (Kuffner et al., 

2008, Jokiel et al., 2008). 

References 

Jokiel, P.L., and S.L. Coles. 1974. Effects of heated effluent on hermatypic corals at Kahe 

Point, Oahu. Pac. Sci. 28(1):1–18. 

Coles, S.L., P.L. Jokiel and C.R. Lewis. 1976. Thermal tolerance in tropical versus subtropical 

Pacific reef corals. Pac. Sci. 30:156–166. 

Jokiel, P.L., and S.L. Coles. 1977. Effects of temperature on the mortality and growth of Hawaiian reef corals. Mar. Biol. 43:201–208. 

Jokiel, P.L. 2004. Temperature Stress and Coral Bleaching. 2004. pp. 401–425 In Coral Health 

and Disease (E. Rosenberg and Y. Loya Eds.). Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg. 

Jokiel, P.L. and Eric K. Brown. 2004. Global warming, regional trends and inshore environmental conditions influence coral bleaching in Hawaii. Global Change Biology 10:1627–1641. 

Kuffner, Ilsa B., Andreas J. Andersson, Paul L. Jokiel, Ku‘ulei S. Rodgers, and Fred T. Mackenzie (2008) Decreased abundance of crustose coralline algae due to ocean acidification. Nature 

Geoscience 1: 114–117. 

Jokiel, Paul L., Ku‘ulei S. Rodgers, Ilsa B. Kuffner, Andreas J. Andersson, Evelyn F. Cox, 

Fred T. Mackenzie (2008) Ocean acidification and calcifying reef organisms: a mesocosm investigation. Coral Reefs DOI 10.1007/s00338–008–0380–9. 

Buddemeier, R.W., P.L. Jokiel, K.M. Zimmerman, D.R. Lane, J.M. Carey, G.C. Bohling, J.A. 

Martinich. (in press) A modeling tool to evaluate regional coral reef responses to changes in climate and ocean chemistry. Limnol Oceanogr. 


319LEONQ1.eps
73 

Question 2. NSF expects the impact of the FY08 cuts to be 1,000 fewer new research grants awarded, 230 fewer Graduate Research Fellows hired, and several 

major solicitations delayed for at least a year, including in the areas of computer 

science, cyber-infrastructure, and mathematics and physical sciences. Do you anticipate your programs experiencing repercussions from the lower than expected FY 

2009 President’s request? 

Answer by Steve Karl, Associate Research Professor at HIMB. An NSF Small 

Grant for Exploratory Research (SGER) funds our research on genetics and the 

health of coral reefs. These grants are ‘‘. . . recommended for innovative, smallerscale research ideas that are high-risk/high-reward . . .’’ (NSF website). We were 

very fortunate to have received this award because the research that we proposed 

is on a spatial scale (micro—i.e., meter and centimeter) commonly ignored but not 

known to be irrelevant and an idea that has never been tried (understanding the 

genetic relatedness of every coral colony on a reef). Through this research we hope 

to better understand the physical, ecological, and genetic spatial heterogeneity in a 

reef and its relationship to coral reef robustness, resilience, and health. With overall 

risk-adverse nature of the NSF and reduced funding, these types of grants are likely 

to be hardest hit. Although it will not directly effect our research, other high-risk 

proposals that also have the potential for high-reward will likely be strongly reduced. 

We are in the process of writing a larger proposal to NSF that uses what we’ve 

learned to expand to the most exciting and rewarding areas our results support. 

Given that the NSF Biological Oceanography funding rate currently hovers around 

10 percent, under the best of circumstances it is unlikely that we will be successful 

in our first submission. Currently, due to the number of worthy proposals exceeding 

the available funds, even worthy and well-founded research proposals are very unlikely to be granted in the first submission. Worthy proposals that were not accepted 

this year due to lack funds have a better chance if resubmitted and considered in 

subsequent years. Since we will be submitting for the first time, it is unlikely (regardless of the quality of the science) we will be funded. A smaller budget for NSF 

makes this more likely to happen this year and again next year when we resubmit. 

Unfortunately, some of the momentum that we have in the research simply won’t 

last 2+ more years for funding to be approved. Since no other agency funds this type 

of fundamental research we likely will be forced to change the direction to applied 

questions that are more attractive to other funding sources (e.g., Sea Grant). Experience has shown, however, the innovation frequently comes from basic research. Applied research is generally too narrowly focused to result in fundamentally new 

ideas. NSF is the only real source for basic, non-medical science. 

Answer by Malia Rivera, Faculty Marine Education Coordinator at HIMB. In addition to research grants, NSF funds projects associated with education targets at 

various levels, including graduate, undergraduate and K–12 students (e.g., REU, 

NSF GK–12, COSEE), as well as informal public audiences (e.g., ISE and CRPA). 

Presumably, cuts in the overall NSF budget will impact not only research, but these 

types of important science education related programs as well. Marine science education programs associated with academic research institutes such as those at the 

Hawai‘i Institute of Marine Biology are uniquely positioned to create and deliver 

educational opportunities that bridge and leverage real scientific research (which 

engages graduate and undergraduate students) with meaningful science education 

and scientific literacy at the K–12 and public audience levels. Certainly it would be 

expected that the projected cuts to the President’s request would diminish the availability of these opportunities that otherwise would have served to contribute to the 

enhancement of science literacy in the public audiences and encouragement of the 

pursuit of higher education in science disciplines by local students. 

Question 3. What resources are needed to carry out the proper level of monitoring 

and research of coral reefs? 

Answer by Steve Karl, Associate Research Professor at HIMB. A considerable 

amount of funding is going to environmental sensing on global and broad regional 

scales such as NSF Ocean Research Interactive Observatory network (ORION). This 

view of the physical marine environment is useful for things like predicting the frequency and severity of hurricanes in the Atlantic, understanding how El Nin ̃ o and 

La Nin ̃ a contribute to changing climates, and assessing the role of elevated sea surface temperature in the 1997–1998 Indo-Pacific and 2005 Caribbean mass coral 

bleaching events. The success of an individual, however, is more strongly dependent 

on very small-scale processes that the individual experiences throughout its life. 

These small-scale processes likely are not reflected in the larger, more regional studies that are more common. Our research in Kaneohe Bay, Hawaii, however, is indicating that there is micro-spatial heterogeneity on coral reefs and that these differences are stable over time. We have been monitoring the water temperature at 

74 

points 4 meters apart across a patch reef. We are finding that adjacent sites separated by 4 meters can be nearly a degree different in temperature. Even more surprising is that these differences are stable over time and not associated with the 

depth of the water. This is significant because other researchers have shown that 

coral bleaching occurs at a threshold temperature and temperatures even one-degree 

higher cause coral bleaching. Furthermore, if the temperature is sustained the coral 

colony is unlikely to recover and will die. 

Currently, we are collecting the temperature data by using small temperature 

data loggers. These loggers record the temperature every 25 minutes and store it 

in memory. Within a month the memory is full and we retrieve the data loggers, 

download the data, clear the memory, and put them back out in the field. This is 

exceedingly time consuming. We would also like to collect other measurement (solar 

irradiance, salinity, water movement, etc.) but this is time prohibitive. What is urgently needed to further this sort of monitoring are wireless, underwater data 

loggers. Since we have over 100 temperature data loggers, it is untenable to have 

them wired to a central receiver. Currently, the technology for underwater wireless 

communication of data is lacking. The appropriate types of monitors would also 

need to be developed so that micro-spatial analyses were possible. In general, considerably more resources need to be directed to understanding the dynamics at all 

physical scales from the micro to an ocean basin. 

Question 4. Do you feel that more could or should be done to explicitly bolster education programs at the University of Hawai‘i and Hawaii Pacific University? 

Answer by Judy Lemus, Faculty Academic Programs Specialist at HIMB. Undergraduate enrollment in science majors is declining all over the country and I think 

it would be helpful to look at that more closely, specifically within the context of 

Hawaii and develop objectives at UH that could help to reverse that trend. Certainly engaging more minority and underrepresented groups is needed as the demographics of universities move toward parity with the general population. But more 

broadly, I think it also has to do with changing our approach to teaching science 

in a way that keeps up with contemporary culture, is more enriching and engaging, 

and is better in tune with career opportunities. So this would require investments 

in revising curricula and also providing more resources for immersive and authentic 

science experiences for undergraduates. I think there is potentially a huge need for 

this at the University of Hawai’i. 

Toward outreach education, the university functions within the continuum of a 

broader educational system and culture, including K–12 education and free-choice, 

life-long learning of adult citizens. As such, and as the pinnacle of the formal education system, the university should certainly be engaged in bolstering education 

throughout that continuum. For science in particular, if the academic science community disregards the education needs and interests of the public, it risks alienating 

that public audience and potentially eroding support for publicly funded science, and 

therefore diminishing our capcity in science and technology (two of the fastest growing sectors of the global economy). We have already seen how difficult it is to enage 

any disenfranchised sector of the public. For the University of Hawai‘i, there needs 

to be better coordination of the many worthwhile outreach efforts that are happening. 

Answer by Malia Rivera, Faculty Marine Education Coordinator at HIMB. In 

early 2007 the HIMB Education Program, with the help of the University of Hawai‘i 

Office of Institutional Research, compiled statistics from the Fall 2006 semester on 

the number students at UH Ma ̄noa (UHM) majoring in undergraduate degrees from 

majors associated with the School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology 

(SOEST—of which HIMB is a part), in Zoology, and in Marine Biology (the latter 

two departments whose curricula are most closely associated with the mission of 

HIMB). Despite an overall student body at UHM made up of 60 percent undergraduate students that graduated from Hawaii high schools (that is, students presumably from the State of Hawaii), the proportion of students from Hawaii that 

have declared majors in SOEST was only 15 percent, in Zoology only 17 percent, 

and in Marine Biology only 27 percent. In other words, most of the undergraduates 

majoring in these disciplines do not enter UHM as residents from the state, but 

rather are from either the mainland or other countries. Given recent efforts by the 

state to encourage STEM education to help diversify Hawaii’s future economy away 

from its reliance on tourism, there is a need to create more opportunities for our 

local students to pursue science and technology disciplines as a course of study and 

as an eventual career. To do this, pathways that help students journey through the 

sciences from the K–12 through the undergraduate and graduate levels of study, 

and eventually job placement, are critical. While the good news is that more and 

more programs like these are emerging, the numbers of our students enrolling in 

75 

these types of majors are still markedly low. Cuts to funding at NSF that have supported these efforts would likely thwart the progress made thus far. 

Question 5. Since 2004 the state has been making climate change mitigation and 

adaptation a priority through increased dedication and investment in the research 

and development of clean energy technologies. How has legislation passed in recent 

years benefited your research or commercial goals? 

Answer by Jo-Ann Leong, Professor and Director of HIMB. The America COMPETES Act with the reauthorization of NSF has been instrumental in providing 

funding for many of the HIMB faculty. The importance of this funding is documented in the previous answers. As of May 2008, 10 of 15 HIMB faculty members 

have competitive research grants from NSF. The cumulative amount of this funding, 

i.e., for multiyear grants, is $3,844,288. Some of that funding will end in 2008 and, 

like all faculty members in academic research units, are working very hard to renew 

their funding. Projected cuts will have a major impact on these efforts. 

Question 6. What types of trends have you witnessed in regard to the erosion of 

corals here in Hawaii? 

Answer by Charles Fletcher, Professor and Chairman, Dept. of Geology and Geophysics, School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology, UH-Ma ̄noa. ‘‘No trends 

have been witnessed in this regard . . . coral erosion is not a worry—bleaching and 

acidification are worries and perhaps they are referring to this. The reason no 

trends have been witnessed is that no one is watching. There are no moitoring programs set up to look for this effect, and the effect is not expected to be manifest 

for several decades in any case. Of far greater concern are coastal run-off, poor 

water quality in restricted circulation areas, and other human impacts.’’ 

Question 7. Have we seen an increase in the last decade of disease events on corals reefs? If so, do you believe this to be attributed to increasing ocean temperatures 

or another event? 

Answer by Greta Aeby, Assistant Researcher, Hawai’i Institute of Marine Biology, 

OEST, UH-Ma ̄noa. Dr. Greta Aeby, in her response to your question regarding research on corals’ resistance to climate change, documents the evidence that suggests 

a correlation between bleaching and disease. 

Question 8. Is HIMB conducting any long-term monitoring and research of threats 

to coral reefs such as coral bleaching? 

Answer by Jo-Ann Leong, Professor and Director at HIMB. The Hawai’i Coral 

Reef Assessment and Monitoring Program (CRAMP) was created during 1997–98 by 

leading coral reef researchers, managers and educators in Hawaii . The initial task 

was to develop a state-wide network consisting of over 30 long-term coral reef monitoring sites and associated database. Upon completion of the monitoring network 

the focus was expanded to include rapid quantitative assessments and habitat mapping on a state-wide spatial scale. Today the emphasis is on using these tools to 

understand the ecology of Hawaiian coral reefs in relation to other geographic areas. 

Led by Paul Jokiel, Ku‘ulei Rodgers, Eric Brown, and Alan Friedlander, CRAMP is 

housed at HIMB and the data gathered by the Hawaii CRAMP over the last 7-years 

from 32 sites across the Main Hawaiian Islands has been utilized by county, state 

and Federal managers in their efforts to manage the resources of Hawaii. 

Question 9. What resources are needed to carry out the proper level of monitoring 

and research of coral reefs? 

Answer by Florence Thomas, Associate Research Professor at HIMB. One of the 

major tasks facing ocean scientists in the 21st century is to unravel the complex 

interaction of physical, chemical, and biological processes that underlie the function 

of oceanic ecosystems. We are in an era of rapidly developing technology and are 

beginning to approach science in a cross disciplinary fashion which is providing a 

means to examine these complex interactions rather than focusing on single processes or disciplines. Thus we are poised to examine oceanic ecosystems in a way 

that has previously been impossible. 

Over the past 10 years there has been considerable development of sensors capable of monitoring aspects of the environment at increasingly small scales and with 

accuracy that meets the level of biological responses. To fully understand how corals 

and coral associated organisms respond to a changing environment we need to invest in the deployment of small-scale sensor arrays in locations where corals and 

associated organisms can be continually monitored for responses using modern molecular and more traditional methods. 

Many biological processes are influenced by the physical and chemical characteristics of the environment. For example, hydrodynamic regime can determine the rate 

at which chemicals are delivered to or from an organisms or community. This rate 

in turn can impact biological processes such as photosynthesis, nutrient uptake, 

coral bleaching, and algal productivity. Further changes in light and temperature 

76 

may impact normal biological function. While we know from land-based experiments 

that these physical parameters can impact biology, little is known about the smallscale fluctuation in physical parameters in the field and how organisms in situ respond to naturally occurring changes. To date, we do not know which scales of environmental variation may be most important in driving changes in ecosystem function. By mapping measures of response at the gene, metabolism, and community 

scale onto shifts in environmental parameters taken continuously at scales relevant 

to organisms we can begin to determine the factors underlying such shifts. Knowing 

how organisms respond to large scale and long-term perturbations in environmental 

parameters singly is not enough. We need real-time, small scale monitoring of multiple environmental factors at the scale of the organism if we are to understand 

changes in coral reef ecosystems. 

Question 10. Research has shown that some corals are able show a greater tolerance to climate change and coral bleaching than others due to the different species 

of algae that live within their tissues. What research has been done to explore resistance of Hawaiian corals to climate change? 

Answer by Greta Aeby, Assistant Researcher, HIMB. Corals have a narrow range 

of thermal tolerance and so are extremely susceptible to temperature stress. Studies 

are now starting to show there is a link between coral disease and ocean warming. 

Several diseases show seasonal patterns where higher levels of disease are found 

during the warm water seasons. For example, Willis et al., (2004) found a fifteen 

fold increase in acroporid disease on the GBR during the summer surveys as compared to winter surveys. Disease outbreaks have also been found to follow water 

temperature anomalies or bleaching events. On the GBR, Bruno et al., (2007) found 

a significant relationship between frequency of warm temperature anomalies and 

the incidence of white syndrome and Miller et al., (2006) found significant coral mortality (26–48 percent losses in coral cover) from coral disease on reefs in the U.S. 

Virgin Islands following an extensive bleaching event. High temperature anomalies 

may drive outbreaks of disease by hindering the corals’ ability to fight infection and/ 

or by increasing the pathogen’s virulence (Harvell et al., 2007). 

In Hawaii, we are just now developing the capacity to determine whether ocean 

warming, is currently or will in the future, result in increases in coral diseases on 

the reefs of Hawaii. Within the past couple of years, baseline disease surveys have 

been completed and focused studies on diseases of concern initiated. So while we 

do not yet know whether water temperatures have affected coral disease levels on 

the reefs of Hawaii, disease outbreaks have already been documented in both the 

northwestern Hawaiian Islands (Aeby 2006) and in Kaneohe Bay, Oahu within the 

main Hawaiian Islands (Aeby et al., unpub. data). The recent disease outbreaks in 

Hawaii are worrisome and raise concerns about Hawaii’s reefs ability to tolerate 

conditions associated with global climate change. Research is desperately needed to 

understand coral disease processes in Hawaii and thus be able to predict the trajectory of the health of Hawaii’s reefs in the face of increasing anthropogenic stressors 

and warming ocean temperatures. 

Literature cited 

Aeby, G.S. 2006. Outbreak of coral disease in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. Coral Reefs 

24(3):481. 

Bruno, J., Selig, E., Casey, K., Page, C., Willis, B., Harvell, D., Sweatman, H. and A. Melendy. 

2007. Thermal Stress and coral cover as drivers of coral disease outbreaks. PLoS Biology 

5(6):e124. Doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0050124. 

Harvell, D., Johdan-Dahlgren, E., Merkel, S., Rosenberg, E. Raymundo, L., Simth, G., Weil, 

E. and B. Willis. 2007. Coral disease, environmental drivers, and the balance between coral and 

microbial associates. Oceanography 20(1):59–81. 

Miller, J., Waara, R., Muller, E. and C. Rogers. 2006. Coral bleaching and disease combine 

to cause extensive mortality of reefs in U.S. Virgin Islands. Coral Reefs 25:418. 

Willis, B., Page, C. and E. Dinsdale 2004. Coral disease on the Great Barrier Reef. Pages 69– 

104 in E. Rosenberg and Y. Loya (eds). Coral Health and Disease. Springer-Verlag, Germany. 

Question 11. I have heard that Hawaii is an ideal place for the establishment of 

carbon offset forestry. Does using forestry to offset Hawaii’s CO2 emissions seem 

like a viable option? 

Answer by Jo-Ann Leong, Professor and Director of the Hawai’i Institute of Marine Biology. This is a very interesting question and should best be answered by an 

expert in Forest CO2 sequestration. I have referred it to Boone Kauffman, Director, 

Institute of Pacific Islands Forestry, Pacific Southwest Research Station, USDA Forest Service, 60 Nowelo Street, Hilo, Hawaii 96720. Here are some factors that might 

help in the discussion: 

77 

1. Hawaii in 2005 was generating approximately 23.05 million metric tons of 

CO2 (EPA, Comparison of EPA State Inventories and the Inventory of U.S. 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks, last updated Feb. 25, 2008). 

2. Hawaii’s existing forests are already acting as a carbon sink for 108 million 

tons of CO2 (EPA State Action Policies: Hawaii, at the following website: 

http://yosemite.epa.gov/gw/statepolicyactions.nsf/uniqueKeyLookup/ 

BMOE5P9LGZ?OpenDocument). 

3. The State of Hawai’i Action Plan (koa reforestation and longer rotation of 

high value forest plantations) indicates that reforestation has the potential to 

sequester an additional 26 million tons of carbon. 

4. According to the DBEDT plan, the reforestation projection is economically 

viable as a carbon sequestration strategy. 

Please note that these figures are just estimates. I was not able to verify the figure for Hawaii’s forests as tons or metric tons. 

Question 12. Scientific evidence has suggested that one potential impact of climate 

change will be the increased expansion of invasive species. Hawaii has already suffered as the result of more than 70 marine invasive species. What kinds of monitoring and research are being performed to address invasive species in the Hawaiian 

Islands and what do we need to do to prevent future invasions? 

Answer by L. Scott Godwin, Research Specialist, Hawai‘i Institute of Marine Biology, SOEST, UH-Ma ̄noa. The native species of the marine and terrestrial environments of the Hawaiian Archipelago arrived as natural biological invasions through 

historical time, and through evolution and adaptation became the present communities associated with the ecosystem. The advent of modern history has created new 

human-mediated biological invasions through non-natural mechanisms. The natural 

species invasion process is measured in geologic time but the invasions attributed 

to human-mediated sources are occurring at greater frequency than by natural 

means. 

Disturbance, both natural and man-made, can create a situation in which competition dynamics can be altered in coral reef habitats. Physical damage, whether 

by storms or anchor damage, can lead to gaps that can be exploited by both native 

and non-native species. Once this has begun it is nearly impossible to take measures that can halt the process. From the standpoint of non-native species invasions, 

measures to minimize the likelihood of exposure by new non-native species are the 

best approach for resource managers. These measures take the form of monitoring 

both the marine communities that can be affected and the mechanisms that can expose these communities to non-native species. 

Monitoring of marine communities involves baseline surveys to determine what 

native and non-native species exist so that new introductions can be identified and 

the spread of established non-natives can be followed (and possibly prevented). The 

baseline survey of organisms in marine communities is a lengthy process and requires taxonomic expertise to identify both native and non-native species. This expertise is rarely centered in the location of the survey efforts and requires collaboration with institutions throughout the world. 

Identifying the mechanisms of non-native species transport requires a ‘‘pathway 

analysis’’ that takes into account all present and future vectors that could affect a 

region. Most pathways are associated with the movement of commercial commodities via maritime and air shipping hubs but other means also exist. Activities of 

public and private sector research and conservation entities can also be responsible 

for transport. 

In Hawaii, a variety of surveys conducted under the auspices of the Hawaii Biological Survey (http://hbs.bishopmuseum.org/) and the Hawai‘i Institute of Marine 

Biology (HIMB) have identified marine non-native species throughout the archipelago and the common transport mechanisms. The majority of the species are associated with natural and man-made shorelines in conjunction with maritime shipping 

hubs but there are many species established in shallow and deep water coral reef 

habitats. Most species are found within the Main Hawaiian Islands but some have 

become established in the Pa ̄pahanaumokua ̄kea Marine National Monument 

(PMNM). Specific management focus on marine non-native species and transport 

mechanisms for the PMNM has been conducted by the Hawai‘i Institute of Marine 

Biology (http://cramp.wcc.hawaii.edu/Downloads/Publications/TRlGodwinletl 

al%20lInvasiveslFinal%20Draft.pdf). A pro-active management plan that requires 

surveys of all maritime vessels applying for permits for entry into the PMNM was 

developed in conjunction with HIMB and has been in place since 2006. Presently, 

HIMB is also conducting work in the PMNM involving the survey of established 

non-native species populations to determine if expansion is occurring and the level 

78 

of transport associated with derelict fishing gear. Researchers are providing developing genetic techniques for early detection of marine non-native species and taxonomic expertise for surveys of native and non-native species. 

Question 13. Warmer seas are believed to contribute to increased numbers of 

harmful algal blooms. These blooms produce toxins which can be passed onto humans through the seafood that we eat. Will it be necessary to increase seafood monitoring and testing to protect Hawaiians from shellfish poisoning? 

Answer by Jo-Ann Leong, Professor and Director, Hawai‘i Institute of Marine Biology. Senate Bill 2688: Commercial Seafood Consumer Protection Act, if enacted 

should provide much needed capacity for the FDA and NOAA to carry out ‘‘testing 

and other activities’’ to ensure seafood safety for the American public. Current data 

indicate that the spatial and temporal incidence of harmful algal blooms is increasing and despite the cause, warmer seas or increased pollution (phosphorus and/or 

nitrogen in the environment), Hawaii will have to increase its capacity to test for 

and make predictions regarding harmful algal blooms that might impact its seafood. 

Question 14. There has been concern that climate change could result in increases 

in the prevalence of diseases, specifically dengue fever. Does Hawaii need to worry 

about potential increases of diseases that have not been historically abundant? 

Answer by Jo-Ann Leong, Professor and Director, Hawai‘i Institute of Marine Biology. The World Health Organization in its report on Climate Change and Human 

Health (2003) points to observations that mosquito-borne diseases like malaria increases around five-fold in the year after an El Nin ̃ o event (Bouma and van der 

Kaay, 1998). The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA 236–F–98–007e, Sept. 

1998) reports that warming and other climate changes may expand the habitant 

and infectivity of disease-carrying insects, increasing the potential for transmission 

of diseases such as malaria and dengue fever. Although dengue fever is currently 

uncommon in the United States, conditions exist in Hawai‘i that make it vulnerable 

to the disease. Dengue outbreaks have also occurred in Hawaii. Warmer temperatures resulting from climate change could increase this risk. 

Bouma, M. and H. van der Kaay, The El Nin ̃ o Southern Oscillation and the historic malaria epidemics on the Indian subcontinent and Sri Lanka: an early warning 

system for future epidemics? Tropical Medicine and International Health, 1(1): p. 

86–96. (1996). 

Question 15. One of many effects of sea level rise will be salt water contamination 

of drinking water. What efforts are being taken to look into salt water purifying systems to ensure that Hawaiians will have fresh water to drink? 

Answer by Charles Fletcher, Chairman and Professor, Geology and Geophysics, 

School of Ocean and Earth Science and Technology, University of Hawai‘i at Ma ̄noa. In reality we use no drinking water from the coastal plain—our drinking water 

comes from higher elevations above the reach of sealevel impacts. There are real 

threats to drinking water, i.e., decreased rainfall in an El Nin ̃ o type future (one of 

many model results), lowering water tables and rising chlorinity levels, but these 

are from over-use and sea level rise will not have an important impact. Hence, sea 

level rise is not a threat to drinking water. The low lying coastal plains are where 

we inject our waste water on all islands through thousands of injection wells . . . 

sea level rise may impact these, but the injection is already done into the salty 

ground water, so I don’t think this is a major concern. There are potentially severe 

impacts from sea level rise you may want to consider: beach loss and accelerated 

coastal erosion, increased vulnerability to tsunami and storm surge, loss of coastal 

plain drainage into storm drains, stream flooding where they meet the ocean, increased frequency of wave overtopping on crucial highways . . . and others. 

Question 16. Corals and other marine resources in Hawaii may be significantly 

impacted by both climate change and ocean acidification. Changes in temperature, 

salinity, and sea level would directly impact coral reefs and related fisheries. Corals 

are susceptible to small increases in temperature, which may result in deadly coral 

bleaching. Studies have also confirmed that our oceans are becoming more acidic 

due to increased levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. These conditions are 

predicted to adversely impact coral growth, and may also be harmful to commercially important fish and shellfish larvae. Such organisms are also important food 

sources for other marine species. Approximately half of all federally-managed fisheries depend on coral reefs and related habitats for a portion of their life cycles. The 

National Marine Fisheries Service estimates that the annual dockside value of commercial U.S. fisheries from coral reefs exceeds $100 million. For Hawaii, however, 

the economic value of coral reefs is estimated at more than $360 million annually, 

when reef-related tourism and fishing are taken into account. Coral reefs in Hawaii 

are not just critical habitats for marine animals, they also support the economy 

through fishing and tourism. Which is the more pressing issue for the health of HaVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:05 Jul 24, 2012 Jkt 052754 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\75205.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
79 

waii’s coral reefs, ocean acidification or the increasing sea surface temperatures? 

Why? 

Answer by Jo-Ann Leong, Professor and Director, Hawai‘i Institute of Marine Biology. Ocean acidification and increasing sea surface temperatures are considered 

the result of rising concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere. Thus, increased sea 

surface temperature and acidification are related phenomena. Many of us consider 

both to be important. In the case of sea surface temperatures, if the increase in temperatures happens rapidly (over decades rather than centuries) there will be bleaching and some corals and their symbionts will be unable to adapt to prolonged exposure to higher temperatures. There should be corals that survive the temperature 

increase, but we cannot predict what species will survive and how many of these 

species will remain. Measuring resilience of coral reefs is critically important to determine whether coral reefs will be available in the future to provide habitat for 

fisheries and to protect our coastline. 

Ocean acidification may reduce the recruitment of coralline crustose algae, the 

‘‘glue’’ that holds the reefs together and provides the signal for coral larvae to settle. 

Other studies have shown that stony corals will lose their calcareous skeleton and 

essentially look like soft corals under acidic conditions in the laboratory. Again, we 

don’t have enough data to predict the effects of ocean acidification on coral reef ecosystems (not single coral pieces in aquaria). We are in need of research facilities in 

the United States with large mesocosms that house coral reef ecosystems where 

water temperatures and seawater acid pH balance can be manipulated. 

Question 17. What role does Hawaii play in providing answers for the impact of 

climate change and ocean acidification on coral reefs? 

Answer. The Hawaiian Archipelago is the most isolated archipelago in the world. 

It is a site where 70 percent of the Nation’s reefs reside and these reefs are situated 

on sites that were derived from geological processes operating on a well established 

time line, 30+ mya (Kure Atoll) to less than 1 mya (Hawaii Island). The marine environment of the different high islands, atolls, and reefs in the Hawaiian Archipelago are microcosms of environmental diversity with exposure to anthropogenic 

stresses in the southern part of the chain (Main Hawaiian Islands) to the relatively 

pristine part of the chain (Northwestern Hawaiian Islands). Hawaii is also close to 

the northernmost latitude for shallow water coral reefs and thus, climate changes 

are predicted to reach this site rather early. The number of species in Hawaii’s coral 

reefs is largely unknown but estimates place the number at 7,000 and approximately 20–25 percent of these species are found nowhere else in the world. 

All of these characteristics make Hawaii the prime place for the study of climate 

change on coral reefs. Nowhere else are there similar reefs distributed along a gradient of anthropogenic stress, gradient of geologic age, a gradient along a NorthSouth longitude, and isolation from the influence of large land masses. The Federal, 

state, and university research and management enterprises in Hawaii have made 

a major investment in hiring experts to study coral reefs. A ‘‘critical mass’’ of talent 

is available in Hawaii to conduct these studies. The proximity of coral reefs to modern, technologically equipped laboratories is also a major advantage. Moreover, Hawaii can play a role in providing research capabilities and education opportunities 

for the six jurisdictions that the U.S. maintains in the Pacific including American 

Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of Northern Mariana Islands, the Republic of 

Palau, the Republic of Marshall Islands, and the Federated States of Micronesia. 

Question 18. What is the trend with regards to the erosion of corals here in Hawaii? 

Answer by Charles Fletcher, Chairman and Professor, Geology and Geophysics, 

SOEST, UH-Ma ̄noa. In Hawaii, sea-level rise resulting from global warming is a 

particular concern. Riding on the rising water are high waves, hurricanes, and tsunami that will be able to penetrate further inland with every fraction of rising tide. 

In addition, the coastal groundwater table is likely to crop out above ground level 

and lead to widespread flooding. The physical effects of sea-level rise fall into 5 categories. These are: 

1. Marine inundation of low-lying developed areas including coastal roads, 

2. Erosion of beaches and bluffs, 

3. Salt intrusion into aquifers and surface ecosystems, 

4. Higher water tables, and 

5. Increased flooding and storm damage due to heavy rainfall. 

Assessing the impact of these on Hawaii requires identifying a likely global sealevel scenario. Global sea level is principally the product to two phenomena: (1) 

melting ice on Antarctica, Greenland, and among alpine glaciers, and (2) thermal 

80 

expansion of seawater due to surface warming. The first detailed observations of 

Antarctic ice reveal net melting; the melting rate on Greenland has increased 250 

percent in the past decade; there is widespread retreat and thinning of mountain 

glaciers, and together these major ice sources contribute about 2.0 mm/yr to global 

sea-level rise. Thermal expansion is calculated from the amount of heat stored in 

the upper ocean as revealed by increased water temperature. While changes in 

water temperature over past decades have been difficult to measure, studies indicate that thermal expansion increased from an average rate of about 0.36 mm/yr 

in past decades, to 1.6 mm/yr in the most recent decade. The total contributions to 

global sea level (∼3.6 mm/yr) agree remarkably well with the observed rate of rise 

(∼3.4 mm/yr) as measured by satellites. 

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has predicted future sea-level 

changes to the year 2100 in the range 18 to 58 cm. However, these projections do 

not include a component based on ice behavior, and hence, are widely considered 

to underestimate the potential for flooding. Two studies published in 2007, both by 

German climate researcher Stefan Rahmstorf and colleagues, indicate a more likely 

scenario of future climate change and sea-level rise. In one study, Rahmstorf compared projections of future atmospheric warming and sea-level rise made in 1990 

by the IPCC to observations in 2006. Results indicate that the climate system, in 

particular sea level, may be responding to global warming more quickly than models 

specify. Observed temperature changes are in the upper part of the range projected 

by the IPCC and sea level has been rising faster than even the extreme scenarios 

projected by the models. Notably, Rahmstorf found that the rate of sea level rise 

for the past 20 years is 25 percent faster than the rate of rise in any 20-year period 

in the preceding 115 years. In his second paper of 2007, Rahmstorf estimates 21st 

century sea-level change on the empirical relationship between 20th century temperature changes and sea-level changes. The study establishes a proportionality constant of 3.3 cm of sea-level rise per decade per °C of global temperature warming. 

When applied to future warming scenarios of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, this relationship results in a projected sea-level rise in 2100 of 0.5 

to 1.4 m above the 1990 level. On the basis of Rahmstorf’s research, and the documented accelerations in melting of both the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, it 

seems highly likely that a sea level of approximately 1 m above present could be 

reached by the end of the 21st century. 

In Hawaii, as the ocean continues to rise, natural flooding occurs in low-lying regions during rains because storm sewers back up with saltwater, coastal erosion accelerates on our precious beaches, and critical highways shut down due to marine 

flooding. The Mapunapuna industrial district of Honolulu adjacent to the airport is 

a good example. If heavy rains fall during monthly highest tides portions of the region flood waist deep because storm drains are backed up with high ocean water. 

The undercarriages of trucks suffer a rust problem because floodwaters become salty 

at high tide. Even when it does not rain, the area floods with salt water as it surges 

up the storm drain into the streets and local workers report seeing baby hammerhead sharks in the 2-foot deep pools. 

Using sensitive topographic data collected by NOAA and the Army Corps of Engineers, it is possible to map the contour line marking 1 m above present day high 

tide. This ‘‘blue line’’ identifies the portion of our communities that fall below sea 

level when seas reach the 1 m mark later in the century. This dramatic map has 

roughly 30 cm accuracy. Those lands that are closer to the ocean are highly vulnerable to inundation by seawater during high waves, storms, tsunami, and extreme 

water levels. Hotel basements will flood, ground floors will be splashed by wave runup, and seawater will come out the storm drains on most of the streets in Waikiki 

and along Ala Moana Boulevard. 

Don’t think that waves will be rolling down the streets and reaching the blue line. 

More likely, lands lying below sea level in the future will be dry at low tide during 

arid summers. But they will have high water tables, standing pools of rainwater, 

and backed up storm drains when it rains and tides are high. Beaches will be mostly gone and we’ll have built large seawalls lining most of our shores. Despite the 

wet conditions, most of the buildings will probably still be inhabited and residents 

will have to time their movement between the tides, just as they do today in 

Mapunapuna. Back up in the McCully and Makiki areas residents won’t see any 

seawater, they will see the wetlands of the 19th century reemerging as the water 

table rises above ground level in some areas (not all areas). Under these conditions, 

when it rains, we will have a real problem. The runoff will raise the water table, 

the storm drains will be full of seawater except at the very lowest state of the tide, 

and standing pools of water will accumulate throughout the region without a place 

to drain. Travel will be limited and many lands will turn to wetlands, there may 

be some areas of permanently standing water. 

81 

References: 

Rahmstorf, S., 2007, A semi-empirical approach to projecting sea level rise. Science, 315, 368– 

370. 

Rahmstorf, S., et al., 2007, Recent climate observations compared to projections. Science, 316, 

709. 

Figure 1. The blue line marks the contour of high tide when sea level is 1 m above present. 

Lands makai of the line are highly vulnerable to coastal hazards. These are targets for redevelopment to increase resiliency to natural hazards. 

Question 19. Have we seen an increase in the last decade of disease events on 

corals reefs? If so, could this be attributed to increasing ocean temperatures or another event? 

Answer by Jo-Ann Leong, Professor and Director, Hawai‘i Institute of Marine Biology. Surveys of coral reefs for disease status was not undertaken in Hawaii until 

2002 and in the short period of time since then, there appears to be an increase 

in the incidence of disease events in coral reefs. We do not have sufficient data to 

attribute increasing ocean temperatures to coral disease incidence in Hawaii. A critical need we have identified is a quarantine facility that will enable researchers to 

conduct laboratory studies that would lead to the identification of pathogenic agents 

of coral disease and an understanding of the possible responses of coral to infection 

and physical insult. Please see Dr. Greta Aeby’s response to Question 7 above. 

Question 20. Invasive species cause damage by diminishing fisheries, fouling 

ships, clogging intake pipes, and spreading disease. The United States spends $120 

million annually to control and repair damage from more than 800 invasive species. 

Hawaii has 73 known marine invasive species, 42 percent of which are considered 

harmful. I understand that climate change may contribute to an increase in the 

number of invasive species. Given that Hawaii is already affected by more than 70 

marine invasive species, what kinds of monitoring and research are being conducted 

here to address this? 


319LEONQ2.eps
82 

Answer by Jo-Ann Leong, Professor and Director, Hawai‘i Institute of Marine Biology. CRAMP (Coral Reef Assessment and Monitoring Program), a program with 

partners in NOAA–PIFSC, HIMB at UH-Ma ̄noa, Bishop Museum, and Hawaii Dept. 

of Land and Natural Resources, and the Hawai’i Biological Survey based at the 

Bishop Museum have been monitoring different reef ecosystem in the Main Hawaiian Islands for potentially invasive organisms on an annual basis and selected reef 

ecosystems in the Northwestern Hawaiian Islands once every 2 years. There is not 

enough funding or manpower to monitor the entire Hawaiian Archipelago as often 

as is needed. Ships that enter the Papaha ̄naumokua ̄kea Marine National Monument 

undergo hull inspections. There is certainly a need for more monitoring and research that targets the pathways for marine invasions, i.e., hull fouling and ballast 

water, and provides methods to reduce or eliminate these pathways for marine invasions. 

Question 21. What can we do to prevent future invasions? 

Answer by Jo-Ann Leong, Professor and Director, Hawai‘i Institute of Marine Biology. I would refer you to the report available at the CRAMP website by L. Scott 

Godwin: http://cramp.wcc.hawaii.edu/Downloads/Publications/ 

TRlGodwinletlal%20lInvasiveslFinal%20Draft.pdf. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE TO

RICHARD E. ROCHELEAU, PH.D. 

Question 1. Historically, Hawaii has had some of the highest utility and fuel costs 

in the Nation. This is in large part due to Hawaii’s isolated location, which makes 

it difficult to connect a power grid. In addition, over 90 percent of the state’s energy 

production comes from costly imported fossil fuels. 

In recent years, Hawaii has taken impressive strides to address these issues by 

investing in the research and development of clean renewable energy technologies. 

By becoming a test bed for clean energy technologies, Hawaii has positioned itself 

to attract investment and to cut the state’s dependence on costly imported fossil 

fuels. What renewable technologies are best suited to the state? 

Answer. Hawaii is blessed with a varied and substantial abundance of renewable 

energy resources such that nearly all commercial renewable technologies can contribute to Hawaii’s energy mix. Unfortunately, not all technologies are at a state of 

technical readiness to contribute. Additionally, the small grid systems with no interconnections between islands impose a number of practical constraints on the use of 

many of the technologies that will require additional effort and investment in order 

to maximize their contribution. 

Wind, solar, and geothermal technologies are well-suited to Hawaii but each has 

limitations to their deployment. Biofuels are also expected to play a significant role 

but water resources, cost, and competing land-use are significant issues that may 

limit their availability from local sources. In the future, ocean energy technologies 

and advanced bioenergy systems such as algae could play a significant role but they 

are as yet unproven at the commercial scale. Although not normally included in a 

discussion on renewable technologies, end-use energy efficiency and energy efficient 

buildings is an area that is critically important to Hawaii and all other states. Additional but brief comments on each of these technologies follow. 

Wind: Without doubt, wind is one of the best technologies for use in Hawaii. Overall, Hawaii has an excellent wind resource and wind technology is very mature and 

cost effective. The islands of Hawaii and Maui already get a significant amount of 

their energy from wind and both have the resources and potential sites for substantially more. At high penetration levels wind can, however, have negative impacts 

on the operability of the grid. The intermittency and difficulty of forecasting also 

can limit the maximum amount that can be accepted. Storage can help mitigate 

these effects but storage at this scale remains costly. HNEI is working with GE 

Global Research Center and the utilities to address these issues to allow higher penetration. Oahu, whose energy use is many times that of the other islands, is limited 

by resource and by siting. Efforts to develop wind on Molokai and/or Lanai for export to Oahu are underway, but land use is an issue and cost/permitting for an 

interconnection cable of the needed size are significant issues. 

Solar: Solar photovoltaics (PV) is another technology that is extremely well-suited 

to Hawaii. PV is proven albeit somewhat expensive technology. Applications include 

utility scale, commercial roof, or residential roof systems. Tax credits are very important to help mitigate the current high cost of PV. As is the case for wind, solar 

is an intermittent resource and so PV may be limited in the total penetration level 

that can be achieved before grid operability is affected. 

83 

Geothermal: Geothermal is a reliable and cost effective renewable energy technology in areas where the resource exists. The best resource is on the island of Hawaii. Undersea cabling from Hawaii to the other islands has been examined in the 

past. Water depth and resource issues make that a very complex issue to overcome. 

Hot spots also exist on other islands (e.g., Maui) but technology to economically extract energy from these lower temperature resources remains unproven. Engineered 

Geothermal Systems (EGS) which extracts heat by creating a subsurface fracture 

system to which water can be added through injection wells is a technology currently under development that may be a candidate for Hawaii. 

Biofuels: Solid (direct fired) and liquid biofuels have the potential to make significant contributions to both the electricity and transportation sectors. Historically, 

bioenergy in Hawaii took advantage of waste biomass from the various agricultural 

sectors (e.g., bagasse from the sugar industry). This contribution has decreased in 

recent years as agriculture has decreased. Hawaii also has regulations requiring 10 

percent ethanol in gasoline. This ethanol is currently imported from the national 

and international markets. Large scale local production of feedstock for biofuels is 

envisioned but will be complicated by a number of issues including availability of 

water, competing land uses, and social issues (e.g., food vs. fuel). The State of Hawaii has contracted the Hawaii Natural Energy Institute to develop a comprehensive plan for the development of bioenergy systems in Hawaii. Significant effort will 

also be needed to identify the best crops and agricultural practices for these to be 

sustainable activities. Crop development must be coordinated with the availability 

of conversion technologies. The Federal Government continues to have active programs supporting the development of conversion technologies. 

There has been substantial discussion recently about the potential for photosynthetic algae to be a significant contributor to the biofuels energy mix. If commercial 

economically viable algal systems can be developed, the high growth rates and the 

absence of competition for food crops would be significant advantages. However, 

there are both biological and process engineering questions that remain unanswered 

at this time. Certainly, given the potential and the many unanswered questions, 

continued support of this research area is warranted. 

Ocean Energy: Ocean energy can include wave energy, current, and ocean thermal 

technologies. Hawaii has some of the Nation’s best wave energy resources and has 

near-shore sites with temperature differentials that make ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC) possible. Planning studies and/or pilot scale testing is underway in 

Hawaii in both these areas. While promising for the future, neither wave nor OTEC 

can be considered commercially available or economically viable at this time. Although energy from ocean currents is somewhat more developed than either wave 

or OTEC, Hawaii does not have a significant tidal range and only a very limited 

ocean current resource. 

Question 2. The European Union (E.U.) has become a world leader in renewable 

energy technologies; it possesses half the world renewable market and its industry 

employs 300,000 people with annual revenues of $20 billion. The E.U. has committed to investing $1.5 billion in renewable technology and energy efficiency, a 40 

percent increase over the previous commitments. How does the United States compare to others around the world in the renewable energy technologies industry? 

Answer. REN21 estimates that $71 billion was invested in renewable energy capacity worldwide in 2007, up from $55 billion in 2006 and $40 billion in 2005. Almost all of this increased investment was in solar PV and wind power with much 

smaller amounts in solar hot water, hydropower, biomass, and geothermal. PV and 

wind then provide useful technologies to use for comparison of the U.S. to others 

around the world in the renewable energy technologies industry. 

It is almost a cliche ́ answer, but it is fair to say that in many instances the U.S. 

has led the world in the research and development of various renewable energy 

technologies only to see other countries adopt their use, develop manufacturing capability, and eventually surpass U.S. industry in the manufacture and sales of these 

technologies. This is most clearly the case for photovoltaics. The development of 

wind technology occurred among a more diverse mix of countries, but, while the 

U.S. is currently seeing some of the strongest growth in the installation of wind systems, U.S. industry is not gaining market share in this field. The attached charts 

show current installation and manufacturing specifications for these two technologies. 

Figure 1 shows the annual installation of photovoltaic systems by country or region between 2000 and 2007. The substantial increase of PV installations in Germany is a direct result of the large subsidy for PV in that country. The same was 

true for Japan. More relevant to this question is Figure 2 which shows annual PV 

production worldwide. The U.S. was the largest producer in the world through 1998 

84 

before falling behind Japan. By 2007, the U.S. was only the 4th largest producer, 

behind Japan, Europe, China, and Taiwan. 

China, which almost tripled production in 2006 and then doubled it again in 2007 

is poised to gain an ever larger share of the worldwide market. Although a late 

entry to the marketplace, China’s Suntech is now the 3rd single largest producer 

of PV modules. 

The picture for wind, while somewhat different than PV in that installation of 

wind turbines in the U.S. is keeping pace with installations in other countries (see 

Fig. 3) shows similar troubling trends in turbine manufacturer. While GE, the only 

U.S. turbine manufacturer in the top 10 worldwide in 2007 retained its ranking as 

the 3rd largest manufacturer worldwide, its market share slipped, from 17.5 to 15.5 

percent in 2007, behind Vestas (Denmark) and Gamesa (Spain). Merrill Lynch reports that ‘‘GE will face fierce competition for market share from new entrants to 

its markets and without a high level of vertical integration, it also looks disadvantaged in the near-medium term’’ Enercon (Germany) and Suzlon (India) have both 

seen increased market share during this period. Currently, there are no Chinese 

companies exporting turbines. However, many recent reports indicate that two Chinese companies, Goldwind and Sinovel, have big export plans with others not far 

behind. The Chinese companies are expected to present a formidable challenge to 

existing turbine companies. 

Question 3. Do you think we are at risk of falling behind others in research and 

development? Is it conceivable that if we don’t make the proper investments, we 

may end up importing this technology from other countries in the future, just as 

we are importing oil today? 

Answer. The U.S. has long been a leader in research and development of renewable energy technologies. It is imperative that industry, state, and Federal Government continue to invest in renewable energy R&D, especially in the emerging technologies such as future generation photovoltaics, biofuels, ocean energy technologies, 

and advanced end-use efficiency technologies. However, using PV and wind as examples, it seems apparent that investment in R&D is not sufficient to ensure that the 

U.S. will not become an energy technology importer as it is today for oil. There must 

be sufficient support to validate emerging technologies so that end-users (e.g., utilities and large scale energy users) will accept them and to assist companies to move 

promising technology beyond the demonstration phase and into the marketplace. 

These are complicated issues that go beyond the support of research that has been 

typical of U.S. energy programs. 

Figure 1: PV Installation 


319ROCHQ1.eps
85 

Figure 2: PV Production 

Figure 3. Wind Installation 


319ROCHQ2.eps 319ROCHQ3.eps
86 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE TO

DR. GORO UEHARA

Question 1. While the many conversations about climate change revolve around 

carbon dioxide, other gases such as nitrous oxide and methane also contribute to 

climate change. What impact are these gases having on Hawaii’s climate? 

Answer. Agriculture clearly contributes to NOX and methane emissions, but carbon dioxide from burning of imported fossils fuels is clearly the dominant green 

house gas in Hawaii. NOX and methane are primarily generated in our taro fields 

and wetlands, but taro production in Hawaii is declining so human generated NOX

is most likely not a major factor in climate change for Hawaii. We need to be aware 

of other green house gas emissions, but out main efforts at this point should be focused on carbon dioxide. 

Question 2. The Hawaii Climate Change Action Plan presents several options to 

utilize abandoned sugarcane and pineapple farmlands for forest cultivation. Is forestry something we should consider as a way to absorb carbon dioxide? 

Answer. Farmland formerly in sugarcane and pineapple is too valuable for growing trees to absorb carbon dioxide. Hawaii has a great opportunity to show the tropical world how the state’s agriculture and economy can be transformed from a fossil 

to a fiber based clean, energy future by using its land for energy crops production. 

Plant fiber consists mainly of cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin which can be converted into biofuels through biochemical or thermal conversion processes. Each ton 

of fiber can be converted into 70 gallons of ethanol by biochemical mean and/or 110 

gallons of ethanol by thermal conversion processes. In tropical Hawaii, where we 

enjoy year long climate for crop production, each acre of land can produce from 20 

to 40 tons of fiber annually or 2,200 to 4,400 gallons of ethanol from each acre of 

land each year. Hawaii needs to be ready for the day when commercial scale cellulosic conversion technology becomes a reality. 

Hawaii has a huge potential for taking advantage of carbon trading based on a 

carbon offset market. This will, however, depend on the price of offset carbon and 

what is permitted as offset carbon. This is especially true in Hawaii, where 90 percent of our energy needs is now based on fossil fuels. 

Question 3. In many of our island communities, we rely on fossil fuels for electricity. To what extent can agriculture contribute to carbon capture to mitigate the 

effects of centralized power plants of the type we have in Hawaii? 

Answer. Renewable energy in the form of solar, wind, and geothermal is probably 

better suited to replace fossil fuel for power and heat generation in Hawaii than bioenergy from agriculture. Agriculture’s can play a more important role in replacing 

gasoline and diesel for transportation fuel with biodiesel and ethanol in Hawaii. 

Question 4. In the longer term is it possible to establish decentralized or distributed electric generating system and, if so, can agriculture play a role in carbon capture at these distributed systems? 

Answer. Bioenergy is ideally suited for developing a distributed electric energy 

systems in isolated rural communities such as those that exits in the outer island. 

Biomass is bulky and transporting it over long distances to a central location defeats the purpose of lowering energy costs. Small, compact gasification units that 

convert biomass into syngas for power generation can provide electricity for farms 

and small communities and even generate income by returning excess power to the 

grid. With households on outer island currently paying as much as 40 cents per kilowatt hour, distributed power generation systems need to be evaluated for outer island communities. Feedstock for operating such systems can be agricultural waste, 

invasive plants and high yielding energy crops specifically cultivated for conversion 

into biofuels or electricity. 

Question 5. If agriculture provides carbon capture opportunities, will the ‘‘revenue 

streams’’ from carbon capture be sufficient to justify agricultural production? Or, 

will multiple product systems of the type ‘‘sugar, molasses, bagasse, electricity’’ be 

required to justify a long term investment in agriculture in our island communities? 

Answer. Historically, agriculture was practiced to produce food, feed and fiber. In 

the coming century, agriculture’s new challenge is to add clean, renewable energy 

to the list of items it produces. Our ancestors depended on fiber (wood) for heating 

and cooking. We now need to use fiber to produce transportation fuel. Today, each 

acre of pineapple after the last fruit is harvested is burned or plowed to clear the 

land of biomass. In the future, we can convert the 30 tons of pineapple fiber that 

is now burned into 3,000 gallons of ethanol or ten tons of charcoal. Charcoal can 

be used to substitute for potting material imported by the plant nursery industry, 

as a metal reductant (e.g., for producing silicon for photovoltaics), and as a soil 

amendment. We are currently testing charcoal as a soil amendment to rejuvenate 

87 

degraded soils as was done centuries ago in the Terra Preta soils of the Amazon 

jungles by natives living there. 

Charcoal has a half life of more than an thousand years so it can replace compost 

as a permanent means to improve soils quality. We are just beginning to appreciate 

the potential of biomass not only for energy, but for its potential to produce new 

bioproducts and biochemicals. 

In the long term, a sustainable bioenergy and bioproduct producing agroecosystem 

must have four characteristics. First it must be highly productive and profitable; 

second, it must be stable and be free from ‘‘feast to famine’’ fluctuations in productivity; third, it must be highly resilient and be able to recover quickly from perturbations and stresses imposed on it such as climate change, and fourth, it must be 

highly equitable so that there is equal sharing of the benefits derived from the system. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE TO

BILL THOMAS

Question 1. Hawaii has positioned itself as a leader on many fronts addressing 

the impacts of climate change. What do you see as the big questions that we need 

to focus on answering now for the impacts of climate change on island communities? 

Answer. A broad set of potential climate change impacts have been identified; 

these include deteriorating coastal conditions, increased severity of coastal hazards, 

storm surge and erosion, shifts in regional water supplies, increased energy demand, greater public health threats, enhanced probability of flooding, and ecological 

changes. Potential climate impacts on Pacific Island coastal communities are highlighted here because of the likelihood that coastal communities will be more negatively affected by climate change than inland communities. For example, coastal 

communities face higher risk of coastal flooding and greater exposure of residents, 

their property, and coastal wetlands to inundation from sea level rise. The transportation infrastructure is also vulnerable to potentially hazardous flooding events. The 

possible costs associated with damages and losses to coastal communities, environments, and infrastructure in the Pacific Islands are extremely large. 

In order to address these regional impacts, NOAA’s Pacific Region has developed 

several programs that use an integrated approach to dealing with issues of climate 

change in the Pacific. These programs—the Pacific Risk Management ‘Ohana, the 

Pacific ENSO (El Nin ̃ o Southern Oscillation) Application Center, the Pacific Climate 

Information System, the Pacific Islands Regional Integrated Science and Assessment, and the Pacific Region Integrated Coastal Climatology Program—have provided innovative approaches and a governance structure to address the ever-increasing need for information, products and services. These Pacific Regional programs 

work in concert with the public and private sector, as well as non-governmental organizations, to collaboratively address these issues of mutual concern. 

The following highlights the major questions these groups have focused on, to address the impacts of changing climate conditions on our island communities: 

1. How do changing climate conditions affect individual island groupings and 

communities in the Pacific? In order to understand this, improvements in the 

regional resolution of climate models, better documentation of current conditions and trends through enhanced observing systems as well as general improvements in our ability to document, model and assess the impacts of changing climate conditions on ecosystems and natural resources in the Pacific region 

is required. This also requires research on the local impacts of climate change 

on ecosystems, communities and businesses in the region as well as support for 

vulnerability assessment programs that support a collaborative, participatory 

process through which scientists, decision-makers and other public leaders can 

explore effective options for climate change mitigation and adaptation. 

2. How do changing climate conditions affect extreme events such as hurricanes, 

strong wind and high wave events, droughts in the Pacific? NOAA is working 

toward improvements in models, as well as enhanced understanding of how climate change will affect the intensity, frequency and tracks of hurricanes and 

other storm events. This also involves the analysis of the historical context for 

extreme events. A related question involves developing an improved understanding and ability to model/predict how climate change will alter patterns of 

El Nin ̃ o/La Nin ̃ a events which are the primary drivers of changes in rainfall, 

temperature and tropical cyclones in the Pacific on a year-to-year basis. 

3. How does climate change affect sea level and patterns of coastal storms? In 

most Pacific islands, the people, agricultural land, tourist resorts and infraVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:05 Jul 24, 2012 Jkt 052754 PO 00000 Frm 00091 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\75205.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
88 

structure (including roads and airports) are concentrated in the coastal zones, 

and are thus especially vulnerable to any rise in sea level. Determining how severe this problem is, or might be, is complicated by natural shifts in sea level 

associated with the recurring ice ages. Increased global temperatures are causing a rise in sea level from thermal expansion as the sea warms up and from 

melting of the planet’s ice caps. However, while most recent data have shown 

that changes in sea level are related to many variables, accurate forecasting of 

these changes is years away. Thus, NOAA is engaged in activities to understand 

long-term sea level rise and how sea level rise combines with changing patterns 

of strong winds, high seas and heavy rains to produce coastal flooding along 

with a vulnerability assessment program to support the development of effective 

adaptation measures and policies. 

4. How does ocean acidification affect coral reefs and other critical coastal and 

marine resources? Ocean acidification is an emerging issue that may have longterm implications for the global carbon cycle and climate, although the range 

and magnitude of biogeochemical and biological effects and their socio-economic 

impacts are currently too uncertain to accurately quantify. However, such impacts are likely to be substantial. Consequently, especially important in this 

context will be understanding the combined effects of rising temperatures, sea 

level rise and lower pH on coral reefs. NOAA has a burgeoning ocean acidification research program. 

5. What are public agencies in the region doing to develop adaptations to a 

changing climate? Some public agencies in the Pacific region, especially in Hawaii, have begun planning to help the region adapt to climate change impacts. 

This includes considering the environmental, human health, water management, and infrastructure issues associated with a changing regional climate. 

Public agencies at all levels (national, regional, state, county, metropolitan, and 

city) have begun to investigate plans or actions for adaptation to climate 

change. Much of what is happening now is focused on research and risk assessment. The research deals with a range of topics including human health, water 

management, and protection of the built and natural environment. NOAA’s Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research has invested in a long-term grant 

that looks at many of these issues through the Pacific Islands Regional Integrated Science and Assessment. This grant will be recompeted in Fiscal Year 

2009. 

6. What role can the private sector play in adapting to climate change? Many 

in the private sector, especially multinational corporations and regionally-based 

business coalitions have begun to address the issue of adaptation to climate 

change. Although many private sector activities are focused on reducing greenhouse gas emissions through energy efficiency, such activities improve the region’s capacity to deal with warming in general and heat waves in particular. 

7. What are the impacts of climate change on the cultural resilience (i.e., cultural 

identity, traditional knowledge, and customary practices) of island economies? 

Over the next 100 years, a major concern will be the potential loss of cultural 

identity and connection as a result of mitigation efforts. For example, relocating 

indigenous coastal communities out of flood zones or after major storms; further 

loss/erosion of ancestral land connections due to sea level rise and coastal inundation; loss of traditional knowledge in impacted areas; shifts in artisinal and 

customary resource use patterns; and occupational shifts due to loss of livelihoods. 

In island communities that are prepared for such impacts and ready to respond 

and adapt to climate impacts, cultural resilience will be higher and socioeconomic impacts to the islands will be reduced (e.g., meeting basic dietary/protein needs of human populations following major natural hazard events thanks 

to resilience in the fishing community). NOAA’s National Integrated Drought 

Information System and Regional Integrated Sciences and Assessments (RISA) 

program have been funding a pilot program since 2007 to look at Local and Indigenous knowledge networks in climate and drought. This is a collaboration between the Pacific, Southwest and Alaska RISAs to build expertise in strategies 

for coping with drought and increasing climate resilience. 

Question 2. Where is the greatest gap or deficiency in scientific research and information? 

Answer. NOAA agrees with the scientific findings of the 2007 Fourth Assessment 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC–AR4). IPCC–AR4 states that 

small island communities, like those in the Pacific, are particularly vulnerable to 

89 

climate variability and change. The IPCC–AR4 identified several key uncertainties 

and research gaps with respect to climate science and small islands: 

• Observations: Ongoing observations are required to monitor the rate and magnitude of changes and impacts, over different spatial and temporal scales. For 

example, in situ observations of sea level help to understand relative sea level 

change on regional and local scales. Two examples of regional observing networks are: the Pacific Islands Global Climate Observing System and the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission Sub-Commission for the Caribbean 

and Adjacent Regions Global Ocean Observing System; 

• Improved Models: Projections for changes in precipitation, tropical cyclones, and 

wind direction/strength are critical for small islands, and are currently limited 

by climate model resolution. Projections based on outputs at finer resolution are 

needed to inform the development of reliable climate change scenarios for small 

islands (e.g., regional climate models and statistical downscaling techniques). 

Further, hydrological conditions, water supply, and water usage on small islands pose different research problems from those in continental situations. 

These need to be investigated and modeled over the range of island types (different geology, topography and land cover). 

In addition to the climate science gaps identified above, the IPCC–AR4 identified 

several key gaps in contemporary research on the impacts of climate change on 

small islands. These include: 

• The role of coastal ecosystem (mangroves, coral reefs, beaches) in providing natural defenses against sea-level rise and storms; 

• Establishing the response of terrestrial upland and inland ecosystems (including woodlands, grasslands, wetlands) to changes in mean temperature and rainfall extremes; 

• Considering how commercial agriculture, forestry, and fisheries will be impacted by the combination of climate change and non-climate-related forces; 

• Expanding knowledge of climate-sensitive diseases in small islands through national and regional research (vector-borne as well as skin, respiratory, and 

water-borne diseases); 

• Identifying the most vulnerable island sectors and systems; and 

• Increasing understanding of climate in decision-support, including how to translate climate information into tools and products that are easily accessible and 

interpreted by decision-makers. 

Question 3. What impacts should we be most concerned about? Over what time 

scales? 

Answer. NOAA agrees with the scientific findings of the 2007 Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change’s IPCC–AR4, which contains updated projections of changing climate conditions (i.e., temperature, rainfall, sea level, and extreme events) and 

the impacts for Pacific Islands and other small island states. IPCC–AR4 confirms 

the vulnerabilities identified in the 2001 Pacific Islands regional assessment, and 

provides insights into climate-related challenges such as ocean acidification. The 

time scale for these impacts varies broadly, ranging from decades to multidecadal. 

The IPCC–AR4 and similar climate assessment reports state that small island 

communities, like those in the Pacific, are particularly vulnerable to climate variability and change. Small island impacts include: 

• Deterioration of coastal conditions is expected to affect local resources and reduce their value as tourist destinations (e.g., the combined effect of increased 

ocean temperatures and ocean acidification on coral reef resources); 

• Sea level rise is expected to exacerbate coastal hazards such as inundation, 

storm surge and erosion as well as reduction of freshwater availability due to 

saltwater intrusion, especially in low-lying islands; 

• Climate change is projected to reduce water resources in many small islands 

(Pacific and Caribbean) to the point where, by mid-century, resources may be 

insufficient to meet demand during low rainfall periods; 

• Invasion of non-native species is expected to occur with rising temperatures; 

and 

• Climate change will exacerbate other existing human influences on fisheries 

and marine ecosystems such as over-fishing, habitat destruction, pollution, and 

excess nutrients. 

90 

Question 4. What are the top three actions we should take now to improve our 

ability to mitigate and adapt to the impacts of climate change? 

Answer. NOAA is committed to expanding climate services for all user communities and enhancing climate research. The FY 2009 President’s budget request 

identifies three key, specific climate-related activities for which NOAA has requested increases: developing the National Integrated Drought Information System; 

investigation into ocean current circulation and its relationship to abrupt climate 

change; and the development of satellite climate sensors. Combined with continued 

support for NOAA’s existing climate-related projects, these activities will improve 

our ability to mitigate and adapt to climate change. 

In addition to the key climate-related research activities highlighted in the FY 

2009 President’s Budget Request, NOAA’s Pacific Region is engaged in a number 

of ways to help the Pacific Islands plan for, mitigate against, and adapt to climate 

change (please see response to Question 6 for a detailed list of activities). NOAA’s 

Pacific Region will continue to work with our island communities to develop tools, 

products, and services to move toward realizing NOAA’s vision of, ‘‘an informed society that uses a comprehensive understanding of the role of the oceans, coasts and 

atmosphere in the global ecosystem to make the best social and economic decisions.’’ 

Question 5. In recent weeks, articles have been circulated among Members of the 

Congress that suggest the climate change issue is overstated, and that what is actually happening is a natural phenomenon. What do you think about this suggestion? 

Answer. NOAA agrees with the scientific findings of the 2007 Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC–AR4) that warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures 

since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in greenhouse 

gases caused by humans. The IPCC–AR4 also pointed out that uncertainties remain, 

such as the rate of warming, including the potential for abrupt and extreme 

changes, as well as region-specific climate variation and change. 

NOAA’s responsibility is to provide critical information on the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and their impact on climate, so that policymakers 

can make informed decisions about what is best for our Nation. 

Question 6. The 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Assessment reports that global temperature has increased substantially over the last 100 years, 

due in large part to the burning of fossil fuels. Increases in carbon dioxide (CO2) 

in the atmosphere lead to increased ocean temperatures, which threaten coral reef 

ecosystems through more frequent and severe coral bleaching, rising sea levels, and 

possibly storm activity. What future programs or products is NOAA planning for the 

Pacific to monitor the oceans’ response to growing carbon dioxide levels? What information will be provided for decision-makers for guidance on mitigation options? 

Answer. NOAA’s Pacific Region is engaged in a number of ways to help the Pacific 

Islands plan for, mitigate against, and adapt to climate change. NOAA’s Pacific Region will continue to work with our island communities to develop tools, products, 

and services to move toward realizing NOAA’s vision of, ‘‘An informed society that 

uses a comprehensive understanding of the role of the oceans, coasts and atmosphere in the global ecosystem to make the best social and economic decisions.’’ Highlighted below are some prominent efforts: 

The Pacific Risk Management ‘Ohana 

The Pacific Risk Management ‘Ohana (PRiMO) is a network of partners and 

stakeholders involved in the development and delivery of risk management-related 

information, products, and services in the Pacific, and is led by the NOAA Pacific 

Services Center. Established in 2003, this multi-agency, multi-organizational, multinational group brings together representatives from agencies, institutions, and organizations involved in Pacific risk management-related projects and activities with 

the overall goal of enhancing communication, coordination, and collaboration among 

the ‘Ohana (family) of partners and stakeholders involved in this work. As a result 

of this collaboration, several ideas that emerged over the years have led to the development of decision-support and community planning tools that aid a cross section 

from managers to the general public in better understanding risks and in making 

the best possible socio-economic decisions. Examples of these collaborations include: 

Decision Support Tools 

• Hazard Assessment Tools have been developed in partnership with NOAA’s Pacific Region, local governments in American Samoa, Guam, and Hawaii (County 

of Kauai). These tools use Geographic Information Systems maps to integrate 

hazard risk information, such as sea level rise projections, along with local information on infrastructure, natural resources, and administrative boundaries 

to improve both short and long term decisionmaking. 

91 

• The Hazard Education and Awareness Tool is a template which allows any organization the ability to create a simple website which provides public access 

to local hazard maps for their community. Additional information on appropriate response and preparedness actions are also included. 

• The Nonpoint Source Pollution and Erosion Comparison Tool is a decision support tool which allows coastal managers to compare potential water quality impacts of land cover change that may occur from changes in climate. 

Data 

• The Coastal Change Analysis Program (C–CAP) is a nationally standardized 

database of land cover and land change information, developed using remotely 

sensed imagery, for the coastal regions of the United States. C–CAP products 

inventory coastal intertidal areas, wetlands, and adjacent uplands with the goal 

of monitoring these habitats by updating the land cover maps every 5 years. Its 

primary objective is to improve scientific understanding of the linkages between 

coastal wetland habitats, adjacent uplands, and living marine resources. Land 

cover data from C–CAP has been developed for Hawaii from satellite images acquired in both 2000 and 2005. High resolution elevation data for Hawaii was 

collected in 2005 using Interferometric Synthetic Aperture Radar. This elevation data provides resource managers with the highest resolution elevation 

data currently available for Hawaii. This data is invaluable for determining potential impacts of changes in climate, such as sea level rise, in areas where 

higher resolution data may not be available. 

Community Planning Tools 

• The Coastal Community Resilience Guide presents a framework for assessing 

resilience of communities to coastal hazards. The work was the result of a partnership funded through the Indian Ocean Tsunami Warning System Program 

and is being piloted for application in Hawaii. The framework, developed in concert with over 140 international partners, encourages integration of coastal resource management, community development, and disaster management for enhancing resilience to hazards, including those that may occur as a result of climate change. 

The Pacific ENSO Application Center 

Pacific Island communities continually deal with dramatic seasonal and year-toyear changes in rainfall, temperature, water levels and tropical cyclone patterns associated with the El Nin ̃ o Southern Oscillation (ENSO) cycle in the Pacific. This dynamic system involving the Pacific Ocean and the atmosphere above it can bring 

droughts, floods, landslides, and changes in exposure to tropical storms. Fourteen 

years ago, NOAA joined forces with the University of Hawai‘i, the University of 

Guam, and the Pacific Basin Development Council to begin a small research pilot 

project designed to develop, deliver, and use forecasts of El Nin ̃ o-based changes in 

temperature, rainfall, and storms to support decisionmaking in the American Flag 

and U.S.-Affiliated Pacific Islands. That pilot project—the Pacific ENSO Applications Center (PEAC)—continues its work today as part of the operational National 

Weather Service programs in the Pacific. The PEAC experience has demonstrated 

the practical value of climate information for water resource management, disaster 

management, coastal resource planning, agriculture, and public health. 

The Pacific Climate Information System 

The experience gained from PEAC and the Pacific RISA has helped inform the 

emergence of a comprehensive Pacific Climate Information System (PaCIS). As an 

integrated organization that brings together NOAA’s regional assets as well as those 

of its partners, PaCIS provides, on a regional scale, a programmatic framework to 

integrate ongoing and future climate observations, operational forecasting services, 

and climate projections, research, assessment, data management, communication, 

outreach and education that will address the needs of American Flag and U.S.-Affiliated Pacific Islands. Within this structure, PaCIS will also serve as a United 

States’ contribution to the World Meteorological Organization’s Regional Climate 

Centre for Oceania and represents the first integrated, regional climate service in 

the context of emerging planning for a National Climate Service. 

Scientists and decision-makers in Pacific Island communities are now engaged in 

individual and collaborative efforts to understand the nature of the climate change 

impacts described in IPCC–AR4 and explore our options for both mitigation and adaptation. This shared effort involves NOAA, other Federal programs, state agencies, 

university scientists, community leaders and nongovernmental organizations. Together these groups are focusing their unique insights and capabilities on a number 

92 

of critical climate programs and activities including: contributions to global and regional climate and ocean observing systems; operational forecasts of seasonal-tointer-annual climate variability; development and analysis of improved models that 

provide long-term projections of climate change; multi-disciplinary assessments of 

climate vulnerability, climate data stewardship, the development of new products 

and services to support adaptation and mitigation in the Pacific; and education and 

outreach programs to increase the climate (and environmental literacy) of Pacific Island communities, governments, and businesses. 

Future planning for a number of climate programs in the Pacific will be organized 

in the context of PaCIS including building upon the PEAC, the Pacific Islands Regional Integrated Science and Assessment (Pacific) program and other related climate activities in the region. In addition to meeting the specific needs of U.S. affiliated jurisdictions in the Pacific, PaCIS will also provide a venue in which to discuss 

the role of U.S. contributions to other climate-related activities in the Pacific including, for example, observing system programs in the region, such as the Pacific Islands Global Climate Observing System (PI–GCOS) and the Pacific Islands Global 

Ocean Observing System, as part of an integrated climate information system. 

In order to further define the roles and capabilities of PaCIS, a steering committee has been established, made up of representatives of institutions and programs working in the fields of climate observations, science, assessment, and services in the Pacific (including PEAC, the Pacific RISA, PI–GCOS, and the National 

Weather Service), as well as selected individuals with expertise in similar regional 

climate science and service programs in other regions. The PaCIS Steering Committee will provide a forum for sharing knowledge and experience and guide the development and implementation of this integrated, regional climate information program. 

The Pacific Region Integrated Coastal Climatology Program 

Over the past decade, discussions with disaster management agencies and coastal 

managers in the Pacific Islands have highlighted concerns about sea level rise, and 

the associated coastal inundation, as one of the most significant climate-related 

issues facing coastal communities in the Pacific. In light of this need, NOAA, 

through its IDEA Center, with support from the Pacific Services Center, and working with colleagues throughout NOAA, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Geological Survey and university scientists in Hawaii, Guam, Alaska, and Oregon, initiated the Pacific Region Integrated Coastal Climatology Program (PRICIP). PRICIP 

recognizes that coastal storms and the strong winds, heavy rains, and high seas that 

accompany them pose a threat to the lives and livelihoods of the people of the Pacific. To reduce their vulnerability, decision-makers in Pacific Island governments, 

communities, and businesses need timely access to accurate information that affords 

them an opportunity to plan and respond accordingly. The PRICIP project is helping 

to improve our understanding of patterns and trends of storm frequency and intensity within the Pacific Region, and develop a suite of integrated information products that can be used by emergency managers, mitigation planners, government 

agencies, and decision-makers in key sectors including water and natural resource 

management, agriculture, fisheries, transportation, communications, recreation, and 

tourism. 

As part of the initial build-out, a PRICIP web portal is serving a set of historical 

storm ‘‘event anatomies.’’ These event anatomies include a summary of sector-specific socio-economic impacts associated with a particular extreme event as well as 

its historical context climatologically. The intent is to convey the impacts associated 

with extreme events and the causes of them in a way that enables users to easily 

understand them. The event anatomies are also intended to familiarize users with 

in situ and remotely-sensed products typically employed to track and forecast 

weather and climate. 

Hawaiian Archipelagic Marine Ecosystem Research 

The Hawaiian Archipelagic Marine Ecosystem Research Plan is a collaborative 

planning process to develop sustainable conservation and management throughout 

Hawaii’s marine ecosystem through improved understanding of the unique physical 

and biological attributes of the Hawaiian archipelagic marine ecosystem, their interconnected dynamics, and their interactions with human beings. By using Hawaii as 

a large-scale archipelagic laboratory for the investigation of biophysical processes, 

comparing the protected Northwestern Hawaiian Islands to the heavily used Main 

Hawaiian Islands and integrating socioeconomic information, Hawaii and comparable marine ecosystems worldwide should realize improvements in resource management and community response to changes in climate. 

93 

While this project is in its formative stages, the information generated by this projected 10-year multi-agency, collaborative program will: 

• Fill critical and important research gaps in the underlying science of marine 

ecosystem dynamics; 

• Complement national, international, and state ecosystem research initiatives; 

• Improve understanding of the behavior of humans in a marine ecosystem approach to conservation and management; 

• Formulate predictive theory of ecosystem dynamics relative to physical and biological variables; and 

Generate useful information for conservation managers. 

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY HON. DANIEL K. INOUYE TO

KARL KIM, PH.D. 

Question 1. Climate change experts have forecasted changes in the worldwide climate that will impact forest productivity, ecosystems, agriculture, water resources, 

and energy. Among these impacts is sea level rise, increased and intensified flooding, and higher storm surges along vulnerable coasts. A combination of these possibilities could pose a threat for Hawaii in the form of intensified storms and other 

natural disasters. 

In the 9/11 bill, the Committee authorized the creation of the National Disaster 

Preparedness Training Center. This purpose of the center is to develop plans to prepare for, mitigate, and respond to disasters in Hawaii. The Center would serve as 

a databank, develop scientific models and tools for monitoring natural disasters, and 

evaluate potential risks to urban populations. As an island community, Hawaii must 

be proactive in preparing for varied natural threats, as well as manmade. Can you 

tell us about the potential for adverse impacts from sea level rise on the population 

centers of the Central and Western Pacific, particularly with respect to port and 

road infrastructure, coastal habitats, living marine resources, and vulnerability of 

towns and villages to extreme coastal events like tsunami? 

Answer. There are a wide range of adverse consequences now being predicted 

with increasing levels of probability for Hawaii, the Central and Western Pacific, 

and Pacific region generally. The State of Hawaii, in its 2007 Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan, utilizes the Fourth Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as a source for information about impacts and vulnerabilities, and researchers at the University of Hawai‘i are also generating useful primary data and 

modeling tools to assess the potential effects of sea level rise. Some consensus points 

on expected impacts include: 

Coastal areas are projected to be exposed to increasing risks of coastal erosion, 

and this will be exacerbated by population pressures in the coastal areas. 

Flooding will increase in coastal areas, particularly the low-lying areas, and the 

increase is expected to accelerate over the coming decades. 

Salt water incursion into water tables will increase, with particularly severe 

consequences for small island communities with already tenuous water supplies. 

Low-lying zones are heavily correlated with population density and urbanization throughout the Pacific region, compounding the vulnerability of these zones 

to other hazards, such as tropical storms and localized coastal erosion and subsidence. 

Coastal and low-lying zones are also heavily correlated with structural infrastructure, i.e., roads, ports, business districts, airports, fuel depots, and communications networks. Sea level rise and related increased levels of inundation, 

storm surge and coastal erosion pose heightened threats to vital infrastructure. 

These infrastructural vulnerabilities will have direct adverse effects on livelihoods 

and island economies. Deterioration of coral resources due to sea rise-related thermal changes may impact fisheries, and loss of beaches and related natural resources 

will have detrimental effects on tourism, a major economic activity on island communities. To illustrate the potential impact, a one meter rise in sea level would inundate most of Honolulu’s Waikiki district, essentially eliminating a major component of the state’s economic activity. 

94 

Question 2. Where are the most vulnerable areas, and how are they kept informed 

and prepared? 

Answer. Vulnerability is widespread in the Pacific region, and differs based upon 

considerations such as geography, geology, bathymetry, atmospheric conditions and 

other environmental variables. Along with environmental science based parameters, 

vulnerability has a distinct social character, with variability based upon income, access to education and communications technologies, experience with recent disasters 

and development of coping skills, and the level of local government proactivity, as 

examples. 

Vulnerability mapping models are being developed to provide improved understanding of the location of vulnerable populations, and these technologies are also 

useful in disaster response planning and implementation, improving situational 

awareness at all stages of the disaster management process. Despite these advances, remote areas and localized concentrations of persons disadvantaged due to 

socio-economic factors, linguistic minorities, persons with disabilities and other 

issues continue to present challenges to effective messaging about, and preparation 

for, disasters. 

Question 3. What is the current state of Hawaii’s disaster preparedness and is it 

adequate to address Hawaii’s unique and varying threats? 

Answer. Following the devastation of Hurricane Iniki in 1992, the State of Hawaii 

has made disaster preparedness a priority. State and local Civil Defense operates 

at a high level of professionalism, and local first responders have been sensitized 

to the need to be prepared for the wide variety of natural disasters which may occur 

in Hawaii. Numerous state and Federal agencies are working individually and collectively to identify and mitigate hazards in Hawaii and the region. However, funding constraints, gaps in training and educational resources, and the twin challenges 

of rapidly accelerating hazard and disaster threats and rapidly expanding populations in hazardous areas illustrate the need for a significant increase in preparedness at all levels. 

As one example, Hawaii State Civil Defense has effectively promoted the development of tsunami inundation maps, and disseminated these widely through placement in all telephone books in the state, improving public awareness of hazard 

zones and evacuation procedures. With newly developed modeling methods, significantly improved maps are now possible which will greatly improve the utility of 

these maps, but creating them will require new commitment of funding, engineering 

and information management skills and talents. In other words, risk levels continue 

to rise, and mitigation technologies are improving, but demands on resources often 

outstrip local capacity. 

The indelible lesson of Hurricane Iniki, reinforced by recent natural disasters in 

other tropical coastal areas, is that given the vulnerability of Hawaii’s tropical island location, the remoteness of any feasible outside relief assets, and the difficulties inherent in inter-island transport in a crisis, island communities must develop 

a high level of local resilience, or remain vulnerable to catastrophic loss when extreme events occur. 

Question 4. How would the National Disaster Preparedness Training Center fill 

any gaps in Hawaii’s current disaster preparedness program? 

Answer. The NDPTC, as part of the National Domestic Preparedness Consortium, 

will aim at addressing disaster preparedness in Hawai’i and the U.S. Pacific Islands 

on the one hand, and sharing the experience of training for disaster in one of the 

most hazard vulnerable regions with our collaborating centers and the national disaster community as a whole on the other. These are mutually reinforcing roles, and 

will aid in addressing gaps in disaster preparedness both locally and nationally. 

Based at the University of Hawai‘i, the central focus of this center is to address 

knowledge gaps in the natural disaster management system. Universities have a 

unique and increasingly critical contribution to make in disaster risk reduction research as well as in institutional capacity building for disaster response. Universities house the basic scientific research and applied technology development relevant to disaster risks, and train future professionals in vital constituent disciplines. The University of Hawai‘i has particular strengths in Ocean and Earth 

Sciences, Civil, Ocean and Environmental Engineering, Urban and Regional Planning, Architecture, Tropical Agriculture and Natural Resource Management, Medicine and Public Health, and Law that are highly relevant to disaster risk management. 

The NDPTC will address the knowledge gap by adapting leading edge findings 

from academic sources and the best practice experience of our dynamic community 

of disaster management organizations to create training and education products for 

every level of practitioner. The need to broaden understanding of the technical naVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:05 Jul 24, 2012 Jkt 052754 PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 S:\GPO\DOCS\75205.TXT SCOM1 PsN: JACKIE
95 

ture of hazards and increase familiarity with the latest tools, models and methods 

used in mitigating their impacts, extends from first responders right up through 

management and planning to policy and decision-making. Increasing the level of 

knowledge held in common across disciplinary, agency and community boundaries 

will have a direct effect in improving the coherence of disaster planning, and the 

promotion of community resilience. 

The training and education products developed at the NDPTC will substantially 

improve readiness in Hawaii and the U.S. Pacific Island jurisdictions. However, 

these same products will be made available for training programs throughout the 

U.S. As the first of the National Domestic Preparedness Consortium institutions to 

focus specifically on natural disasters, the NDPTC will also contribute to the effort 

to assure that all hazards are addressed, and that preparation incorporates a broad 

view of the nature of hazard. 

Æ