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) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

34-820 PDF 2007

TOWARD A CLEAN ENERGY 

FUTURE: ENERGY POLICY 

AND CLIMATE CHANGE 

ON PUBLIC LANDS

OVERSIGHT HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

MINERAL RESOURCES

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

Tuesday, March 20, 2007

Serial No. 110-13

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/index.html 

or 

Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Chairman 

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Ranking Republican Member

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan 

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa 

Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii 

Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas 

Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey 

Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Islands 

Grace F. Napolitano, California 

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, Arizona 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam 

Jim Costa, California 

Dan Boren, Oklahoma 

John P. Sarbanes, Maryland 

George Miller, California 

Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts 

Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon 

Maurice D. Hinchey, New York 

Patrick J. Kennedy, Rhode Island 

Ron Kind, Wisconsin 

Lois Capps, California 

Jay Inslee, Washington 

Mark Udall, Colorado 

Joe Baca, California 

Hilda L. Solis, California 

Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, South Dakota 

Heath Shuler, North Carolina 

Jim Saxton, New Jersey 

Elton Gallegly, California 

John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee 

Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland 

Ken Calvert, California 

Chris Cannon, Utah 

Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado 

Jeff Flake, Arizona 

Stevan Pearce, New Mexico 

Henry E. Brown, Jr., South Carolina 

Luis G. Fortun ̃ o, Puerto Rico 

Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Washington 

Bobby Jindal, Louisiana 

Louie Gohmert, Texas 

Tom Cole, Oklahoma 

Rob Bishop, Utah 

Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania 

Dean Heller, Nevada 

Bill Sali, Idaho 

Doug Lamborn, Colorado 

Vacancy

James H. Zoia, Chief of Staff 

Jeffrey P. Petrich, Chief Counsel 

Lloyd Jones, Republican Staff Director 

Lisa Pittman, Republican Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES 

JIM COSTA, California, Chairman 

STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico, Ranking Republican Member

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa 

Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas 

Rush D. Holt, New Jersey 

Dan Boren, Oklahoma 

Maurice D. Hinchey, New York 

Patrick J. Kennedy, Rhode Island 

Hilda L. Solis, California 

Nick J. Rahall II, West Virginia, ex officio 

Bobby Jindal, Louisiana 

Louie Gohmert, Texas 

Bill Shuster, Pennsylvania 

Dean Heller, Nevada 

Bill Sali, Idaho 

Don Young, Alaska ex officio 

(III)

CONTENTS 

Page

Hearing held on March 20, 2007 ............................................................................ 1

Statement of Members: 

Costa, Hon. Jim, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California ....................................................................................................... 1

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

Pearce, Hon. Stevan, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

New Mexico ................................................................................................... 3

Statement of Witnesses: 

Ball, Dr. Timothy F., Chair, Natural Resources Stewardship Project ......... 61

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 63

Matson, Noah, Director, Federal Lands Program, Defenders of Wildlife .... 52

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 54

Murray, Robert E., Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer, 

Murray Energy Corporation, Cleveland, Ohio ............................................ 37

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 40

Myers, Mark D., Director, United States Geological Survey, 

U.S. Department of the Interior ................................................................. 5

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 7

Response to questions submitted for the record ..................................... 10

Schendler, Auden, Executive Director, Community and Environmental 

Responsibility, Aspen Skiing Company ....................................................... 47

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

Westerling, Dr. Anthony, Assistant Professor of Environmental 

Engineering, University of California, Merced ........................................... 43

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 45

Williams, Deborah L., President, Alaska Conservation Solutions, Former 

Special Assistant to the Department of the Interior, Alaska .................... 24

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 27

(1)

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON ‘‘TOWARD A CLEAN 

ENERGY FUTURE: ENERGY POLICY AND 

CLIMATE CHANGE ON PUBLIC LANDS.’’

Tuesday, March 20, 2007

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Washington, D.C. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:56 p.m. in Room 

1334, Longworth House Office Building. Hon. Jim Costa [Chairman 

of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Costa, Pearce, Faleomavaega, Hinchey, 

Kennedy, and Solis. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE JIM COSTA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. COSTA. The Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources, 

as a part of the Committee on Natural Resources, will come to 

order. I apologize to those of you who have been waiting patiently 

in the audience. Unfortunately, as I think most of you know, we 

have no control over or very little control over how votes are scheduled on the House Floor, and unfortunately, that has delayed us 

this afternoon. But I believe those are the last votes for the day, 

so we should be uninterrupted at this point. 

So the oversight hearing of the Subcommittee will now come to 

order. The Subcommittee is meeting today on the impacts of the 

energy policy, as the Speaker has indicated she wants to get ideas 

from the House by June. We are looking at that in context this 

afternoon with changes that are occurring in the climate, and on 

public lands, as it impacts our public lands. 

Under Rule 4(g), the Chairman and the Ranking Minority Member may make opening statements. I have a brief statement to 

make. If any Members have any other statements, we would like 

to therefore include them in the record under unanimous consent. 

Additionally, under Committee Rule 4(h), additional material for 

the record should be submitted by Members or witnesses within 10 

days of the hearing. We would appreciate the witnesses’ cooperation, and also Members, as I oftentimes have questions that I want 

to submit. I ask that material be submitted in a timely way to the 

Committee staff because we then have to forward them to our witVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:52 Jul 31, 2007 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 L:\DOCS\34820.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
2

nesses so that we can get responses, and request they be in writing. 

While this is a meeting of the Subcommittee, I also want to remind members, because we get interest from time to time, depending upon the subject matter, that under Committee Rule 3(e), all 

members of the Committee may sit with this subcommittee during 

any hearing, and of course, by unanimous consent members of the 

Subcommittee may participate in any meeting or hearing. If other 

members are present, I ask them to participate. So I ask unanimous consent, if there is no objection, that any members of our Full 

Committee that want to participate with the Subcommittee today 

have the ability to do so. Any opposition? 

All right. To the degree that we have some of our other 

colleagues here from the Full Committee, we will welcome them, 

obviously. I think we have that bit of housekeeping done. 

Let me just talk briefly in my opening statement about our efforts to examine what I think many folks are concerned about as 

it relates to climate change. This afternoon I think we are going 

to see in the best sense of the House and representative democracy 

how we have differences of opinion, and how those differences of 

opinion are opined and how those relate to questions. Obviously, 

there are different points of view on this issue, and I suspect this 

afternoon we will hear those different points of view. 

Chairman Rahall, as I indicated at our previous hearing, has 

asked the various subcommittees, including this one, in response to 

Speaker Pelosi’s direction, to look at legislation that we might recommend over the next two and a half months, three months, and 

we are doing that. We are trying to do that. 

Today’s hearing, I think, will provide another opportunity for 

members to learn more about the differences of opinions that the 

effects of climate change may have on public lands and our resources. The Subcommittee starts by considering the scientific community’s premise and I think there is a large testimony of point of 

view that the planet’s climate is changing. 

I was in Antarctica about a year and a half ago, and saw a lot 

of research that currently NOAA, NASA, the Department of Defense, and others are doing as it relates to the study of climate 

change, as well as many of the leading universities in our country 

who were down there during the summer months, as they are in 

other parts of the world, trying to make a determination. 

So to that end, I am pleased that we are going to have the opportunity to have that discussion here this afternoon, and I guess 

when you get down to the bottom line, and this is where we may 

agree to disagree, certainly if you study the history of this planet 

over 4.5 billion years, it is constantly changing and evolving. But 

I think the difference of opinion that we will see exhibited here 

today is really to what degree as climates have historically 

changed, to what degree we as mankind have impacted that change 

during and since the Industrial Age. 

So I am looking forward to hearing the testimony from all the 

witnesses. We are going to begin, first of all, with Mr. Mark Myers 

who is the Director of the U.S. Geological Survey, who will report 

on ongoing work that the Department is doing as it relates to 

climate change. 

3

Then we also have our second panel, and to accommodate one of 

the witnesses, we will be making changes to try to accommodate 

one individual’s time situation. The Chair always tries to be sensitive to folks and to be accommodating if I have sufficient information and it works. We are pleased to see our colleagues here, and 

before we have our next witness, I will defer to the Ranking Member for an opening statement. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Costa follows:]

Statement of The Honorable Jim Costa, Chairman,

Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources 

This afternoon the Subcommittee will begin an examination of the effects climate 

change and our domestic energy policy and laws are having on the public lands, waters and resources. Chairman Rahall has tasked the Subcommittee, in response to 

Speaker Pelosi’s direction, with crafting legislation that will address climate change 

and energy security goals by June 1, 2007. 

Today’s hearing will provide an opportunity for Members to learn more about the 

effects of climate change on the public lands and resources. The Subcommittee 

starts by considering the scientific community’s premise that the Earth is getting 

warmer and that there are negative impacts associated with climate change. 

To that end, I am pleased to welcome our witnesses: Dr. Mark Myers, the Director 

of the U.S. Geological Survey who will report on the ongoing work of the Department of the Interior as it relates to climate change, Mr. Auden Schendler, a representative of the skiing industry who will report on climate change effects on tourism and recreation, Mr. Noah Matson, an advocate for wildlife conservation to report on the effects of climate change on fish and wildlife populations, Ms. Deborah 

Williams, a conservation advocate to report on the climate change effects in Alaska, 

and Dr. Anthony Westerling, Director of the Sierra Nevada Research Institute to 

report on the effects of climate change on wildfire and forestry. Also testifying at 

the request of the minority, will be Dr. Timothy Ball, Director, Natural Resources 

Stewardship Project, located in British Vancouver, Canada, and Mr. Robert Murray, 

Chairman, Murray Energy Corporation 

In the coming weeks, the Subcommittee will investigate specific issues, including 

carbon sequestration opportunities on public lands, renewable energy development, 

offshore energy, the application of advanced technologies to reduce the adverse 

greenhouse effects of fossil fuel development, and economic opportunities associated 

with climate change. All of these hearings will be focused on public land issues 

within the Committee or Subcommittee’s jurisdiction. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE STEVAN PEARCE, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF 

NEW MEXICO 

Mr. PEARCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the hearing 

and the opportunity to bring witnesses in to talk about this climate 

change. It is a very timely and controversial issue, and it has gotten much attention from the House, House of Representatives, from 

Hollywood, from the press. It seems like everybody is talking about 

climate change. In fact, the Speaker is setting up her select committee on climate changes and her call to the Committee Chairman 

to change climate, to effect a change by summer deadline. I am 

sure it will garner even more attention. 

I am going to respectfully ask that we not fall victims to hyperbole, instead approach this issue seriously and deliberately. We 

should not limit ourselves to artificial deadlines or leadership pressure to produce legislation. Man is a part of the environment, not 

an intruder, and our responsibility is to enhance the lives of the 

American people, and our way of life depends upon taking this 

issue very seriously. 

4

Carbon dioxide or CO2 is portrayed as a gun by Hollywood, and 

some people in the political community. It is not a gun, it is not 

a poisonous fruit. I am not a scientist but I know that when we 

breathe we exhale CO2, but plants inhale CO2. In other words, they 

need that to live. That requirement on all sides to understand the 

beneficial nature of CO2 is extraordinarily important as we consider policy decisions that will affect all people in the country. 

I look forward to this hearing. Our two panels of witnesses has 

an opportunity to begin understanding what we know and much 

more importantly, what we don’t know about CO2 and climate 

change, especially as it relates to our national energy policy and 

managing Federal lands and waters. 

I worry that the political momentum being given to climate 

change will lead to rash and even dangerous results. Indeed, this 

committee was originally scheduled to hold the hearing tomorrow 

regarding oil and gas royalty collections. Instead of addressing a 

very serious issue like that, which is within the jurisdiction of the 

Committee, the hearing was rescheduled to next week because 

there were concerns that others would steal our press thunder. 

I wonder if this is how the policy priorities will be set in the future. I am not a scientist but I read that there are different views 

in the science world whether climate change is caused by human 

activity or whether it is by natural activity. So members in this 

Congress have given much deference to an executive summary of 

the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 

the IPCC, which states that climate change is very likely due to 

human causes. 

I want to caution that the IPCC executive summary is not the 

full report. The full report is not scheduled to be released until 

after a markup schedule by Chairman Rahall to move climate 

change legislation out of this committee. If there were ever an example of a cart ahead of the horse, this might well be it. 

The bottom line is that until the scientific community is clear 

Congress cannot justify policies that would double or triple our constituents’ power bills that are already very high, that would double 

or triple the cost of the commute work, which is already expensive, 

or which would send jobs to China, and that is exactly what proposed legislative policies to date will do. 

We want to thank the witnesses today for taking the time to testify. I especially want to thank the two witnesses on the second 

panel, Mr. Bob Murray. He is the CEO of Murray Energy. Thank 

you for being here today. He represents the largest independent 

coal producer in the country. The United States, of course, is a 

Saudi Arabia of coal. Over 50 percent of our electricity comes from 

coal, and we have to continue to be able to use coal as a source of 

electricity. However, coal will bear the brunt of many climate 

change legislation. 

Mr. Murray, we can make coal cleaner but not without more 

technological development. Mr. Murray, I look forward to hearing 

from you what climate change energy policies would mean for coal 

development and cost, what it will mean for jobs in this country. 

I also look forward to hearing from Mr. Ball, the only actual 

climate scientist testifying today. I understand that his research 

raises questions on whether humans have caused climate change 

5

as opposed to the sun, for example. Dr. Ball’s research shows that 

the science is not clear as Hollywood would have us believe. It 

concerns me that his work has sparked severe backlash for questions he has raised. 

Last, I want to ask the Chairman going forward for a 

commitment regarding this invitation. I know it is essentially a 

Full Committee hearing, which is being held in the Subcommittee. 

This committee will take a lot of testimony today that is the jurisdiction of other subcommittees. This is the Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee. I hope we can focus on energy issues. 

In addition, I will hope that we can do our part and give witnesses, both Federal and private, enough advanced notice to meet 

their internal needs and our deadlines. We short-change both ourselves and our witnesses if we do not allow adequate time. The goal 

we all share is to have an informative dialogue so that we can report out the best legislation possible. 

Again I would like to welcome all of you and thank you again, 

Chairman Costa, for the hearing. 

Mr. COSTA. Thank you very much the gentleman from New Mexico. As I indicated on the outset, you would find some differences 

of opinion, and clearly by your opening statement and mine we 

have witnessed that. 

I do want to correct for the record, this committee was never 

scheduled to meet next week to deal with the subject matter. The 

Full Committee is going to meet next week, and while we have our 

Subcommittee hearing this week, our Subcommittee will not meet 

again until after the Easter Recess. Next week, it will be the Full 

Committee that talks about royalties at risk, and the administration of mineral management services which is a continuation of the 

Full Committee hearing that took place in February. 

So Chairman Rahall is using his discretion as the Chair to continue that discussion that began back in February, and so we will 

be meeting on March 28, the Full Committee, not the Subcommittee. We have not changed the order. 

Hearing that, let us get on with the witnesses because a colleague of ours, Gil McCarthy and I had a hearing session in Bakersfield, and I asked, when we were putting the witness list together, one of them I am quite familiar with said, ‘‘I am happy to 

participate, but are you guys going to listen or are you going to 

talk?’’ And I said, ‘‘This listening session is to listen, not to hear 

us talk.’’

So with that thought in mind, I would like to listen to our witnesses, both from the first and second panel, and our first witness 

here is Mr. Myers from the United States Geological Service who 

has been doing a lot of good work, and we will look forward to 

hearing your testimony. Would you please open, Mr. Myers. 

STATEMENT OF MARK MYERS, DIRECTOR,

UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY 

Mr. MYERS. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, 

fist of all, thank you for the opportunity to testify on the role the 

USGS science in addressing climate change impacts on public lands 

and potential energy resources. 

6

The USGS has a longstanding history of conducting research, 

monitoring and modeling of climate change and its physical and 

biological impacts. 

Mr. COSTA. Your microphone is not on. You might want to start 

over again. 

Mr. MYERS. Is that better? 

Mr. COSTA. That is much better. 

Mr. MYERS. OK. 

Mr. COSTA. We can’t listen if we can’t hear. Thank you. 

Mr. MYERS. Well, thank you. 

The USGS has a longstanding history of conducting research, 

monitoring and modeling of climate change and physical and biological impacts of climate change. this work includes strong multidisciplinary capabilities and expertise that are well established and 

distributed across the United States, along with a proven capacity 

to assess prehistoric, historic, and current climate effects. 

The strengths the USGS provides are a well-balanced niche predominantly conducting but leading climate change science across 

the nation’s terrestrial, freshwater, and coastal systems. The USGS 

is unable to provide unbiased science to decision makers. 

Global climate change is one of the most complex and formidable 

challenges facing society today. While climate change is a naturally 

continuous earth process, it is also related to human-induced activities as well. Whether the causes are natural or from human influence, our focus is on the impacts of climate change and the potential ecological and economical responses, including those impacts to 

energy infrastructure, production, and transportation. 

Climate change affects biota, water, ecosystems, cultures, and 

economies. The Department of Interior therefore has a unique responsibility to further the scientific understanding of climate 

change processes and impacts in order to effectively manage its 

lands and trust resources. In addition, there is a critical connection 

between climate change, energy issues, including energy use, production, and transportation. 

Figure 1 in my written testimony illustrates the climate/energy 

feedback loop where the two have complementary impacts, and 

that perpetuates continual impacts, both positive and negative with 

respect to energy. 

Continued increases in fossil fuel energy will lead to increasing 

greenhouse has emissions. This, in turn, may potentially lead to increased global temperatures and increases in climate change impacts such as permafrost degradation, sea-level rise, and increased 

intensity of strong storms. These climate change impacts lead to a 

completion of the feedback with energy, including a decreased 

water availability to generate hydro power and damage to oil and 

gas production infrastructures, including coastal and Arctic pipelines. 

Some feedback impacts actually may have positive impact. For 

example, a decline in Arctic sea ice will lead to greater access to 

energy resources in the Arctic. 

The USGS provides on-the-ground science information from its 

numerous observation and monitoring networks and research activities that span the biological, geological, and hydrological 

sciences. These observations and related research efforts are imporVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:52 Jul 31, 2007 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\34820.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
7

tant components for building climate models, energy assessments, 

and especially those to deal with the impacts of climate changes to 

terrestrial freshwater marine ecosystems. 

Our findings and data are critical information to decision makers 

regarding many important climate issues such as, one, the future 

availability of water for people in ecosystems in arid regions; proliferation of invasive species, and impacts of biodiversity, critical 

habitat, and ecosystems; current and future trends in climate 

warming in the Arctic and resultant permafrost degradation; and 

the impacts on energy and transportation; consequences of abrupt 

changes in climate, including suitable rise and impacts to low-lying 

coastal communities; and the extent to which current climate 

change in climate variables are due to natural versus manmade 

causes. 

The Department of Interior has a significant stake in mitigation 

of and adaption to climate change due to the vast lands’ natural 

resources in communities for which it has responsibilities. Of particular interest to this committee are those impacts on public lands 

and the point where those public lands intersect energy infrastructure, production, and transportation. 

Although science has come far in understanding the impacts of 

climate change and human ecosystems, many significant challenges 

and unique opportunities to better understand the long-term effects 

of our climate remain. These include: a need to develop holistic 

earth systems science approach to help communities and natural 

resource management prepare for and reduce climate change impacts; to help better distinguish natural changes from those imposed from the natural system by human activities. 

The science must also address human-induced global change so 

the cost/effect of mitigation strategies can be developed and implemented by decision makers; and developing a better understanding 

of how the earth and its physical and biological processes interplay, 

and therefore collectively respond to climate change over short 

term, and well into the future. 

In summary, to further our scientific understanding of climate 

change and impacts, we need to better forecast climate-related impacts to physical and biological systems; forecast precipitation 

changes as a consequence of changing climate; and understand how 

processes that regulate climate will be affected by the range of temperature change as well as abrupt climate change events; determine how global warming affects or may affect the frequency and 

intensity and path of strong storms, including hurricanes; and understand the outcomes of climate changes on ecosystem. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Myers follows:]

Statement of Dr. Mark D. Myers, Director, U.S. Geological Survey,

U.S. Department of the Interior 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity 

to present testimony on the role of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) science in addressing climate change impacts on public lands and potential energy resources. 

The USGS has a long-standing history of conducting research, monitoring and 

modeling of climate change and its physical and biological impacts. This work includes strong multi-disciplinary capabilities and expertise that are well established 

and distributed across the United States, along with a proven capacity to assess preVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:52 Jul 31, 2007 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\34820.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
8

historic, historic, and current climate effects. These strengths provide USGS with 

a critical role in conducting climate change science across the Nation’s terrestrial, 

freshwater, and coastal systems and in providing unbiased science to decision 

makers. The USGS works closely with our partners in the U.S. Climate Change 

Science Program to address the challenges posed by global climate change. 

Global climate change is one of the most complex and formidable challenges facing 

society today. While climate change is a natural, continuous Earth process, changes 

to the Earth’s natural climate are related to human activities as well. Whether the 

causes are natural or from human influence, our focus is on the impacts of climate 

change and the potential ecological and economic responses, including those impacts 

to energy infrastructure, production, and transportation. 

Climate change affects biota, water, ecosystems, cultures, and economies. The Department of the Interior (DOI) therefore has a responsibility to further the scientific 

understanding of climate change processes and impacts in order to effectively manage its lands and trust resources. In addition, there is a critical connection between 

climate change and energy issues, including energy use, production, and transportation.

The figure above illustrates the climate-energy feedback loop where two components impact each other and perpetuate continued impacts (both positive and negative). Continued increases in fossil fuel energy use will lead to an increase in greenhouse gas emissions. This, in turn, may potentially lead to increased global temperatures and increases in climate change impacts such as permafrost degradation, 

sea-level rise, and an increased incidence of strong storms. These climate change impacts lead to a completion of the feedback loop with energy, including a decrease 

of water available to generate hydropower and damage to gas and oil production infrastructure (coastal and arctic pipelines). Some feedback impacts may actually have 

a positive effect on energy. For example, a decline in Arctic sea-ice may lead to enhanced oil and gas exploration within the coastal zones of the Arctic Ocean. 

The United States and other nations will be challenged to develop adaptation and 

mitigation strategies that will anticipate the effects of a changing climate and its 

impacts on humans and ecosystems. 

As the science bureau within DOI, USGS has a long history of participation as 

a member of the climate change science community. DOI, represented by USGS, is 

one of 13 Federal agencies engaged in global change research in support of the U.S. 

Global Change Research Act of 1990 and is represented as a member of the U.S. 

Climate Change Science Program and the Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Programme (AMAP). The USGS strives to understand how the Earth works and to anticipate changes in earth systems. To accomplish this, USGS science aims to understand the interrelationships among earth surface processes, ecological systems, and 

human activities. This includes understanding current changes in the context of prehistoric and recent earth processes, distinguishing between natural and human-influenced changes, and recognizing ecological and physical responses to changes in 

climate. The USGS has multi-disciplinary capabilities (biologic, geologic, hydrologic, 

geographic, remote sensing, and socio-economic) with scientific expertise distributed 

across the United States and many parts of the world. This ability to provide 

ground-truthing across multiple scientific disciplines in a wide variety of spatial and 


34820.001.eps
9

temporal scales enables USGS to play a key role within the climate science 

community. 

The USGS provides on-the-ground science information from its numerous observation and monitoring networks and research activities that span the biological, 

geological, geographical, and hydrological sciences. These observations and related 

research efforts are important components for building climate models, especially 

those that deal with the impacts of climate change to terrestrial, freshwater, and 

marine ecosystems. 

Our findings and data provide critical information to decision-makers regarding 

many important climate-related issues, such as: 

• Future availability of water for people and ecosystems. Specific projects include 

hydroclimatology studies in the Pacific Northwest and arid southwest for assessing current and future changes in water availability and related impacts on 

dam and reservoir management. The Bureau of Reclamation, as well as several 

State water agencies, are principal stakeholders for this work. 

• Proliferation of invasive species and impacts on biodiversity, habitat, and ecosystems. USGS is conducting several major studies throughout the United 

States looking at the evolution of forest and rangeland communities as a response to warming climate and changes in precipitation. The U.S. Forest Service, several land resource bureaus of the Department of the Interior, and numerous State resource agencies are important stakeholders. 

• Current and future trends of climate warming in the Arctic and resultant permafrost degradation and impacts on energy and transportation. USGS is conducting several coordinated studies on the North Slope and Yukon Basin of 

Alaska. Emphasis is on permafrost and climate effects monitoring and related 

ecological and socio-economic changes. This work is a partnership with the U.S. 

Forest Service, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, the Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service, the University of Alaska, Alaska State agencies, and various Native communities. 

• Consequences of abrupt changes in climate including sea-level rise and impacts 

on low-lying coastal communities. USGS projects include the Chesapeake Bay 

and Greater Everglades Priority Ecosystem Studies. The USGS is collaborating 

with many partners, including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the land management bureaus within DOI. 

• Impacts of climate change on land use and landscape change. In partnership 

with NASA and NOAA, USGS is involved in a variety of activities that are critical to understanding the impacts of climate change on public lands. These include monitoring of coastal zone topography and bathymetry; the production 

and distribution of national topography data; and improving our knowledge or 

topographic surface change through lidar and radar imaging of the U.S. national land surface. 

The scientific and policy implications of mitigation strategies associated with 

these issues are complex. For example, rising sea-level exacerbates the vulnerability 

of coastal resources to coastal change due to storms and erosion. Vulnerable areas 

include thousands of miles of coastal resources for which DOI has land management 

responsibility. Efforts to alleviate coastal erosion and storm vulnerability often include ‘‘beach nourishment,’’ the placement of large quantities of beach-quality sand 

on the beach and nearshore to build protective barrier beaches and dunes. With rising sea-level, the demands for beach quality sand, commonly extracted from offshore 

deposits, is likely to increase. In most regions, the quantity of this sand is limited, 

and the ability of recoverable resources to meet increased needs is in doubt. Moreover, recovery of in place resources can impact habitat and modify the natural movement of sediment between the nearshore and the coast. Additionally, the increasing 

demand is occurring as on-land sources for sand and gravel for construction are becoming more costly. 

DOI has a significant interest in the mitigation of and adaptation to climate 

change due to the vast lands, natural resources, and communities for which it has 

responsibility. Of particular interest to this Committee are those impacts to public 

lands and the point where those public lands intersect with energy infrastructure, 

production, and transportation. These impacts may include: 

• Shifts in carbon cycle, accelerated greenhouse gas emissions, and resultant effects on native communities, transportation networks, and managed infrastructure in high-latitude landscapes; 

• Possible increases in the magnitude, frequency, and northern migration of 

strong storms and tidal surges related to changing climate and the associated 

risk to offshore and onshore oil and gas infrastructure and managed resources; 

10

• Changes to strategies and cost of remediation and reclamation of lands disturbed by energy and mineral production, because of the added complexity created by climate change. • Changes in the extent and severity of forest fires and associated effects on land 

management, forest composition, and carbon storage. 

The USGS and other Federal agencies are actively engaged in understanding the 

impacts of climate change on both humans and ecosystems. USGS studies show that 

some impacts of climate change may be more urgent than others. For example, recent USGS image analysis of coastal erosion along a permafrost coastline in Northern Alaska showed a dramatic rate of coastal erosion—in some areas almost a kilometer of coastal erosion over the last 50 years. These findings have significant implications for energy development, native coastal villages, endangered species, and 

other land and resource management responsibilities. 

Although science has come far in understanding the impacts of climate change on 

humans and ecosystems, many significant challenges and unique opportunities to 

better understand the long-term climate future for our planet remain. These include: 

• Developing a holistic, earth-systems science approach to help communities and 

natural resource managers prepare for and reduce climate change impacts; 

• Better distinguishing natural climate change from that imposed upon the natural system through human activities. The science must also address humaninduced global change so that cost effective mitigation strategies can be developed and implemented by decision makers; 

• Developing a better understanding of how the earth and its physical and biological processes interplay, and therefore collectively respond to climate change 

over the short-term and well into the future; 

• Forecasting climate-related impacts to physical and biological systems; 

• Forecasting precipitation changes as a consequence of changing climate; 

• Determining how global warming affects, or may affect, the frequency, intensity, and paths of strong storms, including hurricanes; 

• Understanding outcomes of climate change on ecosystems. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to present this testimony. I will 

be pleased to answer questions you and other Members of the Subcommittee might 

have. 

Response to questions submitted for the record by Mark Myers, Director, 

U.S. Geological Survey 

1. In your written and oral testimony you said that global warming will 

cause an increase in the frequency and intensity of storms. Climatologists say that the intensity of storms is related to temperature gradients 

between different air masses and climate models show that temperature 

gradients will diminish during warming. If that is the case, why do you 

anticipate that global warming will cause an increase in the intensity of 

storms? 

My written statement uses the word ‘‘may’’ as opposed to ‘‘will’’ in connection with 

a potential increased incidence of strong storms. Specifically, my testimony stated 

that ‘‘to further our scientific understanding of climate change and its impacts we 

need to better determine how global warming affects, or may affect, the frequency, 

intensity, and paths of strong storms, including hurricanes.’’ We cannot say for certain whether global warming has or will cause an increase in the frequency and intensity of storms. 

This is an area of intense debate among the scientific community. Ongoing research has demonstrated multi-decadal cyclical behavior in the Atlantic region is an 

important factor in determining hurricane activity, however, recent research indicates global warming has an impact on hurricane intensity. It is important to stress 

that there are many factors such as air and ocean temperature, wind shear, and 

other conditions such as El Nin ̃ o and La Nin ̃ o that impact hurricanes. More research is needed to fully understand how these factors interrelate. 

2. Satellite images taken over the last 20 years have shown that the greenness of the environment has increased. This should improve and enhance biodiversity. Why do you say that global warming will adversely 

impact biodiversity? 

The point here is that increases in overall greenness do not necessarily coincide 

with increase in biodiversity; biodiversity is not simply a function of ‘‘greenness’’ or 

related increase of global temperature. Biodiversity is related to a combination of 

11

many factors, including ideal precipitation, timing of precipitation, seasonality, 

plant community health, diseases including those related to insect infestation, and 

competition with other native and invasive species. Ongoing science that is looking 

at the issue of biodiversity changes along with changing climate have shown that 

certain areas of the world, including the Pacific Northwest (transitions in plant 

communities) and Alaska (encroachment of the Boreal forest into the Arctic tundra) 

are facing, and will continue to face, losses in biodiversity within a warming 

climate. Other areas, such as the Great Basin, are also seeing an overall decline in 

biodiversity as invasive cheat grass overtakes areas once dominated by native desert 

and high plains scrub plants. 

3. If carbon dioxide is a more significant greenhouse gas than water vapor, 

why does it generally cool down in the desert at night during the summer and remain hot and miserable in the southeast? 

Carbon dioxide is a more significant greenhouse gas only from the standpoint of 

its human-induced contribution to the atmosphere (from fossil fuel combustion) and 

its effect on climate change. Water vapor is the most abundant, naturally-occurring 

greenhouse gas, and plays a major role in controlling climate. Its abundance is expressed in terms of relative humidity. Water vapor absorbs energy radiating from 

the earth’s surface and warms the atmosphere. The example expressed in this question is a case of contrasting humidity conditions. In the desert, where the humidity 

is low, the sun sets and the energy radiated from the earth’s surface escapes quickly 

due to the lack of water vapor in the atmosphere. Thus, the air cools quickly. In 

the southeast, where the humidity levels are high, the energy radiated from the 

earth’s surface at night is trapped by the water vapor in the atmosphere keeping 

the air warmer longer. 

4. How do you know that carbon dioxide is causing the changes in climate 

today when it has not in the past? 

Carbon dioxide is a strong greenhouse gas that has been tied to past changes in 

climate in ice core records and other proxies. Scientists involved in the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded with ‘‘very high confidence’’ (IPCC WGI uses ‘‘very high confidence’’ to express expert judgment that a 

statement has a 9 out of 10 chance of being correct) that recent climate changes 

are being caused in part by anthropogenic activities, including the addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere (IPCC Fourth Assessment, Working Group I) from 

the burning of fossil fuels. In fact, the IPCC report called carbon dioxide ‘‘the most 

important anthropogenic greenhouse gas.’’

5. What scientific research and data did you use to support your statement 

that human activity and specifically the use of fossil fuels is adversely 

affecting the Earth’s climate? 

My testimony referred to both positive and negative impacts of the climate-energy 

feedback loop. Specifically, I testified that continued increases in fossil fuel energy 

use will lead to an increase in greenhouse gas emissions which may lead to increased global temperatures and increased climate change impacts. There are now 

many scientific studies that have drawn a direct correlation between human activity, specifically fossil fuel use, and changes in the Earth’s climate. The best and 

most authoritative example is the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

(IPCC) Fourth Assessment Working Group I, Executive Summary which states that 

there is unequivocal evidence that humans and their carbon dioxide emissions are 

having a warming effect on today’s climate. In 2005, the White House issued a 

statement acknowledging that global warming is occurring and that humans are a 

significant contributor to overall warming of the planet. 

6. What climate models, if any, are you using to support your testimony? 

Has the model been validated by hind casting? Please provide the data 

used in the model and the results. 

I did not use any specific models in order to develop my remarks for either the 

written or oral testimonies. I referred only to general results that can be corroborated through the past and current IPCC reports which do rely on the 23 global 

climate models, all of which have well-defined uncertainties and error estimates, 

and which are frequently hindcasted against both past instrumental (approximately 

100 year records) and geologic (thousand-year timescale) information in order to assess their accuracy in use for predicting future climate change. 

Mr. COSTA. Thank you very much, Mr. Myers. I want to begin 

with the round of questioning. 

12

Let me remind members so that we can have an opportunity to 

listen, that the Committee Rule 3(c) imposes a five-minute limit on 

questions, and I will, for the sake of allowing all the members to 

ask questions, try to keep that more or less on point given the time 

nature. 

There is a couple of questions I want to ask, and others I will 

submit later on for the record. Mr. Myers, as the Department of the 

Interior’s science bureau, do you believe that the Department 

should have a role in addressing climate change, and if so, what 

is that appropriate role? 

Mr. MYERS. Mr. Chairman, the Department of Interior manages 

one in every five acres in the United States. Also, the Department 

of Interior lands are a key component in the production of energy 

for this country, including coal, oil, and gas, and other non-conventional resources. So the Department definitely has a role in both 

climate, in terms of managing the lands and understanding the effects of climate change and doing what it can to adapt to those 

changes in lands that Interior manages. 

Mr. COSTA. All right, one in five acres. That is obviously significant. Because there is a lot of Federal agencies involved and engaged in this effort today, notwithstanding those from the private 

sector, how does your scientific capabilities compare—the Geological Survey—from other Federal scientific contributors? 

I mean, are we being redundant? Is there a collaboration? 

Mr. MYERS. Well, first of all, there is a collaboration to the 

climate change science program, so there is integration of that 

science that occurs on the national level. 

But second, the USGS has some unique characteristics because 

of its ability to integrate geological, biological, water data, and 

geospatial mapping capabilities. 

Mr. COSTA. That is the heart of the question, the niche that you 

have to play with the other Federal agencies. 

Mr. MYERS. Yes. 

Mr. COSTA. And your experience and your technological and scientific capacity that exists within the service you think provides 

that niche? 

Mr. MYERS. We certainly fill that particular niche. Now, there 

are other areas in the atmospheric area and the deep oceans where 

NOAA and NASA are the key players. 

Mr. COSTA. That is why I referenced that observation I had when 

I was in Antarctica about 14 months ago. 

You talked about the realities of climate change and the impacts 

of various responses, and I have a particular focus because of many 

of us who live in the Southwest obviously are very concerned as it 

relates to water availability, and how we provide our water supply 

when you have an arid or semi-arid conditions. 

We have designed a water management system in California that 

is based upon what we believe is the history of the last 110 years. 

Clearly, that is small snapshot whether or not to whatever level 

you attribute the causes of man to the climate change, it is a small 

snapshot to try to base—based upon literally millions and billions 

of years of climatic changes that have taken place. 

How do we get a better handle on the impact of water availability on areas where the Sierra Nevada, for example, is Mother 

13

Nature’s icebox where we store our snow from November through 

March, and of course, if that snow is not available there, it makes 

it very difficult throughout the rest of the year. 

Mr. MYERS. Mr. Chairman, you need an integrated approach. 

The first component is looking at the long-term geologic record so 

you have a long-term baseline. The second is taking those records 

that you have that are highly accurate but a shorter span, like 

stream gauge records, understanding the last 30 to 50 years where 

we might have good stream gauge data, and look at changes. The 

third is using remote sensing, other monitoring techniques to look 

at changes in snow pack and conditions, and then relate that back 

to atmospheric climate models that need to be regionalist. 

So that combination will give you trend line data, for instance, 

that will show you a decrease, an overall decrease in the snow 

pack, which is again leading to a change in water availability in 

the West. 

Mr. COSTA. Just recently, we have looked at some tree ring studies over the last eight-nine hundred years, and the time period that 

we have been in compared to the other cycles has been unusually 

wetter than it has been in previous cycles, and if that is a pattern 

that will continue, we are going to get more drier weather, which 

will make it difficult for a growing stage. 

I have some other questions, but my time is almost up so I will 

yield to the Ranking Member for purpose of his ability to ask questions or make comments. 

Mr. PEARCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for being here, 

Mr. Myers. We appreciate your testimony. 

In your paper, you have the circular diagram and you have one 

end of it with a gap, the hydrocarbon, energy, and product use, and 

the bottom end of that circular diagram shows climate change. Is 

it your intent to draw the conclusion for us people up here on the 

panel that hydrocarbon, energy, and production use would be then 

the major impact of climate change, of global warming? Is hydrocarbon use—in other words, it is there in a block, it jumps off the 

page at one—is that the only factor? 

Mr. MYERS. It is clearly not the only fact. We are trying to show 

the relationship of the feedback mechanisms and——

Mr. PEARCE. What other things might affect that? 

Mr. MYERS. Well, certainly variations in solar radiation, the 

amount of dust, the availability and amount of sea ice; in the long 

term, the earth’s rotation and other long-term climatic effects. But 

certainly the effects of increased CO2 from certain type of fossil fuel 

energy production does add a factor to it. 

Mr. PEARCE. If we are talking about the level of CO2 as it relates 

to climate change, is there an optimal level of CO2? In other words, 

we are about what, 385 parts per million right now? 

Mr. MYERS. We are. 

Mr. PEARCE. And is there an optimal level? 

Mr. MYERS. I wouldn’t know what that was. Again, it is a feedback mechanism. Certainly from best calculations about 31 percent 

of——

Mr. PEARCE. Basically you are saying we don’t know. What happens as we reduce the carbon in the atmosphere? What scientific 

outcome on that? 

14

Mr. MYERS. Reducing CO2 in the atmosphere, if everything else 

is held constant, will decrease the absorption capability of solar radiation, and therefore cool the climate somewhat. 

Mr. PEARCE. OK. What happens if we decrease it all the way to 

zero? Is that a desirable outcome? 

Mr. MYERS. Not if humans want to live in earth. 

Mr. PEARCE. So what happens? 

Mr. MYERS. Basically, the temperature would get to cold to sustain life. 

Mr. PEARCE. Yes, because CO2 has a function. Where do plants, 

in other words, you got 385 parts per million, and plants require 

CO2 in the atmosphere. At what point do plants begin to suffer? 

Mr. MYERS. Well, certainly as you change CO2 in any given part 

of the environment, given temperature, water availability and 

other issues, you change the plant biome. 

Mr. PEARCE. Do we know at what level that plants begin to suffer? In other words, if you them in a closed environment, maybe 

just a little glass beaker, you put a bean plant in there and you 

grow it, and you begin to withdraw CO2, at what part per million 

does it begin to suffer? 

Mr. MYERS. With a plant in isolation it would depend on the 

plant type, and I don’t have an exact number for you. We can get 

that. 

Mr. PEARCE. But there is a quantifiable level at which we begin 

to effect the ability of the planet to breathe or whatever. 

One of the panelists that is coming up declares that there is no 

remaining scientific debate we are causing global warming, and it 

is past time to do something about that. Would you be willing to 

testify that we are through with the scientific debate, that there is 

no more scientific debate? 

Mr. MYERS. Certainly the state of science is always that we improve our knowledge in an incremental basis. 

Mr. PEARCE. No, that is not my question. My question is are you 

willing to affirm that the science debate is over, that there are no 

really viewpoints on the opposite side held by credible scientists? 

Mr. MYERS. There are certainly viewpoints on the other side, but 

the preponderance of evidence is that the climate is in fact increasing in that both the——

Mr. PEARCE. No, this is the time to—this says we are ready to 

do the policy. Is the science, in your mind, fixed enough that we 

are ready to do policy? 

Mr. MYERS. In my mind, from the Department of Interior’s perspective, we need to start adapting to the changes that we are seeing with respect to climate in the environment. 

Mr. PEARCE. Just yes or no. Let us try it that way. 

Mr. COSTA. I think that is a yes. I would interpret that as a yes. 

Mr. PEARCE. All right, put it in the record as a yes. I am from 

the West. I don’t know all these languages here. I barely speak 

West Texan adequately. 

Let us see, what about major inputs other than humans—volcanos, forest fires—are those inputs of carbon measured by USGS? 

Mr. MYERS. Well, certainly there is an input, a significant 

input——

Mr. PEARCE. No, no, no, I have 18 seconds left. 

15

Mr. MYERS. Yes. 

Mr. PEARCE. You are going to have to have a short answer. Are 

they measured by USGS? 

Mr. MYERS. Yes. 

Mr. PEARCE. And can you tell me what those measures are? In 

other words, compared to the human input, somewhere on a scale 

of importance, do they put more or less than humans? 

Mr. MYERS. In current conditions in the last say 30 years, less. 

Mr. PEARCE. Less? 

Mr. MYERS. Less, yes. 

Mr. PEARCE. In the last 30 years? 

Mr. MYERS. For instance, like volcano eruption. Now, obviously, 

the overall carbon cycle still produces the majority of CO2 in the 

atmosphere, the natural recurring CO2 cycle, but with respect to 

say volcanos versus human conditions, humans are——

Mr. PEARCE. Can you declare how much less? 

Mr. MYERS. I will have to get the numbers for you, sir. 

Mr. PEARCE. If you would, please, because this becomes a very 

important thing because we need to see relative effects on the 

climate, relative effects on the carbon, and as I see the wild fires 

raging through——

Mr. COSTA. He is going to respond to your question. 

Mr. PEARCE. I would appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COSTA. Thank you. 

Our next member, the gentleman from American Samoa, Eni. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to 

commend Mr. Myers for his testimony here this afternoon, and I 

would like to first commend the Speaker of the House of Representatives for taking the initiative in making global warning an issue 

as a national issue that we ought to honestly debate. 

I recall that some six years ago we simply shut out the whole 

issue of global warming when our President decided to no longer 

continue the dialogue when the Kyoto Protocol was proposed. Out 

of some 150 countries that signed the Kyoto Protocols, two have not 

signed, and that is Australia and our own country. 

I recall even one of my colleagues or our colleagues called global 

warming as global bologna, and it is unfortunate because it seems 

that some of our leaders make light of this issue, whether is there 

really a serious issue concerning global warming. 

I wanted to commend Mr. Myers for his testimony saying that 

Geological Survey truly gives out unbiased science, and I want to 

thank you for that. If I read it correctly in your testimony, the Geological Survey has multi-disciplinary capabilities dealing with biological, geologic, hydrologic, geographic, remote sensing, and socialeconomic—I have no idea what these words mean—with scientific 

expertise—OK. 

I understand from your testimony that Geological Survey does do 

concurrent studies together with several other Federal agencies, 

and my question is, where are we at? Do we really have a serious 

problem with global warming or is it just someone’s figment of 

imagination? 

Mr. MYERS. Thank you. We believe, yes, we do have a problem 

with respect to change in climate, and then the changes in the environment that we are seeing, and the need to adapt to those 

16

changes. It is not my position, again, from a scientific organization 

to suggest what those policies might be, but we are in fact observing significant changes to the planet with respect to climate and 

associated effects. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. You know, the problem we are having is almost like getting an expert witness in court, and depending on 

what persuasion you are in for, pro energy and the heck with global warming, so you get your line of experts, and this seems to be 

going on, we have had this news for years. Unfortunately, also 

when the Vice President called all the chief, major CEO executives 

about energy, corporations, they had a great meeting at the White 

House. Guess what? To this day we have no idea what they talked 

about. Now, to me, that is not a very good way of conducting or 

trying to find out exactly what is in the public interest about this 

very issue of global warming. 

I will try this question again, Mr. Myers. Are we really seriously 

having a problem with global warming? 

Mr. MYERS. Yes, I believe we are seeing——

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Don’t say yes. Please, you are the unbiased 

science, and I am really happy that you made that distinction with 

all other agencies. You give us the unbiased science. Are we really 

having this serious problem of global warming? 

Mr. MYERS. Yes. Again, we are seeing significant effects in 

changes to the planet because of changes in climate. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. And this ongoing study has been going on 

for four years now? Three years? Two years? 

Mr. MYERS. The survey has been studying the effects of climate 

change for over 20 years. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. And for the 20-year period, and I don’t know 

how long you have been there, Mr. Myers, in the Geological survey, 

it is in your best judgment as a scientist I assume that yes, there 

definitely is an impact on global warning on our planet? Is this in 

your best judgment? I am not asking you as a Democrat or a Republican, as a scientist, in your best opinion we really do have a 

problem with global warming? 

Mr. MYERS. Because the USGS is primarily designed an operational observational science, we are seeing significant changes to 

the landscape because of changes to climate. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I note with interest that Mr. Murray is the 

chief executive of one of the best operated energy companies in the 

country. Here is my problem—I’m trying to figure out how you 

establish a balance between human needs and maintaining the 

cleanliness of our natural resources? 

I think that seems to be the issue that we are trying to resolve 

here, but, unfortunately, it always seems to be one extreme to the 

other, but never trying to find out what can we do without any ideological preferences, but just to say what can we do to resolve this 

basic issue? 

Mr. MYERS. Well, certainly some things we can bring to the table 

is research in alternative energy sources. For example, natural gas 

hydrates, huge potential source of energy in the Gulf of Mexico, 

and on the Alaska North Slope, and off many islands in the world 

that could be harnessed as a very clean source of energy; increased 

use of geothermal, and other sources of energy; recognizing mechaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:52 Jul 31, 2007 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\34820.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
17

nisms to classify and understand geologic carbon sequestration. We 

know we could do significant research, and research is going on, 

but on a national level scale, understanding of the capability of the 

geologically sequestered carbon; the baseline work for some of the 

alternative energies as well as conventional energy resources like 

natural gas, again the ability—I will go back to carbon sequestration. 

If you do have coal, and you want to store that carbon, where are 

you going to put it? We need to understand the basic underlying 

geologic reservoirs, the sustainability, the capability of those reservoirs to store it, and we need to understand what infrastructure 

we need to build and the cost of that infrastructure. 

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Of interest I note that we have enough supply of coal and shale in our own country that will give us enough 

energy for our needs for the next 1,000 years I am told if we properly harvest it or whatever we do to create a clean environment if 

ever coal is to become one of our prime, as it is now. 

Do you think that the technology can be done in such a way that 

coal is a good source of energy? 

Mr. MYERS. Certainly. There are wonderful coal technologies that 

can be used very cleanly. There are conventional coal technologies 

that can be used as well. Again, the USGS brings an understanding of where that coal is, we do the national, and we actually 

do the world assessment of coal availability. We can understand 

the qualities of that coal. We can also look at the environmental 

effects of producing that coal, and then alternative technologies, 

like carbon sequestration, which could limit CO2. Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

Mr. COSTA. Thank you very much, and as our tradition to alternate back and forth between the majority and the minority, I will 

refer back to the Ranking Member for clean up. 

Mr. PEARCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are going to try to 

work our way through this quickly because we do have two panels. 

The vote ran us late. 

Mr. Myers, on the whole concept of beneficial outcomes, is the 

human race going to be better or worse served by any cooling in 

the climate or any warming in the climate? I will say warming in 

the climate. Does that affect human race, say if it is increased by 

a degree or two, three, whatever? 

Mr. MYERS. Certainly the human race will have to adapt to certain different conditions in key ecosystems such as in the Arctic 

where the permafrost is melting we are seeing an increased coastal 

erosion. We are seeing a disappearance of sea ice. That is going to 

change that environment, so humans have to adapt to that. 

Water availability is going to change. There are going to be some 

areas are going to be under a change of a couple degrees. They are 

going to receive more water. Other areas are going to receive less 

water. Storm severity is going to increase, coastal issue will be an 

issue. 

So I believe there is a need for adaptation to the changes we are 

going to see, going to see with respect to environment. Again, as 

you go back into the geologic record, the planet has sustained significant changes over its history, and changes that exceed the current changes that we have seen, but that is before we were so prevVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:52 Jul 31, 2007 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 L:\DOCS\34820.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
18

alent on the planet. So I do believe there is going to be a need to 

be adaptation as we see the climate change. 

Mr. PEARCE. I don’t know exactly what you feel like, but as far 

as with respect to the climate, can we get where we need to go 

without significant reductions in the coal or oil and gas uses for 

energy development? Can we get there without those decreases? 

Mr. MYERS. I don’t feel qualified really to answer that question. 

Again, it is a policy question rather than a science question. I think 

certainly technologies that are out there——

Mr. PEARCE. No, I mean coal and oil and gas, you use them in 

your chart here, hydrocarbons. My question is can that square remain unchanged and get where we need to go with the carbon levels? 

Mr. MYERS. Certainly under current levels’ production atmospheric CO2 will increase. That said there are hydrocarbon sources, 

such as natural gas, a conversion to a greater use of natural gas 

that would lead to less greenhouse gas. 

Mr. PEARCE. As far as coal, coal provides 50 percent of our energy, 53 percent, can we get where we need to go with current level 

of coal use or do we need to diminish that? 

Mr. MYERS. We certainly could adapt coal——

Mr. PEARCE. No, not could. I am just asking——

Mr. MYERS.—technology. You could dramatically decrease if you 

left coal stable for electrical generation, but for other purposes use 

increased amount of natural gas or decreased——

Mr. PEARCE. I don’t mean to be putting you in a position that obviously you are really uncomfortable because we are sitting up here 

trying to get the best that we can. I know one or two scientists in 

Congress. The rest of us are like me, just I have studied in science 

in the ninth, tenth, eleventh grade, I am not sure I did in the 

twelfth grade. We are trying to see or way through this, and that 

is a fairly simple question, and a direct answer would help. I am 

going to ask everybody on the next panel, give them a heads up. 

We have asked the same question, so your answer gets averaged 

down there. 

I am going to yield back to the Chairman here in the interest 

that we do need to get finished up. I have a couple more if we get 

another chance. 

Mr. COSTA. All right. You know, I think it is good to point that 

out. One of the areas that we are going to be in the future here 

talking about is carbon sequestration, and obviously the Chairman, 

who comes from a large coal area, is focused about how we can continue. We know that about half of our energy is produced from—

electricity, excuse me, as you stated, from coal in the country, and 

obviously how we deal with that is an important factor. I think we 

are all aware of that. 

The gentleman, Mr. Hinchey is—you are correct. Thank you for 

pointing that out. Mr. Kennedy, the gentleman from Rhode Island. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, if I 

could, I would just say I think you are very generous and I commend you with respect to acknowledging the minority and giving 

the minority a chance to speak at every chance in between because 

I haven’t been at any committee hearing in all my 12 years where 

19

the minority would have a chance to speak in place of not having 

any other members of the minority there. 

Mr. PEARCE. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes, I would be happy to do that. 

Mr. PEARCE. We did it exactly that way at the last hearing. 

Mr. COSTA. The last hearing, I was the only one here and there 

were three other members, and so it was a great day for me, I must 

tell you. I got all my questions in. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Oh, then it is the first experience I have ever had 

with it, so I am happy to be enlightened. 

Mr. COSTA. I try to be even-handed on these things. 

Mr. KENNEDY. I am happy to be enlightened. 

Mr. COSTA. So you have stolen my thunder this afternoon, but 

I am glad to have you here. 

Mr. KENNEDY. And I was commending you for that, Mr. 

Chairman. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. COSTA. Thank you. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Myers, I wanted to ask you, I come from a 

state called the Ocean State, so you can imagine my concern with 

all of the prospects of global warming and the increased sea level. 

Could you tell me what plans there are in the offing to prepare for 

the increased seal level, and the possible flooding that would take 

place should these geological predictions take place? Do you have 

those kinds of forecastings and what do they look like? 

Mr. MYERS. Mr. Kennedy, we do a lot of baseline scientific work 

with respect to coastal processes, not only the sea level rise but 

subsidence in some areas where the ground mass is actually going 

down, so it is a combination. We do a fair amount of work on 

oceans. I think the President’s proposed budget on ocean action 

plan is to look seriously at some of those issues in a holistic way. 

We tend to look at watersheds in a holistic way, and look at the 

effects of that. 

Certainly the work, the scientific work we do, and other agencies 

do hopefully gets incorporated into the Corps of Engineers and 

other agencies, FEMA and other agencies that deal with emergency 

disaster. I know there is good working relationships both with the 

Corps and FEMA on that. I don’t know the details of all the planning efforts. Again, we provide baseline by science, and then they 

develop the plans and the mitigation strategies. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Because obviously we can’t begin to prepare early 

enough now if this—you know, the predictions of increased sea 

level between 11 and 16 inches over the course of the next century 

are to come true, we can’t even begin early enough now in our 

State of Rhode Island in terms of the economic impact that it will 

have on our state. I should dare say the country, given the juxtaposition of where the population is in our country vis-a-vis the 

ocean, and I would hope that this policy of what we are doing here 

today would be to lay out the groundwork as to what we need to 

do as a country to prepare for those rising sea levels as well as 

what to do to prevent those rising sea levels, which is what I think 

we are ultimately here to do is to prevent those rising sea levels, 

but at the same time we ought to be prepared to deal with what 

may inevitably be taking place. 

20

I would also like to ask you about what the capability is between 

you and NASA in terms of the mission to plant earth, and what 

the satellite capability is that you have or do not have insofar as 

doing these measurements. Do you feel that NOAA needs more capacity, that NASA and Mission to Planet Earth needs more capacity for you to do a better job at what you do? 

Mr. MYERS. Mr. Kennedy, we use a number of satellites, including NOAA and NASA, but also the USGS run Landsat 5 and 7 satellites, and we are trying to make sure we can get Landsat 8 satellite built in a timely way to get launched in about a 2011 time 

frame. 

It is important to have long-term continuity of data. Again, you 

need the satellite coverage, but the continuation of existing satellite coverage, the same parameters, so we can get a 30-40-year 

history because again as you look at change, looking at it over a 

few year time frame doesn’t give you really a very good picture. 

You have to have a long period of records. So those satellites that 

sustain that long period of record, and also repeatable so you can 

repeat the imagery on a regular basis are critical satellite data 

which then links into in-situ monitoring on the ground to match up 

with the satellite data. 

Mr. KENNEDY. If you would prepare for the Committee some 

more detailed recommendations as to the needs that you have in 

doing the spectrum kind of measurements from space through the 

Mission to Plant Earth, geological surveys, just as we would in a 

‘‘go-to-space’’ look at other planets, the way we would look at our 

own, I think it would be very helpful because the point of these 

hearings is to work with other committees, to inform them as to 

what they need to be doing from our own hearings, and support 

their efforts as well, and I know many members of this committee, 

including myself, set on other committees. I sit on the Commerce 

Appropriations Committee that funds NOAA. I also sit on the committee that funds NASA, and we will be considering funding for 

new satellites, and also the schedule of launches and things of that 

sort, and it would be really good to have your input in those 

regards. 

Thank you. 

Mr. MYERS. Thank you. I would be happy to provide that. 

Mr. COSTA. The gentleman from Rhode Island, we are attempting—for your information—to possibly look at doing a joint subcommittee meeting with the Subcommittee on Oceans and Fisheries to look at those impacts, so it is not really quite of the purview of this subcommittee. But for the State of the—what did you 

refer to that—Oceans? 

Mr. KENNEDY. The Ocean State. 

Mr. COSTA. The Ocean State. OK. If we are able to work that 

out, you will obviously want to participate in that subcommittee 

hearing. 

All right, the next, my gentleman from New Mexico. 

Mr. PEARCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I only have one question 

and then I will probably yield back the rest of the time so we can 

get on to the second panel, and Mr. Myers, so you can stop smiling 

quite that big. 

21

What were the CO2 levels prior to the Industrial Revolution, and 

prior to the 1940s or whatever? I don’t know if I have the right terminology or not, but you know what I am talking about. People are 

saying that since the industrialization the levels have really 

jumped. 

Mr. COSTA. It would be the Nineteenth Century, aren’t we talking about? Not the 1940s? Two hundred years? 

Mr. PEARCE. The 1940s are key. 

Mr. MYERS. Certainly below 300 parts per million in, I believe, 

around the 250 range. 

Mr. PEARCE. About 250, and then they are what today? 

Mr. MYERS. They are again 385. 

Mr. PEARCE. OK, so 385 versus 250. What would happen if that 

number were significantly changed, that pre-industrial number, 

that 1940s number? What would happen if that were say 380? 

What would that do to all the models? 

First of all, is the actual science occurring by measurement or 

models? 

Mr. PEARCE. The actual parts per million in the atmosphere 

today, and then back-casting in the geological record through ice 

cores is in actual measurements. 

Mr. PEARCE. OK, those are actual measurement, but the conclusions, are those models or are those actual demonstrated scientific 

effects? 

Mr. MYERS. The future projections? 

Mr. PEARCE. Yes. 

Mr. MYERS. Those are modeled. 

Mr. PEARCE. OK. So now then obviously if that number was not 

250 like you said but was a higher number, say 380, what if it is 

almost exactly the same as today, how would that change the models? Significantly or not significantly? 

Mr. MYERS. Mr. Pearce, for what period of time? For a long period of time or just a blip? 

Mr. PEARCE. No. You would know that better than I do. Just all 

the assumptions that are being made, what if that assumption is 

wrong? What is the assumption is low, and what if the actual fact 

is closer to 380? 

Mr. MYERS. Certainly there are times in the geologic records 

that——

Mr. PEARCE. No, no, no. I am asking—that is not my question. 

Mr. MYERS. OK. 

Mr. PEARCE. My question is what if that is an inaccurate number? What does it do to the models? Does it affect them drastically 

or not drastically. From my standing up here, it appears like a significant piece of the equation? 

Mr. MYERS. Mr. Pearce, I don’t know. We would have to rerun 

the models. Again, that would be—generally the GS does not run 

those models. It would have to be Encars or some other——

Mr. PEARCE. OK. You are testifying here the—I mean, you are 

putting strong words in the testimony, and so it is kind of a key 

thing. You did state that human activity is causing global warming, and if that number were different, would that change that 

statement? 

22

Mr. MYERS. What I said was human impacts are part of the global climate change and global warming. Certainly natural impacts 

are also part of it. 

Mr. PEARCE. All right. I am not trying to get—I mean we are trying to come up with the best that we can because we have to 

choose the right course of action for the whole country for a long 

period of time. If we choose incorrectly on either side, and so that 

to me appears to be a significant number, and if it is incorrect, 

then that is a significant change in our philosophical debate. 

Let me see. I will yield back, and thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COSTA. Maybe during the sequestration hearing, we will get 

a chance to examine those numbers. 

The next member is a person I have had the pleasure to serve 

with for many years, the gentlewoman from Southern California, 

Congresswoman Solis. 

Ms. SOLIS. Thank you, and thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having 

this very important hearing, and I am delighted that the discussion 

is centering on this important topic because, as you know, the 

Speaker did develop this select committee on energy independence 

and global warming. 

Obviously, for many, this is much more important than in locals 

that you would probably not even think of, and I want to kind of 

address myself to those core cities, the large cities in the United 

States, and to see if there is any data that is out there regarding 

any different trends in climate change as that has occurred over 

the last 20 or 30 years, partly because we see a large infusion of 

population in our inner cities, and different rural areas that are 

now being more heavily occupied. 

What does that mean for the future, not just in the Southwest, 

but in those heavily populated areas where perhaps our infrastructure needs aren’t quite there? 

Mr. MYERS. Thank you for that question. I think you can categorize it in different areas. Among the Gulf Coast or the Southeast Coast where hurricanes are a significant factor, in fact, the severity of hurricanes are increasing, then the civil preparedness 

needs to be looked at with respect to larger storms and have typically been modeled. A Katrina-level storm, for example, it certainly 

wasn’t modeled for with respect to the level of storm surge because 

we hadn’t demonstrated that level of storm. So certainly severity 

of storm needs to be looked at, and the effect on coastal environments. 

Sea level rise is an issue in those areas that are very low lying, 

and with respect to the populated areas in large cities that are in 

these low-lying areas. 

In the West, water availability would be an issue as we see 

changes in the distribution, the amount of snow pack, and the 

availability of water, and competition for use of that water. 

Ms. SOLIS. In the Southwest, and especially in Southern California, we have had a very unseasonably warm winter, and here, 

so to speak, as well in the Northeast. But it has a general high impact with respect to the use of energy, and the flow of that energy, 

and I am just wondering, are there models where we might be able 

to predict where we are going to see drought and severe types of 

weather where in California, for example, at this particular time 

23

we are seeing outbursts of fire, uncontrolled fire that is affecting 

many parts of the southern part of the state? 

Mr. MYERS. Certainly there are models now. The models that we 

have need improvement in terms of being effective regional models, 

and that is being looked at. I think that is one of the future research areas. 

As was talked about before, understanding the variability in 

climate from an historical perspective and then from a geological 

perspective allows to very fine tune those models with the observational data, and hopefully will be able to actual have shorter-term 

models that have utility with respect to water availability supply 

in the future. 

Ms. SOLIS. Do you plot out that information right now based on 

geography and demographics? 

Mr. MYERS. Certainly the regulatory bodies do, like the Bureau 

of Reclamation in the West. They are pretty careful about that. We 

actually record, for instance, stream gauge data, the long-term 

stream gauge record, and use that to look at the amount of discharge and the predictable, not only season by season, but year by 

year over a long-term record. 

We also look, in doing the science with respect to groundwater 

and groundwater availability, soil moisture. 

Ms. SOLIS. All right. One of the concerns that I have is someone 

representing a more suburban/urbanized area is that recently 

many of our cities, I would say well over—I believe it is 409—have 

agree through their own, I guess, discussions, the Conference on 

Mayors passing protocols and goals and standards to try to mitigate the negative effects of global warming and climate change in 

their cities, and I am wondering what can we do in terms of the 

Federal government to help provide our states amply and our cities 

with information that they might be able to include in their general 

planning and things of that nature. 

Mr. MYERS. I think there is two thrusts. One is the water availability, the ability to develop models, the ability to help predict so 

you can have a predictable understanding of the availability of 

water, the changes in the biomes, but also on the hazards front, 

work to help predict, and in the case of some of the coastal states 

that have earthquake effects, what happens when the aqueducts 

get broken? You know, what is the combination effects? What is the 

fire, earthquake risk, and then combine it with the availability of 

water? 

So I think a lot of that work the survey has been involved with 

that with a lot of the local communities, and I think that is an incredibly valuable and important service. Again, as the adaptation 

component to recognize climate changes are occurring, and what 

those effects might be in urban areas. 

Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Chairman, I know my time is up, but I would like 

to for the record enter in a report by the Conference of Mayors that 

was issued in Chicago 2005, wherein there is an outline of what 

many of our local communities and cities have done across the 

country. In many ways they are far ahead of the game than we are, 

if I might. 

Mr. COSTA. All right, without objection. 

24

[NOTE: The report submitted for the record has been retained in 

the Committee’s official files.] 

Mr. COSTA. Congresswoman Solis, I also will reference, I don’t 

know if you will be able to say for the second panel, but Dr. 

Westerling is an associate professor at our newest UC campus in 

California, Merced, and his focus is the impact of research on, in 

part, forest fires, and their impact on climate changes, so that 

might be a good question you want to ask him at that time. 

All right, Mr. Myers, thank you. You are so prestigious to be a 

panel one. We appreciate your time and we need to get some of 

those maps. We are working on that, right? 

Mr. MYERS. We are working on it. 

Mr. COSTA. That is a totally different subject. 

Mr. MYERS. Yes. 

Mr. COSTA. But members of the Subcommittee and, of course, the 

Full Committee, know that the United States Geological Service is 

one of, I think, the best of map makers in the world, and they have 

tremendous information for us, and would urge the members of the 

Subcommittee as well as the Full Committee to avail themselves 

of the USGS information that they have. Anyway, thank you. 

Mr. MYERS. Thank you. 

Mr. COSTA. All right, our next panel, we have six members, I believe, on that panel, and if you will all come forward. I am going 

to go through the list of the six witnesses, and then we will begin 

with our rounding questioning, and the first witness that we have 

before us is Ms. Deborah Williams, who is President of the Alaska 

Conservation Solutions, and a former Special Assistant to the Department of Interior as it relates to Alaska, and it is my understanding that while she is originally from California, she for the 

last 20 years has adopted Alaska as her state. So with that understanding, we will begin with you, Ms. Williams, if you are ready 

to go. 

I want to apologize to the members, by the way, of the kind of 

setup here. Members, I like to have—when witnesses have the 

multimedia stuff, but we are kind of handicapped in this room. It 

is far away and it is hard to see. In the future, we will try to also 

have handouts that complement whatever presentation folks are 

making. It is what it is this afternoon. 

STATEMENT OF DEBORAH WILLIAMS, PRESIDENT, ALASKA 

CONSERVATION SOLUTIONS, FORMER SPECIAL ASSISTANT 

TO THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ALASKA 

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

Global warming represents the single greatest threat to Alaska’s 

public lands and to the people who rely on those public lands. The 

impacts from global warning in Alaska are scientifically measurable, costly, damaging to Alaska Native cultures, harmful to treasured plants and animals, and detrimental to future generations of 

Americans. 

Fortunately, we can successfully address this tremendous problem utilizing multiple strategies, including the rapid deployment of 

renewable energy resources. 

My name is Deborah Williams. I am President of Alaska Conservation Solutions, and formerly served as a Special Assistant to 

25

the Secretary of Interior for Alaska. I have also been asked to testify on behalf of the Alaska Conservation Alliance, representing 

40 organizations with a combined membership of over 38,000 Alaskans. 

Alaska is very significant with respect to global warming on public lands for two reasons: 

First, Alaska contains a substantial percentage of our nation’s 

public lands. For example, Alaska contains approximately 50 percent of all the lands that the Department of Interior manages. 

Also, Alaska is warming faster than anywhere else in the nation. 

In the last 50 years, we have warmed 4 degrees Fahrenheit according to the National Assessment Synthesis team, while the rest of 

the globe has warmed 1 degree. 

As described more fully in my 12-page testimony, the impacts in 

the last frontier from global warming are pervasive, damaging, and 

include, to name a few, dramatic declines in sea ice, glaciers and 

permafrost, significant losses in ponds and lakes. In fact, in some 

public lands in Alaska, we have lost over 54 percent of the ponds. 

They have completely dried up. 

We have had substantial reductions in wetlands. We have had 

measurable and pervasive decreases in tree growth, record-breaking tree diseases, and we have had massive fire seasons. In two 

years alone, in 2004 and 2005, 11 million acres of Alaska burned. 

We have had substantial increases in certain diseases that have 

caused declines in certain animal populations such as salmon, and 

most notably, in King salmon in the Yukon River. The Yukon River 

in Alaska has increased over 10 degrees Fahrenheit in the last 25 

years, and that has resulted in new terrible diseases for our salmon 

populations. 

We have had adverse impacts on Alaska Native subsistence and 

other peoples’ subsistence. We have had ocean acidification. We 

have had damage to and loss of infrastructure, and we have had 

adverse impacts on health for Alaskans throughout the state. 

Because of this committee’s jurisdiction, I wanted to highlight 

three impacts that demand protective action with respect to nonrenewable resource development. As this committee know. polar 

bears in Alaska are deeply threatened. They have experienced 

drownings, dislocation from sea ice, cannibalism, starvation, smaller skull size, and significantly higher cub mortality. Furthermore, 

polar bears are now denning primarily on land instead of ice. 

Therefore, first recommendation: Protecting the coastal plain of 

the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge which supports the highest concentration of polar bear denning sites in our nation is more important than here. 

The Bering Sea, which is our nation’s fish basket, is experiencing 

significant declines. Recommendation: Because this tremendously 

important asset and ecosystem, which provides almost 50 percent 

of all the fish produced in our nation, is undergoing stresses from 

global warming, Congress, through the recommendation of this 

committee, should re-institute the moratorium on offshore oil and 

gas production as soon as possible. 

Global warming is causing accelerated shoreline erosion, and as 

a result is redefining our public land maps in Alaska. For instance, 

Newtok has lost two to three miles of shoreline in the last 

26

40 years. The critical habitat area north of Teshekpuk Lake, in the 

northeast corner of the National Petroleum Reserve Alaska, is already losing low elevation lakes to rising ocean. This inundation 

not only affects habitat, it is also affecting oil and gas infrastructure. At least one older drilling site in the National Petroleum Reserve is now under water. 

The third recommendation: This committee should order a study 

to examine the threats to oil and gas infrastructure and past drilling sites on public lands in Alaska from inundation caused by global warming, particularly within the National Petroleum Reserve. 

Unfortunately, there were wonderful representatives from Utah, 

Shishmaref, and Kivalina, the three communities most at risk and 

that must be relocated now who were here for this committee, they 

had to leave. But on their behalf we truly need this committee to 

recommend and Congress to help relocate these communities, and 

as a nation we have a moral obligation to relocate them. 

Now for the good news. Fortunately, Alaska has a very positive 

role to play in the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. As described fully in the Renewable Energy Atlas of Alaska, Alaska has 

outstanding and inexhaustible geothermal wind, biomass, wave, 

tidal, and hydro electric energy supplies. There are some exciting 

developments in Alaska regarding renewable energy, but there 

needs to be much more done. Congress needs to assist Alaska, the 

nation, and the world in developing renewable energy potential. I 

would like to highlight three recommendations in that regard. 

Geothermal, wind and ocean: With respect to wind, Congress 

should support the work of the Denali Commission and others in 

the instillation of wind generation capacity throughout Alaska, and 

throughout the nation. We also have the potential for wind to create hydrogen for local use and ultimately for export. That is something that this committee can recommend. 

With respect to biodiesel, there is tremendous potential with respect to biodiesel, and that is something both in Alaska and 

throughout the Nation that this committee should recommend and 

we should explore. 

And geothermal, this committee should quickly and decisively 

support expanded geothermal research and power production, including supporting Senator Murkowski’s REFRESH Act of 2007, 

and finally, ocean power. With our 34,000 miles of coastline, more 

than the rest of the nation, in Alaska, we offer one of the best wave 

resources and tidal resources in the world. 

Final recommendation: Congress needs to support the research 

and financial assistance associated with developing a renewable 

wave and tidal energy as soon as possible. MIT and others have recently come out with reports strongly recommending this. 

We, in America, are indeed a great people. It is time to address 

the tremendously destructive reality of unaddressed global warming, and seize the wonderful opportunities associated with renewable energy, energy conservation and energy efficiency. 

Mr. COSTA. Thank you, Ms. Williams. 

Ms. WILLIAMS. One last sentence? 

Mr. COSTA. One last sentence. 

Ms. WILLIAMS. That is it. 

Mr. COSTA. You got a little more time than——

27

Ms. WILLIAMS. I know. Wasn’t that fabulous. 

With this committee’s assistance——

Mr. COSTA. Well, but I am supposed to be even-handed in this. 

Ms. WILLIAMS. This is indeed my one last sentence, and thank 

you so much, Mr. Chairman. 

With this committee’s assistance, we can and must move toward 

a clean and renewable energy path to protect the Nation and the 

public lands that we cherish. 

Thank you so much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Williams follows:]

Statement of Deborah L. Williams, President,

Alaska Conservation Solutions 

It is an honor to testify before the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources about the significant, pervasive, and costly impacts that climate change is 

having on public lands in Alaska, and Alaska’s potential renewable energy contributions to the nation. As described more fully below, global warming represents the 

single greatest threat to Alaska’s public lands, and to the people who rely on those 

public lands. Fortunately, renewable energy from Alaska and elsewhere will benefit 

our environment, our economy, and our national security. Accordingly, I urge this 

Subcommittee to expand renewable energy opportunities and to support other actions to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to protect our public lands in response 

to global warming. 

I. Alaska’s Public Lands and Global Warming: We are the Paul Revere of 

Climate Change 

More than anywhere else in the United States, Alaska has experienced widespread, adverse impacts from global warming, which are negatively affecting our 

public lands and our public resources. These impacts are well documented and representative of many of the substantial human and economic costs associated with 

climate change. Alaska serves as an early warning system for the rest of the nation 

and world. We demonstrate clearly the need to recognize the assault of BTUs associated with global warming—and the imperative to take action now. 

A. Alaska’s Public Lands: Their scope and contributions. Alaska is very significant 

with respect to global warming on public lands for two reasons. First, Alaska contains a substantial percentage of our nation’s public lands:

National Park acreage: 

BLM Public Lands: 

National Forest Service Lands: 

National Wildlife Refuge: 

approximately 68% in Alaska 

approximately 33% in Alaska 

approximately 11% in Alaska 

approximately 83% in Alaska 

There are also many other public land superlatives that apply to Alaska. Alaska 

hosts the largest National Forest (the Tongass), the largest National Wildlife Refuge 

(the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge), and the largest National Park (Wrangell-St. 

Elias National Park). Approximately half of the nation’s congressionally designated 

wilderness resides in Alaska. Our vast public lands nourish species that migrate to 

states throughout the nation. Of particular importance, Alaska’s public lands nourish vibrant Alaska Native cultures through fish and wildlife subsistence opportunities, a unique and priceless relationship. Others in Alaska and throughout the nation benefit from Alaska’s public lands, and the fish and wildlife that these lands 

sustain, through tourism; ecosystem services; recreational opportunities; existence 

values; the support of beloved and irreplaceable ecosystems (such as the temperate 

rainforest) and species (such as the polar bear); and other services. Alaska’s national 

public lands are a priceless national asset. 

B. Alaska Has Warmed Four Times More than the Global Average. Alaska is also 

significant because we have warmed much more than the rest of the nation, and 

we are able to document scientifically and with traditional knowledge dramatic impacts throughout the state. While the earth as a whole has warmed approximately 

1o F in the last 50 years, according to the National Assessment Synthesis Team, 

Alaska has warmed approximately 4o F during this same time period. The impacts 

in the Last Frontier are pervasive and include, with respect to public lands, damage 

to: Alaska’s water bodies and wetlands; vegetation; ice, glaciers, and permafrost; 

28

animals; and subsistence opportunities. Because of global warming, Alaska has also 

experienced damage to our infrastructure, health, economy, and quality of life. 

In this testimony, after a brief background section, I will describe the major scientific evidence regarding the impacts of global warming on public lands and related 

resources, and I will make recommendations to the Subcommittee associated with 

certain section as appropriate. Attached to this testimony is a comprehensive bibliography of the sources that support the factual information presented. 

II. Background 

I currently serve as President of Alaska Conservation Solutions, located in Anchorage, Alaska. Founded in 2005, Alaska Conservation Solution (AkCS) exclusively 

addresses the impacts of and solutions to global warming, with a focus on Alaska. 

As President of AkCS, I have extensively toured the state of Alaska. In this capacity, I have not only observed the clear, dramatic impacts of global warming on our 

public lands, but I have also talked with federal land managers, scientists, Alaska 

Natives, and others about the impacts that they are measuring, documenting and 

observing. Furthermore, I have had the opportunity to work with many groups, companies and individuals regarding Alaska’s renewable energy potential and contributions. 

In the past, I have had the privilege of working for the Department of Interior, 

and have been extensively engaged in public land issues. Upon graduating from 

Harvard Law School in 1978, I participated in the Department of Interior’s Solicitor’s Honors Program in Washington DC. After the completion of the program, I 

transferred to Alaska to represent the National Park Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service in the Department of Interior’s Regional Solicitor’s Office in Anchorage. 

Subsequently, in 1995, I received a Presidential Appointment as the Special Assistant to the Secretary of Interior for Alaska. In this position, I managed the Secretary’s office in Alaska, the only such office outside of Washington, DC, and assisted the Secretary in overseeing the Department’s extensive legislative mandates 

in the 49th state. I held this position for five years. Among my many responsibilities, I was actively engaged in public lands issues, subsistence matters, and climate 

change. 

III. The Adverse Impacts of Climate Change on Alaska’s Public Water 

Bodies and Wetlands 

Because of global warming, water bodies throughout Alaska’s public lands are 

shrinking substantially in size and numbers. In an exhaustive study of 10,000 

closed ponds, scientists with the University of Alaska have documented a significant 

loss in the number of ponds, and in the surface area of those ponds, in key public 

land areas in the last half of the 20th century. For example, Innoko Flats National 

Wildlife Refuge lost 30% of its ponds during the last fifty years and experienced a 

total pond surface area loss of 31%. Similarly, the Copper River Basin, Wrangell St. 

Elias National Park, lost 28% of its pond surface water area in the last half century. 

Tetlin National Wildlife Refuge lost 20% of its ponds. According to the scientists, 

these dramatic changes present 

‘‘profound consequences for provisioning services and the management of 

natural resources on National Wildlife Refuges in Alaska...These refuges 

provide breeding habitat for millions of waterfowl and shorebirds that winter in more southerly regions of North America. Wetland areas have also 

been traditionally important in the subsistence lifestyles of native peoples 

in interior Alaska, and changes in the structure and function of wetlands 

has the potential to affect the sustainability of subsistence lifestyles’’ 

(Riordan 2006). 

Similarly, wetlands in studied areas in the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge have 

decreased by 88% and pond area has declined by over 70% from 1950 to 1996. According to evidence from peat core samples, bushes are now in areas in the Kenai 

where there were no trees or shrubs during the last 8,000 to 12,000 years. These 

and other scientific studies confirm reports of disappearing and shrinking ponds 

from Alaska Native elders, with many ramifications including adverse impacts on 

migratory birds, water dependent species, subsistence opportunities, and fire. 

There are other documented impacts from global warming on Alaska’s public waterways, the ‘‘life blood line’’ of Alaska’s public lands. Rivers, like the Yukon River, 

have warmed substantially. According to temperature graphs produced by Dr. 

Richard Kocan from the University of Washington, the summer temperature of the 

Yukon River has increased over 10oF in the last 25 years. (The impact of this increase on salmon is discussed below.) Also, massive collapses of river-side permafrost are increasing sedimentation in the waterways. Unfortunately, however, we 

have very little information about the warming. Recommendation 1: There is 

29

inadequate stream and river monitoring data regarding temperatures and resulting 

impacts; Congress should fund additional monitoring, analysis and management 

response in this critical area. 

IV. The Adverse Impacts of Climate Change on Vegetation on Alaska’s 

Public Land 

A. Trees. Trees throughout Alaska’s public lands have been adversely affected by 

global warming, including white and black spruce, yellow cedar, birch and larch. According to a study that analyzed thousands of satellite images taken over two decades, there are vast reaches of boreal forest on our public lands where photosynthesis has clearly decreased over the last 22 years. In central Alaska where it is 

dry, white spruce and black spruce have shown documented declines in growth. Projecting forward, a 4oC increase in July temperatures would result in no growth of 

these species in much of interior Alaska (Please see Figures 1 and 2). 

Trees throughout Alaska are also subject to substantially increased diseases because of warmer temperatures. Southcentral Alaska experienced the world’s largest 

outbreak of spruce bark beetle, killing mature trees on over 4 million acres of land, 

including vast forests in the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge, the Chugach National 

Forest, Lake Clark National Park, and other areas. Three global warming factors 

contributed to this. With longer warmer summers the spruce bark beetle can complete its life cycle in one instead of two years. Winter temperatures have not been 

cold enough for two consecutive years to depress survival rates. Lastly, the trees 

have not been able to defend themselves with sufficient pitch because of the stress 

of heat and drought. 

Other serious warming-related diseases that have damaged or killed large numbers of trees on public lands include the larch saw fly, spruce bud worm, birch leaf 

miner, aspen leaf miner, spruce aphid, and birch leaf rollers. For example, before 

1990, spruce budworm was not able to reproduce in central Alaska. After warming 

in the 1990’s, large infestations of budworms have occurred. With increased warming, all white spruce in Alaska will be vulnerable to outbreaks. Furthermore, trees 

in Southeast Alaska, including in the Tongass National Forest, are now, with warming, harboring aphid infestations. 

In Southeast Alaska’s Tongass National Forest, scientists have documented a 

massive die-off of yellow cedar on over 500,000 acres of land. Many consider yellow 

cedar the Tongass National Forest’s most valuable tree both economically and culturally. Because of warmer temperatures, there has been less snow to protect the 

tree roots and also early dehardening of the foliage. Then, when a subsequent late 

freeze occurs, the foliage and roots are severely injured, leading to tree death. 

B. Fires. Vegetation on Alaska’s public lands has also been impacted by record 

breaking fire seasons. In 2004, over 6.6 million acres burned, the largest Alaska fire 

season ever documented. In 2005, approximately 4.6 million acres of Alaska burned, 

the third largest area ever recorded. (Please see Figure 3). Cumulatively, during 

these two years, over 25% of the forests in the northeast sector of Alaska perished. 

These burn rates are entirely consistent with global warming models and predictions. Some of the public lands most impacted by massive, global warming enhanced fires are Kanuti and Tetlin National Wildlife Refuges. 

C. Invasive Species. Finally, because of warming, Alaska’s public lands and waters 

are now subject to increasing threats from invasive species. Plants that could not 

previously reproduce in a colder Alaska can now do so with our warmer climate. 

One example is Purple Loosestrife. This plant is an aggressive invader of wetlands, 

and a serious threat to habitat and biodiversity. It requires warm temperatures for 

germination (15-20C), and now, for the first time, can reproduce in Alaska waterways. 

V. Dramatic Reductions in Ice, Glaciers and Permafrost, and their Impacts 

on Public Lands 

A. The Arctic Ice Cap. The Arctic Ice Cap is a key ecological component of our 

nation’s northernmost public marine environment and the adjacent public lands: the 

Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and the National Petroleum Reserve—Alaska. There 

was a record low amount of Arctic sea ice in September 2005. Between 1979 and 

2005, an area twice the size of Texas has melted away, over a 20% decrease in the 

minimum summer area. It has since failed to fully recover. In November 2006, ice 

coverage was the lowest ever recorded for that month. Another way of stating this 

substantial loss is that, according to the IPCC, ‘‘since 1978...(the) annual average 

Arctic sea ice extent has shrunk by 2.7 (2.1 to 3.3)% per decade, with larger decreases in summer of 7.4 (5.0 to 9.8)% per decade.’’ Throughout the Arctic Ice Cap, 

the thickness has also decreased on average by 40%. Arctic ice is critical habitat 

30

for polar bears, ice seals, walruses, certain species of bird, and other animals. It is 

also essential for the traditional subsistence activities of Alaska’s Inupiat people. 

Equal to any other evidence, the projected modeling of the future of the Arctic 

Ice Cap supports the importance taking meaningful action now to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The modeling shows that if we continue to increase emissions 

of greenhouse gases that the Arctic Ice Cap, and the entire critical habitat that it 

fosters, could be eliminated as early as 2040. However, that same modeling shows 

that if we substantially reduce emissions, we can save the Arctic Ice Cap and even 

expect some recovery. In other words, according to Dr. Marika Holland with the National Center for Atmospheric Research, their modeling ‘‘indicates that society can 

still minimize the impacts on Arctic ice.’’ Recommendation 2: Explore further the 

emission reduction scenarios that will, according to modeling, help sustain the Arctic Ice Cap, and support legislation that achieves those reductions. 

B. Glaciers. The rapid retreat of Alaska’s glaciers represents about 50% of the estimated mass loss by glaciers through 2004 worldwide. Between 1961 and 1998, 

Alaska and a small part of Canada lost over 588 billion cubic yards of glacial mass. 

In southeast Alaska, glacier surface elevations decreased over 95% of the area analyzed, with some glaciers thinning in a 52 year period by as much as 640 m (approximately 2,100 feet). The loss of Alaska’s glaciers alone has contributed over 9% 

to global sea level rise. 

Glaciers are an important component of many of Alaska’s public lands, ecologically, aesthetically, recreationally, and for tourism. Repeatedly, Alaska tourists 

list glaciers as one of the top three reasons they visit the state. Unfortunately, many 

of our most visited glaciers are retreating quickly and significantly. An entire U.S. 

Forest Service Visitor Center was built on a site to view the Portage Glacier in the 

Chugach National Park. That glacier is no longer visible from the visitor center. The 

most observed glacier in Alaska, the Mendenhall Glacier in the Tongass National 

Forest, has retreated hundreds of feet a year, and is projected to recede from its 

frequently photographed lake terminus. 

Rapidly retreating glaciers disrupt both fish and birds associated with our public 

lands. Sockeye salmon fry in Skilak Lake, part of Kenai National Wildlife Refuge, 

showed substantial declines in size in two recent years of large glacial melting. Fry 

in 2004 were about 50% smaller than average for the prior decade; fry in 2005 were 

60% smaller. Similarly, the Kittlitz’s murrelet, which feeds at the edge of glaciers, 

declined 60% between 1991 and 1999 in Glacier Bay National Park and declined 

83% since 1976 in Kenai Fjords National Park (Please see Kittlitz murrelets photo, 

Photo 1). 

C. Permafrost. With respect to permafrost, all of the observatories in Alaska, on 

both public and private lands, have shown a substantial warming during the last 

20 years, often resulting in damage to infrastructure, rivers, shorelines, lakes, and 

forests. (Please see Photo 2 demonstrating damage to National Wildlife Refuge forests from melting permafrost). In locations such as Franklin Bluff on the North 

Slope, the top layer of permafrost has warmed 3oC between 1987 and 2003. Notably, 

the warming of permafrost has penetrated great depths, with observations of 2oC 

warming 60 feet under the ground. One should note that melting and warming permafrost also makes the construction of oil and gas infrastructure more difficult and 

costly. 

VI. The Impact of Global Warming on Animals Associated with Alaska’s 

Public Lands 

Whether on ice, land, or water, animals throughout Alaska, have experienced declines due to global warming within our public areas. 

A. Polar Bears and Other Ice Dependent Species. Polar bears rely on sea ice for 

their survival, including feeding, mating, and resting. Because of global warming, 

Alaskan polar bears have experienced less ice, drownings, dislocation from sea ice, 

cannibalism, starvation, smaller skull size, and higher cub mortality. Similar ice 

conditions and trends in the Western Hudson Bay population in Canada have resulted in a 22% population decline in 17 years. In the last fifteen years, the population of Southern Beaufort Sea polar bears has been estimated to be as high as 

2,500 bears, and then 1,800 bears. Recently, using the most rigorous surveying 

methodology to date, the population is believed to be only 1,526 bears. 

The decrease in sea ice jeopardizes this iconic national species. The impacts include a statistically significant decline in the survival rate for first year polar bear 

cubs in the southern Beaufort Sea from 61 cubs per 100 adult females between 

1967-89 to 25 cubs per 100 adult females between 1990-2006. Furthermore, skull 

measurements of both first year cubs and adult males were also statistically significantly smaller. Previously, between 1979 and 1991when there was more ice, 87% 

of Alaska polar bears surveyed were found on sea ice. This percentage fell to 33% 

31

from 1992 to 2004. This, and increased storm intensity, have contributed to documented drownings. 

Finally, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge coastal plain and other coastal areas 

are becoming more important to the survival of this species. Between 1985 and 

1994, 62% of Alaska polar bears denned on ice. That has shifted dramatically. 

Between 1998 and 2004, only 37% denned on ice, the rest denned on land. The Arctic Refuge supports the highest concentration of polar bear denning sites for our nation. 

As a result of the all the evidence the World Conservation Union (IUCN) in 2006 

classified polar bears as vulnerable, concluding that five populations, including Alaska’s southern Beaufort Sea population. Recommendation 3: The House Natural Resources Committee should support listing polar bears as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Recommendation 4: As sea ice thins and retreats due to global warming, protecting the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is 

more important than ever to safeguard polar bear denning sites on public lands. 

Other Alaska ice dependent species are also showing signs of global warming 

stress. As ice pulls away from the continental shelf there are observations of walrus 

mothers having abandoned their calves. Further out on the ice, the snow cavities 

for some ring seals and other ice seals are collapsing with warming temperatures, 

exposing their young to predation or freezing. 

B. Salmon. Salmon populations in Alaska depend on public lands and these ecologically, economically and culturally significant species are adversely affected by increased temperatures. One of the state’s most important rivers with respect to public lands, the mighty Yukon, flows through or is adjacent to multiple parks and refuges, including the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge (our nation’s second largest refuge), Innoko National Wildlife Refuge and Yukon Flats National Wildlife Refuge. In the last 25 years, the Yukon has warmed more than 10oF in summer 

months. As a result, up to 45% of Yukon salmon are now infected with the parasite 

Icthyophonus, never found before 1985. This disease weakens fish because it attacks 

heart and skeletal muscle tissue. It also prevents the drying of fish, making infected 

fish inedible as fish-rack dried subsistence foods, a critical component of many Alaska Native diets. 

Global warming has also adversely affected other public land dependent salmon. 

After the warm summer of 2004, the pink salmon harvest in Southeast Alaska, 

which mostly relies on the Tongass National Forest, was dramatically lower than 

predicted in 2006. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G) had forecast 

a purse seine catch of 52 million. According to ADF&G, the actual harvest was only 

11.4 million, 40 million less than predicted. Officials with ADF&G targeted warmer 

temperatures as the cause. Fewer salmon are bad for fisherman, the fishing economy, and the entire ecosystem, which relies on abundant salmon runs for nutrition 

and nutrients. 

ADF&G has established standards for water temperatures, concluding that temperatures above 55oF are unhealthy for spawning areas. In four streams monitored 

in Alaska’s salmon-rich Kenai Peninsula in 2005, there were more than 80 days that 

exceeded this temperature threshold. (Please see Figure 4). 

C. Ungulates. Other species on our public lands are also experiencing declines because of global warming. The Porcupine Caribou herd, which relies on the Arctic 

National Wildlife Refuge as well as public lands in Canada, has experienced a population decline since 1989 of 3.5% per year to a low of 123,000 animals in 2001.’’ 

(ACIA 2004) Scientists believe this is attributable to global warming caused by 

freezing rain (which coats their lichen making it very hard to access in the winter), 

changing river conditions, and less tundra. 

For species that rely on high elevation ecosystems on public lands, they are also 

experiencing the impacts of global warming. For example, Dall sheep live exclusively in alpine tundra. Due to warmer temperatures, the treeline in the Kenai 

Mountains of the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge has risen at a rate of about 1 

meter/year over the past 50 years. According to Dr. John Morton, chief scientist 

with the Refuge, ‘‘...we’re going to have declining Dall sheep. We’re losing their 

habitat.’’

D. Bering Sea Species. Fish and other species in the Bering Sea, our nation’s fish 

basket, are also showing signs of impact. Because certain National Wildlife Refuge 

islands are surrounded by the Bering Sea and because many other Refuges and 

Parks are adjacent to the Bering Sea, the health of the Bering Sea has a major impact on them. The Northern Bering Sea is changing from arctic to subarctic conditions caused by warmer air and water temperatures, and less sea ice. Even bottom 

water temperatures are demonstrably increasing. As a result, the prey base of 

benthic (bottom) feeding walrus, endangered sea ducks like spectacled eiders, and 

gray whales is declining; snow crab catches have declined 85% in six years along 

32

with other crab decreases; and crab populations have shifted northward. Yellowfin 

sole and Greenland turbot catches have been dropping, in addition to declines in fur 

seals and seabirds. Some pollock are moving into cooler Russian waters because of 

global warming. Recent surveys have measured the first decrease in U.S. pollock 

stocks in Alaskan waters in six years, resulting in a reduction of the catch allotment. In short, warming waters are creating a northward migration of marine life 

on an unprecedented scale. Recommendation 5: Because the Bering Sea is so important to the nation for fishery production (including salmon, pollock, crab and halibut), for sustaining marine mammals, and for nourishing Alaska Natives and others; and because the Bering Sea is already being stressed by global warming, Congress should re-instate the Moratorium on off-shore oil and gas production. Instead, 

renewable energy options, such as wind, wave and geothermal should be fully explored and implemented. 

E. Migratory Birds. Unfortunately, in addition to the impacts described above, 

there are many more species of animals that reside on public lands, which are being 

adversely affected by global warming. Because of space constraints, I will discuss 

just one more: a representative migratory bird that touches many states in the 

union, the scaup. Population of these diving ducks appears ‘‘to be in peril’’ (Consensus Report 2006). They have declined from over 7 million in 1970s to a record 

low in 2006—3.2 million (Ducks Unlimited 2007). Why? We see the fingerprints of 

global warming, once again, with respect to Alaska public lands. Approximately 70% 

of these birds breed within western boreal forests, where there is the fastest rate 

of decline (94,000 birds per year [1978 to 2005]). These declines reflect breeding season events. There has been a19% wetland loss in Yukon Flats (1985-89 v. 2001-03). 

Recently, scientist have determined that where ponds lose 20% or more of their surface, there is a decline in scaup food sources such as amphipods, gastropods and 

chironomid larvae (Corcoran et. al 2007). Therefore, where there is more warming, 

less water, and less food, there are population declines. 

VII. Greater Storms, Sea Level Rise and Ocean Acidification from Global 

Warming and Their Impacts on Public Lands 

Global warming causes more intense ocean-based storms, not only in the Atlantic 

Ocean, but also in the Bering Sea and the Arctic Ocean. While in 2005 the nation 

focused on hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico, Western Alaska experienced a brutal 

storm, adversely affecting 34 communities and our public lands. The storm surge 

in Nome was 9 feet above normal high tides with waves of 12 to 15 feet. Newtok 

saw 5 to 10 feet of beach disappear along with equipment like a 1,000 gallon fuel 

tank. Unalakleet lost 10 to 20 feet of beach. 

Much less noticed, this global warming fueled storm also had a serious impact on 

public lands, including the Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge, one of the nation’s 

most important geese breeding areas. Because so much of the Refuge is low in elevation, it was heavily influenced by storm surges of at least 9 feet that inundated 

considerable areas of fresh water lakes and wetlands. As a result, animals such as 

lemmings were killed, and as a precaution, the Refuge instituted a large fox trapping program to reduce predator populations to protect geese eggs. Major storms 

have also damaged Fish and Wildlife property. 

More generally, because global warming in Alaska is resulting in accelerated 

shoreline erosion, melting permafrost and greater flooding, global warming is redefining our public land maps in Alaska. Some shorelines have retreated more than 

1500 feet over past few decades, and in one area in Western Alaska, Newtok lost 

2-3 miles of shore in 40 years. The critical habitat area north of Teshekpuk Lake 

in the northeast corner of the NPR-A, is already losing low elevation lakes, as the 

ocean breaches their boundaries and erases previous land masses. This inundation 

not only affects habitat, in some places on Alaska’s North Slope, it is also affecting 

past and current oil and gas infrastructure. Older drilling sites in the National Petroleum Reserve—Alaska are now under water. Recommendation 6: Study the likely 

threats to oil and gas infrastructure and past drilling sites on public lands in Alaska, especially on or adjacent to the National Petroleum Reserve, from inundation 

caused by global warming. 

Notably, according to a General Accounting Office estimate, approximately 184 

communities in Alaska are at risk from flooding and erosion. In response to a Congressional request, the Army Corps of Engineers issued a report detailing relocation 

needs for seven Alaska coastal communities. The report estimates that Shishmaref, 

Kivalina and Newtok have only 10 to 15 years left at their present storm-battered 

locations, and predicts that it will cost as much as $355 million to move them. This 

cost estimate does not include the social upheaval associated with relocating, as in 

the case of Shishmaref, from a special location that has been occupied for over 4,000 

years by a culturally recognized tribe. Because most of these communities are surVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:52 Jul 31, 2007 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\34820.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
33

rounded by public lands, their moves will have consequences to these lands, in many 

cases requiring land exchanges (as was necessary with Newtok), road access, and 

other responses. Recommendation 7: Our nation has a moral responsibility to assist 

in and finance these moves in a culturally and environmentally sound manner, 

while at the same time insuring that the impacts on our public lands are minimized. 

In this appropriations cycle, Congress should insure adequate funding for planning 

and initial relocation efforts for the communities of Shishmaref, Kivalina, and 

Newtok, while determining future funding sources for these relocation needs. 

Ocean Acidification. The acidification of our oceans is probably the least studied—

but unquestionably represents one of the direst consequences—associated with 

human emissions of carbon dioxide. Since the Industrial Revolution, humans have 

increased the acidity of our oceans by over 30% as we have augmented the amount 

of CO2 in our atmosphere from approximately 270 ppm to 380 ppm. Scientists are 

just beginning to understand the effects of current and projected acidification. Alaska’s waters, and associated public lands and resources, will probably be the most 

negatively effected. For example, acidification dissolves food chain building blocks 

like the plankton known as pteropods, which are critical food sources for Alaska 

salmon fry and other species. Acidification also reduces the saturation of carbonate 

ions, which especially represents a very serious problem for deep water corals found 

offshore of many of Alaska’s public lands, including the Alaska Maritime National 

Wildlife Refuge. Recommendation 8: Congress should definitely authorize more research on the status of and impacts from ocean acidification on our public resources 

and economy. 

VIII. Adverse Impacts of Global Warming on Alaska’s Oil and Gas Economy 

and Public Lands-Based Economies 

Many sectors of Alaska’s economy have been negatively impacted by global warming. The oil industry on Alaska’s North Slope has experienced a much shorter winter season in which it can build ice roads and otherwise traverse the tundra for exploratory and drilling activities (Please see Figure 5). Even in the summer, oil production on the North Slope has decreased due to warmer temperatures, since compressor efficiency is reduced. Gas compression is needed to reinject produced gas 

into the gas cap, and this process represents a major constraint on production rates, 

particularly with warmer temperatures. 

Fires and fishery losses due to global warming also have economic consequences 

for the nation. Fires are not only costly to health, but also to fight. The recordbreaking 2004 season in Alaska cost over $108 million, while in 2005 fire fighting 

cost $56 million. Representing a loss of tens of millions of dollars, the 6% pollock 

quota reduction is one of the many fishery economic losses associated with global 

warming. 

IX. Impacts of Global Warming on Indigenous Cultures, Subsistence 

Activities on Public Lands, and other Matters 

Because of their close connection with land, water, vegetation, animals, and 

weather conditions, Alaska Native cultures are experiencing many severe consequences from global warming. A large number of these impacts are associated 

with public lands, which surround most Alaska Native villages and have served as 

their hunting and gathering areas for millennia. According to the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, ‘‘Climate change is occurring faster than people can adapt. [It] is 

strongly affecting people in many communities, in some cases threatening their cultural survival.’’ The ACIA further notes: ‘‘...the Arctic is becoming an environment 

at risk...sea ice is less stable, unusual and highly variable weather patterns are occurring, vegetation cover is changing, and particular animals are no longer found 

in traditional hunting areas during specific seasons. Local landscapes, seascapes, 

and icescapes are becoming unfamiliar, making people feel like strangers in their 

own land.’’

The former Chair of the Inuit Circumpolar Conference, Sheila Watt-Cloutier summarizes it well when she states: ‘‘For the Inuit, climate change is a matter of livelihood, food, health, and individual and cultural survival. The erosion and potential 

destruction of our way of life brought about by climate change resulting from emission of greenhouse gases amounts to a violation of the fundamental human rights 

of Inuit.’’

Alaskans in rural areas, and especially Alaska Natives, are threatened with increased health problems associated with global warming, including giardia from expanding beaver populations, botulism when storing their food in warming soils, increasing accidents from thinner ice and more intense storms, failing water and 

sewer systems, greater incidences of paralytic seafood poisoning, and decreased 

availability of nutritious subsistence foods. Other health problems include resVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:52 Jul 31, 2007 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\34820.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
34

piratory stress due to increased smoke from fires. More generally, larger fires from 

global warming are also releasing sequestered mercury, especially in Alaska and 

Canada, at levels up to 15 times greater than previously estimated. 

Because of these grave, adverse impacts and threats, Alaska Natives have recently taken the opportunity to speak with a strong voice, stating that they are very 

detrimentally affected by global warming, that they are deeply concerned about the 

future of their subsistence way of life and their culture, and that they want Congress to take action to implement mandatory emission reductions. In the last few 

months, over 130 tribes, Native Corporations and major Alaska Native organizations—representing tens of thousands of Alaska Natives—have passed strongly 

worded separate Resolutions seeking meaningful legislative action (please see the 

representative resolution from the Alaska Federation of Natives that is appended 

to this testimony.) Congress has a responsibility to heed their compelling observations, meaningful experiences, significant concerns and justified request for action 

on global warming. 

X. The Future is in Our Hands 

The future course of global warming in Alaska depends on whether the United 

States and the rest of the world take the actions necessary to significantly reduce 

greenhouse gas emissions. If we do not, substantial warming is predicted (up to 

25oF by the end of the century). The probable consequences of this amount of warming are many, including: the elimination of the Arctic Ice cap, the extinction of 

American polar bears, the inundation of hundreds of thousands of acres of land and 

scores of communities, the loss of most of Alaska’s boreal forest, substantial increases in diseases, the significant decline and elimination of numerous arctic and 

subarctic species, the deterioration of our public lands, multiple adverse impacts on 

Alaska Native cultures, and the loss of billions of dollars of infrastructure. Notably, 

most scientists believe we still have time to avoid these cataclysmic changes, if we 

act to reduce emissions quickly and meaningfully. 

XI. Renewable Energy in Alaska—Our Contribution 

Fortunately, Alaska has a positive role to play in the reduction of greenhouse gas 

emissions. As described fully in the Renewable Energy Atlas of Alaska (accessible 

online at www.akenergyauthority.org), America’s northernmost state has outstanding and inexhaustible geothermal, wind, biomass, wave, tidal, and hydroelectric energy supplies. As the Renewable Energy Atlas states, ‘‘With some of the 

best renewable energy resources in the country, Alaska has an opportunity to be a 

leader in their development...’’

There are some early, exciting developments in Alaska regarding renewable energy, but there needs to be much more Congressional assistance to achieve Alaska’s 

renewable energy potential. 

A. Geothermal. Alaska has tremendous geothermal potential, both for direct use 

(including district heating, greenhouses, hydrogen production, absorption chilling, 

process heating in the seafood industry) and for electricity production. Currently 

there is an exciting example of geothermal use at Chena Hot Springs Resort that 

can serve as a model for many locations in Alaska as well as the nation and the 

world. Other large scale plants are also being investigated in Alaska. Recently, MIT 

issued a report declaring that geothermal power has tremendous potential for the 

United States, and needs more research and investment. Recommendation 9: Congress should quickly and decisively support expanded geothermal research and 

power production, including supporting Senator Murkowski’s REFRESH ACT of 

2007. 

B. Wind. Alaska has tremendous wind resources that are highly suitable for the 

generation of electricity and hydrogen in both urban and rural locations. Alaska’s 

first wind farm, located on the Northwest coast of Alaska, has been displacing a significant portion of the utility’s diesel fuel since 1997. To the south, a recently installed wind project in Toksook Bay is providing renewable energy to three communities. Wind power is economic, clean, local, and inexhaustible, and deserves considerable support as a major energy producer of the future. Recommendation 10: Congress should support the work of the Denali Commission and others in the installation of wind generation capacity, and also research the potential for wind to create 

hydrogen for local use, and ultimately for export. 

C. Ocean Power (Wave and Tidal). With our 34,000 miles of coastline (more than 

the rest of the nation), Alaska offers exciting opportunities for testing and implementing wave and tidal power. According to the Atlas of Renewable Energy, ‘‘Alaska 

has one of the best wave resources in the world, with parts of its Southcentral and 

Southeast coastlines averaging 60kW per meter of wave front. The total wave power 

flux on southern Alaska’s coast alone is estimated at 1,250 TWh per year, or almost 

35

300 times the amount of electricity Alaskans use every year!’’ Recommendation 11: 

Congress needs to support the research and financial assistance associated developing our renewable wave energy as soon as possible. 

D. Biomass. Two exciting biomass fuels in Alaska are fish byproducts and municipal waste. Recently, with government assistance, a major processor conducted successful tests of raw fish oil/diesel blends, and now uses approximately one million 

gallons of up to 70% fish oil for power production each year. There is much more 

potential. According to the Atlas, ‘‘currently state, federal and university groups are 

working together to assess the potential for recovering a portion of the estimated 

12 million gallons of fish oil returned to the ocean each year as fish processing 

waste’’. Recommendation 12: this research and analysis deserve to be supported, 

and other biofuel opportunities studied and implemented. With respect to waste 

product, Eielson Air Force Base densifies paper separated from the Fairbanks area 

waste stream and then uses the paper ‘‘cubes’’ at the base’s coal-fired power plant. 

Between 600 to 3,000 tons of this fuel have been produced per year in 1997. This 

possibility should be explored throughout the nation. 

XII. Conclusion 

The impacts from global warming on Alaska’s public lands are real, scientifically 

measurable, costly, damaging to Alaska Native cultures, harmful to treasured 

plants and animals, bad for the economy, and detrimental to future generations of 

Americans. 

Because of Alaska’s rich ecological and cultural heritage, there is much at stake 

in the Last Frontier as the planet warms. Alaska’s experiences with global warming 

are also informative to the rest of the nation. Going forward, Alaska represents a 

compelling reason to implement mandatory reductions on greenhouse gas emissions 

promptly and significantly, as we move toward a clean and renewable energy path 

with determination. 

[NOTE: Photographs have been retained in the Committee’s official files.]


34820.002a.eps
36


34820.002b.eps 34820.003a
37

Mr. COSTA. All right. I am going to accommodate Mr. Murray, 

who I understand has a time issue. He is the Chairman of Murray 

Energy Corporation. Mr. Murray, you are at the plate. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT E. MURRAY,

CHAIRMAN, MURRAY ENERGY CORPORATION 

Mr. MURRAY. Chairman Costa, Members of the Committee. 

Mr. COSTA. We need to get the microphone in there. There you 

go. 

Mr. MURRAY. Thank you for the invitation to provide this testimony this afternoon. 


34820.003b.eps 34820.004.eps
38

I am Bob Murray. I am the founder of Murray Energy Corporation from a mortgaged home. The United States of America is a 

wonderful country. 

Twenty years ago, today I have 3,000 employees working in the 

most depressed areas of the United States of America. Penn State 

University says for every one of these 3,000 employees up to 11 

secondary jobs are created to provide goods and services to our employees, so I am pleased to say that they tell me that I account for 

36,000 high-paying, well-benefitted jobs in America. We also mine 

32 million tons of coal a year, all from a mortgaged home, for 

American’s electric utilities. 

Our subject today is the implications of proposed carbon dioxide 

emission limits on public lands. We operate in Utah, 500 employees, UtahAmerican Energy, Inc., produce about 7 million tons a 

year, in Carbon and Emery Counties, and I can tell you these folks 

there are very, very happy to have these jobs, high-paying, wellbenefitted, and that is where they want to live. 

You see, Federal lands should not only have adequate stewardship for environmental purposes, but they also should be prudently 

developed to provide a high standard of living for our citizens. They 

and I are very threatened and troubled by the so-called global 

warming alarmism that is going on, whether carbon emission constraint measures, because they are going to have much worse adverse consequences to American citizens than what I have already 

experienced with the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. 

You see, so-called global warming alarmism is a human issue to 

me as well as an environmental one. The unfolding debate is totally skewed and one-sided, and it is preoccupied with possible 

speculative environmental disasters of climate change. Few are giving adequate attention to the destruction that we will definitely 

see, not speculative, for American working people from environmental climate change proposals that have been introduced in the 

Congress to date, every single one of them. 

Low-cost electricity is a staple of life today. A poll counts for 52 

percent of that electricity is by far the lowest cost electricity, onethird to one-fourth the cost of natural gas. The Energy Information 

Agency says that electricity consumption in our country will go up 

41 percent between now and 2030, and there is no other form of 

generating electricity in this country, and certainly not renewable 

that could replace this 52 percent of our electricity that coal accounts for. 

While we have been losing high-paying manufacturing jobs in 

America to foreign countries, you can imagine the havoc brought on 

our country as a result of curbing coal’s use or destroying its potential as a vital domestic fuel, which every singe piece of legislation 

introduced in this Congress to date does. 

Local tax base will be destroyed, standards of living will be destroyed, and communities will be wiped out. All these bills will 

throw the prospects for our citizens and their economies in a spiraling reverse. It is a human issue to me, ladies and gentlemen, because I know the names of the people whose lives will be destroyed 

as a result of this rampage to enact global warming legislation 

when the science is not certain. 

39

While some want us to believe that it is certain, it is really highly speculative, and I can tell you there is far more risk that these 

limits on carbon dioxide will destroy coal and manufacturing-dependent communities in this country and inflict great hardships on 

American families, that we know. 

Further carbon capture, transfer, and sequestration technologies 

have not been commercially developed, and the need of investment 

in them will be thwarted with these discussions of global warming 

legislation. Some wealthy elitists in our country who can’t tell fact 

from fiction can afford an Olympian detachment from the impacts 

of Draconian climate change policy. For them, the jobs and the 

dreams destroyed as a result will be nothing more than statistics, 

and the cares of other people. These consequences are abstractions 

to them, but they are not to me. I can name many of the thousands 

of the American citizens whose lives will be destroyed by these 

elitists ill-conceived global goofiness campaigns. 

A number of companies are promoting constraints on coal use to 

achieve greater profits and/or competitive advantages. These people 

are not acting, and these companies, in the best interest of America. To name some of them, General Electric, duPont, Alcoa, Caterpillar, Shell Oil, British Petroleum, Excelon Energy, and there are 

others. 

You see, ladies and gentleman, I have seen the effect of the 1990 

Clean Air Act Amendments, and the drastic reductions in coal production, and the wrenching impact on our communities. One hundred and eighteen mines were closed in Ohio, 36,000 primary and 

secondary jobs were lost, families broke up, many homes were lost, 

some were impoverished, and all this the environmentalists call 

success. 

I did not learn of this havoc from computer models, and I emphasize I didn’t learn it from computer models, I lived it. I lived it. I 

saw it firsthand. 

Now we are globally discussing mandatory carbon emission reductions which will be far more sweeping and far deeper reductions 

and wreck economic carnage on our quality of life and on our 

standard of living of many Americans. 

The impacts on the economy’s jobs and quality of life will not be 

equal around the country. Rather, the states that depend on coalfired electricity will be damaged the greatest. 

What will a worldwide environmental gain be from the pain that 

will be suffered on millions of Americans? Very little. Since 1990, 

U.S. greenhouse emissions have increased by 18 percent. China’s 

have increased by 77 percent. China’s emissions will surpass ours 

by 2009. China and India will emit twice as much carbon as the 

United States and the European Union, E-15, combined in 2050. 

The G-77 group of developing countries, led by China, which is 

building 50 new coal-fired power plants right now, again reiterated 

this winter that they will not agree to mandatory carbon emission 

constraints in a second Kyoto Round after 2012, nor have they actually ever reduced any emissions to date. 

What do you hope to accomplish by putting all of these people 

out of work and exporting these jobs if the rest of the world is not 

going to follow suit? Absolutely nothing but more economic havoc 

40

on America. All America is doing is exporting more jobs to other 

countries. 

The Kyoto Protocol was mentioned earlier. It has been a farce. 

There are only two nations that have met their Kyoto commitments. Canada’s emissions are up 28 percent. Ours are up 1 percent, 1 percent growth. The E-15 nations since Kyoto who signed 

it are emitting more than the United States where they have a flat 

population growth, and we are increasing 1 percent. 

The science is uncertain. Carbon dioxide-captured technology has 

not been proven on a commercial scale. The Congress must not be 

stampeded into preempting thorough climate research and the development of carbon capture, transfer, and sequestration technologies with emotionally developed or politically motivated legislation in an historical rampage, which it is, to enact carbon dioxide 

emission limitation mandates. 

We urge all members of the Committee and their colleagues in 

Congress to consider carefully the impact that climate change bills 

will have, not only on the environment, but also on the American 

people, too. This is a human issue to me as well as an environmental one. 

Thank you for allowing me to appear today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Murray follows:]

Statement of Robert E. Murray, Chairman, President and Chief Executive 

Officer, Murray Energy Corporation, Cleveland, Ohio 

We thank the Members of the Energy and Mineral Resources Subcommittee and 

the House Natural Resources Committee for inviting me to provide this testimony 

today. 

I am Bob Murray, the Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of Murray 

Energy Corporation (‘‘Murray Energy’’), which I founded from a mortgaged home 

about twenty (20) years ago. Today, Murray Energy operates eleven (11) coal mines 

in the most economically depressed areas of Ohio, Illinois, Kentucky, Pennsylvania 

and Utah, which produce thirty-two million (32,000,000) tons of high quality coal 

per year for America’s electric utilities, with about three thousand (3,000) employees. Current studies show that up to eleven (11) secondary jobs are created to provide the goods and services required by our miners. Thus, I am proud of the fact 

that we are advised that we have created up to 36,000 high-paying, well-benefited 

jobs in our Country since our inception in May, 1988. 

Our principal subject today is the impact of any proposed carbon dioxide emission 

limits or climate change measures on the coal industry...its employees...and its implications for public lands. 

UtahAmerican Energy, Inc. (‘‘UtahAmerican’’), a Subsidiary of Murray Energy, 

produces up to about seven million (7,000,000) tons of coal per year, with about five 

hundred (500) direct employees from Federal coal lands in Carbon and Emery Counties, Utah, and this production and employment will increase by about fifty percent 

(50%) in the years hence. Let me assure you that these Utahans are very pleased 

that we have heavily invested in their lives and futures and in this locale, which 

is where they want to live. You see, Federal lands should not only have adequate 

stewardship for environmental purposes, but they also should be prudently developed to provide a high standard of living for our citizens. They and I are very 

threatened and troubled by the so-called ‘‘global warming’’ or carbon emission constraint measures that have been introduced into the Congress that will ration the 

use of coal, with much worse adverse consequences to our American citizens than 

those that I have already experienced in my lifetime as a result of enactment of the 

1990 Clean Air Act Amendment legislation. 

You see, so-called ‘‘global warming’’ is a human issue to me, not just an environmental one. The unfolding debate over atmospheric warming in the Congress, the 

news media, and by the pundits has been skewed and totally one-sided, in that they 

have been preoccupied with possible, speculative environmental disasters of climate 

change. However, few are giving adequate attention to the destruction that we will 

definitely see for American working people from all of the climate change proposals 

that have been introduced in the House and Senate to date. 

41

Today low cost electricity is a staple of life for all Americans, and fifty-two percent 

(52%) of this electricity is generated from coal. Further, coal-fired electricity is, by 

far, the lowest cost—about one-fourth (1/4) to one-third (1/3) of the cost of natural 

gas-fired electricity. Moreover, the Energy Information Agency states that our electricity consumption in America will rise forty-one percent (41%) between now and 

2030. It is projected that, over the next twenty (20) years or so, coal must be counted on to generate fifty-seven percent (57%) of America’s electricity, which cannot be 

replaced by any other form of generation—not natural gas, nuclear, or water, and 

certainly not renewables. 

America is dependent on our coal because it is abundant, with some of our best 

deposits located on public lands; it is affordable; and it is critical to our energy security to protect all Americans from the hostile and unstable governments from which 

much of our Country’s energy is currently imported. 

While we have been losing high-paying manufacturing jobs in America to foreign 

countries, can you imagine the havoc that will be wrought on our Country as a result of curbing coal’s use, or destroying its potential as a vital domestic fuel, which 

every single piece of legislation introduced in the Congress to date does, by slapping 

mandatory controls on carbon dioxide emissions and United States coal utilization? 

Draconian legislation, such as the McCain/Lieberman or Bingaman Bills, would 

thoughtlessly impose arbitrary caps on the use of coal, despite the destructive implications to our economy. 

The West, where public lands dominate, is one of the regions where the twelve 

(12) Bills introduced to date to limit carbon dioxide emissions will inflict the maximum damage and destruction to human lives. High wage employment and concomitant benefits, local tax revenues, and the standards of living for our people will be 

brutally wiped out in many of our western communities, notwithstanding the implications against strengthening America’s energy independence. All of the so-called 

‘‘global warming’’ Bills introduced to date will throw the prospects for our citizens 

and their economies in a spiraling reverse. It is a human issue to me, as I know 

by name many of the thousands of persons whose lives will be destroyed from the 

current deceitful, hysterical, out of control, rampage perpetrated by fear-mongers in 

our society and some legislators to mandate carbon dioxide emission limits. 

While some want us to believe that the science behind so-called ‘‘global warming’’ 

is certain, to the contrary, the actual environmental risk associated with carbon 

emissions is highly speculative. It is a fact, however, that every proposal introduced 

to date will provide a far more certain risk that carbon dioxide emission limits will 

destroy coal and manufacturing dependent communities and inflict great hardships 

on America’s families. 

Further, carbon capture, transfer, and sequestration technologies have not been 

commercially developed, and the needed investment in them must not be thwarted 

by discussions of ‘‘global warming’’ legislation. Also, I am a skeptic relative to our 

Country’s commitment to gasification, liquification, or other technologies for the use 

of coal in processes other than pulverized coal combustion. I worked on the Great 

Plains Coal Gasification project in North Dakota, the only one in the western hemisphere, from 1968 to 1983, and there has not been another one built in the ensuing 

forty (40) years. Again, carbon emission legislation must not thwart the needed investment in coal utilization technologies. 

Some wealthy elitists in our Country, who cannot tell fact from fiction, can afford 

an Olympian detachment from the impacts of draconian climate change policy. For 

them, the jobs and dreams destroyed as a result will be nothing more than statistics 

and the cares of other people. These consequences are abstractions to them, but they 

are not to me, as I can name many of the thousands of the American citizens whose 

lives will be destroyed by these elitists’ ill-conceived ‘‘global goofiness’’ campaigns. 

Also, there are a number of companies that are promoting constraints on coal use 

to achieve greater profits and/or competitive advantages, which transparent motivations are not in the best interests of Americans. These, in part, include Excelon, 

Entergy, British Petroleum, Shell Oil, Caterpillar, Alcoa, Dupont and General Electric. 

You see, ladies and gentlemen, I have seen the effect of the 1990 Clean Air Act 

Amendments, the drastic reductions in coal production, and wrenching impact on 

hundreds of communities as a result of that legislation. In Ohio alone, from 1990 

to 2005, about one hundred eighteen (118) mines were shut down, costing more than 

thirty-six thousand (36,000) primary and secondary jobs. These impacted areas have 

spent years recovering, and some never will. Families broke up, many lost homes, 

some were impoverished, because of legislation that the environmentalists call a 

‘‘success’’. Again, I did not learn of this havoc from computer models. I lived it and 

saw it firsthand. 

42

Now, we are glibly discussing mandatory carbon emission reductions, which will 

have far more sweeping and far deeper reductions in coal production, and will reek 

much greater economic carnage and reductions in the quality of life and standard 

of living of many Americans, than the Clean Air Act Amendments. But, the destruction from limiting coal use will not stop there. Natural gas costs will rise, further 

damaging the agricultural and chemical industries, and the loss of American manufacturing jobs, which depend on low cost electricity, will be accelerated. 

Also, the adverse impacts on the economy’s jobs and quality of life will not be 

equal throughout the Country. Rather, the States that depend on coal-fired electricity will be damaged the greatest. Every State in our Country has a ‘‘target’’ on 

its back from proposed ‘‘global warming’’ legislation, except those on the West Coast 

and in New England, where much of the hysteria for draconian legislation is originating, and which States already pay the most for their electricity, many twice as 

much, as shown in the attachment to my testimony. 

What will the world-wide environmental gain be from the pain that will be suffered on millions of American citizens? The answer is, very little. Since 1990, U.S. 

greenhouse gas emissions have increased by eighteen percent (18%), while China’s 

have increased by seventy-seven percent (77%). China’s emissions will surpass ours 

by 2009. By the middle of the century, China and India will emit twice as much 

carbon as the United States and the European Union, combined. 

The G-77 group of developing countries, led by China, which is building about 

fifty (50) new coal-fired power plants, again reiterated this winter that they will not 

agree to mandatory carbon emission constraints in a second Kyoto round after 2012, 

nor have they actually ever reduced any emissions to date. All America will be doing 

is exporting more of our jobs to these Countries, and widespread hardship will be 

reeked on thousands of American families as a result of further industrial contraction in our Country. 

The so-called Kyoto Treaty commitments by other countries have been a farce. 

European Union nations, with no population growth, have increased their emissions 

faster than the United States which has had a one percent (1%) population growth. 

Canadian emissions have increased twenty-eight percent (28%) since it signed the 

Kyoto Treaty, and only two (2) of the signatories thereto have achieved their emission reduction commitments. 

The climate change science is uncertain, and carbon dioxide capture technology 

has not been proven on a commercial scale. The Congress must not be stampeded 

into preempting thorough climate research and the development of carbon capture, 

transfer, and sequestration technologies with emotionally developed or politically 

motivated legislation in the current hysterical rampage to enact carbon dioxide 

emission limitation mandates. 

We urge all Members of this Committee and their colleagues in the Congress to 

consider carefully the impact that climate change Bills will have, not only on the 

environment, but on the American people, too. This is a human issue as well as an 

environmental one. 

Thank you for your invitation to appear before you today. 

Attachment

43

Mr. COSTA. Thank you. 

Now I would like to hear from Dr. Anthony Westerling, Associate 

Professor, the Sierra Nevada Research Institute of the University 

of California. Dr. Westerling, we appreciate your research, and 

your academics, and your work in this area for many years. Thank 

you for your coming here today to present your work. You may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF ANTHONY WESTERLING, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING, UNIVERSITY 

OF CALIFORNIA, MERCED 

Mr. WESTERLING. Thank you, sir. Just a moment, please. 

Just for the record, I would like to correct. I am an assistant professor. I appreciate the promotion. 

Mr. COSTA. Don’t worry, around here, we take credit for everything we can. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. WESTERLING. Well, I will skip on ahead. 

I suspect that the reason I was asked to come here was this particular paper, so I thought I would highlight the results right off 

the top. 

If you look in the upper left corner there, you will see a map of 

the western United States, and those green areas are Federal lands 

in the Forest Service and Park Service that are mostly forested, 

and have reported fires consistently since 1970. 

In the lower panel there, you can see a time series. The vertical 

red bars are the number of fires that have burned at least a thousand acres each on those lands since 1970, and you will notice that 

there is a very abrupt ramping up in the number of fires on average each year in the mid-1980s. 


34820.011.eps
44

Superimposed on this is a time series, the black line there, and 

it shows the temperature, the average spring and summer temperature, and you will note that it highly correlated with the annual number of large forest fires. 

I would like to point out in particular the non-linear relationship 

between temperature and forest wild fire in the western United 

States, and I think this is a very important point to bring home 

if I don’t get anything else through today. 

If you look here, the horizontal access of this figure is showing 

deviations in the average temperature each year from the longterm average, and the vertical access is showing the number of 

large fires. In this case, it is a more comprehensive data set, 500 

acres and above, and includes the Indian Affairs lands as well. And 

you will notice that as the temperature has increased you get more 

fires, but as you pass a certain threshold you get a very non-linear 

response, and you can have an enormous number of fires compared 

to the average for a small additional increase in temperature. 

The reason this is so has to do with the timing of spring. So we 

have mid to high elevation forests in mountains of the western 

United States that have significant snow cover. Most of the precipitation comes in the wintertime. If it warms up in the spring, the 

snow melts out earlier and the area dries out sooner. Summer 

comes months early, in a sense, and everything dries out. You get 

a lot more fires. 

What I am showing here is the timing of spring on the horizontal 

access as measured by streamflow in snow melt-dominated streams 

of the western United States, and on the vertical access we have 

again the number of large fires in forests of the western United 

States. 

So as you look to the left, those are earlier years. As you look 

to the right, those are later springs, and so when you have a very 

early spring, that is when you get all of the large fire years. 

Just to bring the point home, here I am showing you on the left 

side all the fires that occurred, that were at least 1,000 acres in 

size, in years that had late snow melt, and on the right side, in 

years that have an early spring snow melt, and they have been 

scaled up. I don’t know if I have an arrow here. I do. 

OK, so you see this big circle here. That is a 500,000-acre fire. 

This is a 400,000-acre fire. This is maybe 200,000 acres. These little dots over here, that is 1,000 acres. So all the big fires are occurring in years with early snow melt, and very few are occurring in 

years with late snow melt. 

Now, the mechanism by which this has an impact, this non-linear impact, is as I mentioned before, the drying of the western forests, and what this map is showing here is the degree of drying associated with the changes in the timing of spring, and in particular, the redder the pixels are the more drying there was, and 

you can see that most of the drying was concentrated in the Northern Rockies and in the Yellowstone area and parts of the Colorado 

Rockies, in particular, whereas in the Southwest, there was very 

little drying associated with this, and it stands to reason. That is 

a drier, warmer climate down there, and so a change in the timing 

of spring doesn’t have as big an impact. 

45

But a very important point is that that region is relatively—most 

affected by fire suppression in terms of its impact on fuels, whereas 

in the Northern Rockies the area that has been most affected by 

changes in the timing of spring, you have a very large forest area. 

It shows the biggest increase in wild fire occurs there, an which 

were least affected by suppression. 

I should point out that this increase in fires is essentially fourfold increase in large fires, and a sixfold increase in the area 

burned in those large fires. 

It is important to note that these increases have occurred during 

a time when temperatures have increased less than 1 degree Celsius in the spring and summer in this part of the United States, 

and this is an important point because this is less than half of the 

minimum projections of the IPCC for this region in the coming decades of the Twenty-First Century. 

So we can expect without a doubt an acceleration of wildfire in 

terms of a great increase in the number of very active fire seasons 

that we are going to see. The process that we have experienced up 

until now will continue. 

My final point is just that there is a great deal of carbon sequestered in these forests already and in the soils underneath them, 

and that burning them more frequently releases this carbon into 

the atmosphere, and so this is a positive feedback on climate 

change occurring on Federal lands in the West. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Westerling follows:]

Statement of Dr. Anthony Westerling, Assistant Professor of Environmental 

Engineering, University of California, Merced 

I thank Congressman Jim Costa and the members of the subcommittee on Energy 

and Mineral Resources for this opportunity to testify on recent research regarding 

the impact of climate change on public lands. I have a PhD in Economics from the 

University of California, San Diego. I currently hold joint appointments as Assistant 

Professor of Environmental Engineering and Assistant Professor of Geography at 

the new University of California campus in Merced, California. Prior to taking these 

appointments, I worked as a research scientist in Scripps Institution of Oceanography for six years, focussing primarily on climate and wildfire. I am a principal 

investigator in the NOAA Regional Integrated Science and Assessment (RISA) Program for California and in the California Energy Commission-supported California 

Climate Change Center, both centered at Scripps Institution of Oceanography. The 

research I will present in my testimony today was conducted at Scripps Institution 

of Oceanography supported by the NOAA RISA program, the USDA Forest Service, 

and the California Energy Commission. 

WILDFIRE HAS GREATLY INCREASED IN WESTERN FORESTS. 

Since the 1970s and early 1980s, the frequency of large forest wildfires (those 

greater than 1000 acres) has increased roughly 300 percent. The area burned in 

these fires has increased more than 500 percent. That is, there has been a substantial shift toward larger wildfires in western forests since the mid-1980s. (Westerling 

et al 2006). 

The length of time individual fires burn on average has increased from one week 

to five weeks. The wildfire season itself has also lengthened by about two thirds. 

(Westerling et al 2006). 

The greatest increase in forest wildfire has occurred in the Northern Rockies, between 6000 and 8000 feet in elevation. (Westerling et al 2006). 

MOST OF THIS INCREASE IN WILDFIRE IS DUE TO WARMING AND 

EARLIER SPRINGS. 

A trend towards warmer temperatures that has intensified in recent decades has 

resulted in a trend toward earlier Spring snowmelts (which are now occurring 1-

46

4 weeks earlier than they did 50 years ago), and this has led to more large wildfires 

in western forests. (Mote et al 2005, Stewart et al 2005, Westerling et al 2006) 

Since 1970, 56% percent of large forest wildfires and 72% of area burned in large 

forest wildfires occurred in years with early Spring snowmelts, while only 11% of 

large wildfires and 4% of area burned in large wildfires occurred in years with late 

spring snowmelt. (Westerling et al 2006) 

In years with warm temperatures and early springs, the snow has melted out earlier from mid-elevation forests. Snow carries over a significant portion of the winter 

precipitation that falls in western mountains, releasing it more gradually in late 

spring and early summer, providing an important contribution to spring and summer soil moisture (Sheffield 2004). An earlier snowmelt can lead to an earlier, 

longer dry season, providing greater opportunities for large fires due both to the 

longer period in which ignitions could potentially occur, and to the greater drying 

of soils and vegetation. Consequently, it is not surprising that the incidence of large 

forest fires is strongly associated with snowmelt timing (Westerling et al 2006) 

It is true that 20th Century fire suppression and land use have lead to increased 

fuel loads in some western forests, such as dry ponderosa pine forests in the Southwest and parts of the Sierra Nevada (Allen et al 2002, Covington et al 2000). However, the greatest increase in forest wildfires has occurred in more moist and naturally more dense forests of the Northern Rockies where plentiful fuel loads and the 

risk of large fires have not been significantly increased by the cumulative effects of 

fire suppression and land use (Schoennagel et al 2004, Schoennagel et al 2005, 

Whitlock 2004). Furthermore, even in forests that grew thicker over the 20th Century due to fire suppression and land uses such as grazing, large forest wildfires 

still tend to occur in warm years with early springs. 

AS HUMAN-CAUSED CLIMATE CHANGE CONTINUES, WE WILL SEE 

MORE VERY ACTIVE FOREST WILDFIRE SEASONS. 

The results of this research have important implications for resource management 

on federal lands in a warmer climate. They demonstrate that warmer temperatures 

result in more (and larger) large forest wildfires. 

The increased frequency of large forest wildfires observed in recent decades, considered in isolation, is not by itself evidence of climate change. However, we know 

from other research that human activity is warming the climate (IPCC 2007), and 

increased forest wildfire due to warming and earlier springs is an effect we expect 

to see in a world with a warming climate. 

The very substantial increase in large wildfire frequency, in area burned, in the 

length of time fires burn, and in the length of the fire season in western forests 

have been associated with an increase in average spring and summer temperatures 

of less than 1 degree Celsius since the 1970s (Westerling 2006). This is less than 

half the IPCC’s consensus range of temperature increase by 2040 to 2069 for western North America (Running 2006). 

Thus, it is likely that forest wildfire activity will continue to intensify over the 

coming century. However, the full effects are difficult to anticipate, because we expect there will also be changes in the structure and species composition of western 

forests due to changes in climate and in wildfire, and these are likely to have feedback effects on wildfire. Assessments of the synergistic effects of changes in vegetation, wildfire, and other disturbances like insects in a warming climate are urgently 

needed. 

FIRE SUPPRESSION, FUELS MANAGEMENT AND ECOLOGICAL 

RESTORATION ALL HAVE A ROLE TO PLAY. THERE IS NO SINGLE 

POLICY THAT IS LIKELY TO REVERSE THE TREND TOWARD MORE 

WILDFIRES. 

Western forests are diverse, and the risk of a large fire burning in these forests 

is the result of complex interactions between climate, ecosystems, and past wildfire 

and management. Different forest ecosystems can have different responses to 

climate change and to management policies. Policies need to be tailored to the needs 

of diverse ecosystems. 

Thinning forests that have been ‘‘thickened’’ by past management practices may 

help to reduce fuel loads that have lead to more severe fires in some places (for example, Ponderosa pine forests in the Southwest). 

However, thinning naturally dense forests (such as lodgepole pine in mid-elevation Northern Rockies forests) is a very different matter: it amounts to introducing an additional disturbance to forests already stressed by warming and earlier 

springs. It is not necessarily the case that such thinning would make these ecosystems more resilient to climate change, nor reduce the likelihood of large fires. 

47

Fuels management around structures and communities in the wildland/urban 

interface will continue to be an important means of protecting property at risk. 

Increased fire suppression efforts in forests where in the past such efforts have 

resulted in increased fuel loads might, if effective in actually suppressing fires, further increase the vulnerability of these forests to climate change by preventing the 

reduction of (or further increasing) fuel loads. Appropriate use of natural and management fires might reduce fuel loads and the risk of large, severe fires in these 

forests. 

Further intensification of fire suppression efforts may not be very effective. Federal land management agencies devote considerable resources to suppressing 

wildfires, and the technologies employed have developed in sophistication over the 

last century. However, fire suppression technologies are still not very effective under 

climatic conditions that foster the rapid spread of wildfires. 

CONCLUSION 

Warming and earlier springs have led to increases in forest wildfire, including 

more large fires, more area burned in large fires, longer burning fires, and a longer 

fire season. 

Human-caused climate change will lead to additional warming in future decades, 

and this will lead to further increases in forest wildfire in the western US. 

There is no single, simple management policy that will reverse this trend: complex 

problems don’t always have simple answers. 

Policies that mitigate climate change by reducing the rate at which greenhouse 

gasses accumulate in the atmosphere will help to mitigate future increases in wildfire. 

REFERENCES 

Allen, C.D. et al. 2002 Ecological Restoration of Southwestern Ponderosa Pine Ecosystems: A Broad Perspective. Ecol. Appl. 12, 1418-1433. 

Covington, W.W. 2000. Helping western forests heal. Nature 408, 135-136. 

IPCC 2007 Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis: Summary for Policymakers. 

Mote, P. W. et al., Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 86, 39 (2005). 

Running, S. W. 2006 ‘‘Is Global Warming Causing More, Larger Wildfires?’’ Science, 

313: 927-928. 

Schoennagel, T., Veblen, T.T. & Romme, W.H. 2004. The Interaction of Fire, Fuels, 

and Climate across Rocky Mountain Forests. BioSci 54, 661-676. 

Schoennagel T., Veblen, T.T., Romme, W.H., Sibold, J.S. & Cook, E.R. 2005. ENSO 

and PDO variability affect drought-induced fire occurrence in Rocky Mountain 

subalpine forests. Ecol. Appl. 15, 2000-2014. 

J. Sheffield, G. Goteti, F. H. Wen, E. F. Wood, J. 2004 Geophys. Res. 109, D24108

Stewart, I.T., Cayan, D.R., Dettinger, M.D., 2005 Changes toward earlier 

streamflow timing across western North America. J. Clim. 18, 1136-1155. 

A.L. Westerling et al 2006: ‘‘Warming and Earlier Spring Increases Western U.S. 

Forest Wildfire Activity’’ Science, 313: 940-943. 

Whitlock, C. 2004 Land management: Forests, fires and climate. Nature 432, 28-29. 

Mr. COSTA. Thank you very much, and knowing that you are a 

Southern Californian that has recently been transplanted to part 

of the strait that I live in, it is good to have you here, and good 

to have you back in Washington. 

Mr. WESTERLING. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. COSTA. Our next witness is Mr. Auden Schendler, Executive 

Director for Environmental Projects for the Aspen Skiing Company, 

a company and industry that I have some familiarity with. Obviously it has been an important industry throughout the country, 

especially post-World War II. Mr. Schendler, would you please 

begin your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF AUDEN SCHENDLER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

COMMUNITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY, 

ASPEN SKIING COMPANY 

Mr. SCHENDLER. Right, and it was the——

48

Mr. COSTA. Hold on a second. We are having trouble here with 

the time clock. There you go. All right. 

Mr. SCHENDLER. It was the 10th Mountain Veterans who created 

the ski industry in the U.S. actually and Aspen Skiing Company, 

so right after World War II, they said enough of this, we will go 

skiing, and I brought you only two slides, and this slide I bring you 

out of sympathy for the fact that you are stuck in this room this 

afternoon instead of being outside and you can look at this beautiful picture of Aspen, and powder skiing. 

Mr. COSTA. That is very frustrating. You didn’t have to bring 

that one. 

Mr. SCHENDLER. And I do say I question your judgment in being 

here versus at Aspen skiing. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. COSTA. That is the question before us. Please go ahead. 

Mr. SCHENDLER. Unfortunately, skiing in Aspen doesn’t look like 

this right now. We have just finished up the warmest winter in the 

Northern Hemisphere in recorded history. It is 65 degrees and 

sunny in Aspen right now, and we just found out three days ago 

that we have the third least sub-zero days in history, and so Aspen 

Skiing Company is concerned about this issue. 

Just briefly, we bring 1.4 million skiers to our four mountains, 

15 restaurants and two hotels every year. We employ 3,400 people 

in winter, and the ski industry in Colorado is a $2 billion industry. 

It employees fully 8 percent of the state. That is the winter sports 

industry, but if you include other climate-affected industries, such 

as hunting, river rafting and so on, a large part of our economy is 

based on stable and predictable climate. 

In some ways you could describe the ski industry as reluctant 

warriors on the issue of climate. It is not an issue we particularly 

want to talk about. Skiing is difficult. It takes 10 years to learn 

how to ski well. It is a sport that in some cases is made financially 

viable by condominium selling, and if you don’t want to buy a 

condo because you think the ski resort will be gone, or if you don’t 

want to teach your kids to ski because you think the snow will be 

gone, that is problematic for our business. 

So in response to growing coverage of climate change, the ski industry said, we are going to look at this. We hope there is not a 

problem but we are going to look at the best science out there, and 

the criteria we had was that this would be peer-reviewed science, 

and we would not look at opinion. We would simply look at science. 

What is interesting is the cities of Aspen and Park City both did 

studies. They said, we want to see what is going to happen 10, 15, 

20, all the way into 100 years from now, and those studies have 

come out in the last year. 

Aspen, according to this again peer-reviewed science would look 

like Colorado Springs by 2050. I don’t know if you have been to 

Colorado Springs, but it is not a real skier-friendly place. It is more 

like the desert. We would have the climate of Amarillo by 2100, 

New Mexico by 2085, ski resorts like Taos, which is a wonderful 

area, would lose 90 percent of their snowpack. They would essentially be out of business. 

More important, all the science and climate modeling we have 

tells us that our season would be shortened. While the economics 

49

1The data comes from Colorado Ski Country USA, Economic Impact Study, March 2004. 

2http://www.aspenglobalwarming.com/westerncoloradodata.cfm 

of the ski industry are pretty interesting, we are running in deficit 

until March, and then we start making our money, and if we were 

to lose March, we would go out of business. So this is of huge concern to us. 

I want to take off my corporate hat, and put on my human hat, 

my father hat. This is Willa. She refers to herself as a baby duck 

or a baby frog, depending on the day, and as I have dug into the 

sciences part of my job, trying to figure out what this means for 

our industry and our business, the more I study the science the 

more I realize that climate change is redefining the very terms we 

use. Words like environmentalism, sustainability, even government, and for me in particular, parenthood, now mean substantially dealing with climate change. 

I used to say this unfortunately isn’t our issue. This is our children’s issue, but James Hanson, who is the leading climatologist in 

the world, has said that we have 10 years to solve this problem. 

If we don’t solve this problem within a decade, our children will be 

living on a planet that is unrecognizable to us. 

So I no longer say this is our children’s issue. I say this is our 

issue. This is a problem we will solve for Willa in our lifetimes, in 

your lifetimes. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Schendler follows:]

Statement of Auden Schendler, Executive Director,

Community and Environmental Responsibility, Aspen Skiing Company 

The mountain resort economy in the West is as endangered as the Polar Bear but 

a heck of a lot more valuable. 

You could say the ski industry is the Canary in the coal mine for climate change. 

If there’s one business sector that is going to suffer most and earliest, it’s skiing. 

And that’s not good for the economy: the ski and winter recreation industry in 

Colorado alone accounts for over $2 billion in revenue annually and is responsible 

for 8% of employment in the state. 1 To understand the impact of the snowsports 

industry on a national scale, roughly quintuple that revenue number. That’s why, 

in response to growing media coverage, scientific consensus, and observed climate 

changes on our mountains, we decided to explore the science. It turns out that the 

cities of Aspen, CO and Park City, UT independently commissioned studies to determine what, exactly, the future might look like, because that information is obviously 

critical to future planning. The Aspen and Park City studies focused exclusively on 

peer-reviewed science, and found that the consequences for Aspen were dire. According to the study ‘‘climate models indicate that if global greenhouse gas emissions 

are reduced, Aspen is projected to experience about 6°F of additional warming by 

2100, giving it a similar climate to that of Los Alamos, New Mexico. If global emissions continue their rapid rise, Aspen is projected to warm 14°F by the end of this 

century, giving it a similar climate to that of Amarillo, Texas.’’ 2 For Park City, consequences were even worse, because they are at a lower altitude. 

Aspen Skiing Company is the owner and operator of four major destination winter 

recreation complexes located in the central Rocky Mountain region of Colorado, 

spanning over 5,200 acres of public and private land on four mountains: Aspen, Buttermilk, Highlands and Snowmass, as well as two hotels, a golf course, and 15 restaurants. We host 1.4 million skiers annually and employ 3,400 people in winter. 

Aspen Skiing Company, along with the rest of the ski industry, is a reluctant warrior on the climate issue. Our entire business model is threatened by the problem. 

It’s a difficult message for us, because global warming forces the questions: ‘‘Why 

teach your children to ski?’’ ‘‘Why invest in a slopeside condo?’’

But the ski industry is also particularly sensitive to climate: skiers start banging 

down the doors around Halloween, so opening earlier than Mother Nature dictates 

(though use of artificial snow) has become part of the business. At the same time, 

50

3 N.S. Christensen, A.W. Wood, N. Voison, D.P. Lettenmaier, and R.N. Palmer, ‘‘The Effects 

of Climate Change on the Hydrology and Water Resources of the Colorado River Basin,’’ 

Climatic Change 62(2004): 337-363, 349-350. 4T. Barnett, R. Malone, W. Panel, D Stammer, B. Semtner, and W. Washington, ‘‘The Effects 

of Climate Change on Water Resources in the West: Introduction and Overview,’’ Climatic 

Change 62(2004): 7. 5http://www.swissinfo.org/eng/front/detail/Climatelchangelthreatenslskilresortslinl

Europe.html?siteSect=105&sid=7347238&cKey=1166083840000 6From the Save Our Snow website, http://www.saveoursnow.com/facts.htm. Accessed August 

11, 2006.Harrison, Pete. ‘‘Scottish Skiing Meets Global Warming,’’ Reuters. January 2, 2004. 

Available online at http://www.zapworld.com/about/news/watchlscottishskiing.asp. Accessed 

February, 2006. 

our (and most) ski resorts operate in deficit until March, when we make most of 

our profit. If you shorten our season on either end—take away March, for example—

we go out of business. The problem: a shortened season is a consistent predication 

of the climate modeling and science. A second prediction of the models is that we’ll 

see warmer nights. In fact, we’re seeing these already. The problem: in order to stay 

open later, and open early enough for customer demand, we need to make snow. 

And with warm nights, it becomes exponentially more expensive to make artificial 

snow. This fall and early winter, it was actually so warm that on many nights in 

December it was impossible to make snow at all. 

In some ways, focusing on the ski industry when thinking about climate change 

is trivial. The declining snowpacks we’re seeing affect skiing for certain, but more 

importantly they affect water supply in the west and in particular California. The 

Colorado River supplies water to 25 million people in 6 western states and California, according to the Arizona Dept. of Environmental Quality. But scientific models predict the Colorado River basin will lose 24% of its snowpack by 2010-2039. 3

This is for a system that is fully allocated today and already ‘‘at the brink of 

failure.’’ 4

Nonetheless, the ski industry is a good early indicator of the scope and scale of 

change we expect to see. And there are four major reports, published recently, that 

predict significant economic harm to the American ski industry and the region as 

a result of climate change. They are: Less Snow, Less Water: Climate Disruption 

in the West, by Stephen Saunders and Maureen Maxwell of the Rocky Mountain 

Climate Organization; Climate Change: Modeling a Warmer Rockies and Assessing 

the Implications, by Gregory Zimmerman, Caitlin O’Brady, and Bryan Hurlbutt of 

Colorado College; Climate Change and Aspen: An Assessment of Impacts and Potential Responses, by the Aspen Global Change Institute; and Save Our Snow: Climate 

Change in Park City by Stratus Consulting Group. Each of the studies relies on the 

best third party science available, and the best modeling and experts in the field. 

This testimony cites specific text from these reports related to the predicted economic impact of climate change on Aspen Skiing Company and the Colorado ski 

industry. 

First, it should be noted that the generally lower altitude European ski industry—

itself a coal mine Canary for what we might expect here in the West—is already 

the suffering direct economic impact of climate change. And skiing is an even greater economic driver in Europe than in the U.S. This year, the Office for Economic 

Cooperation and Development released a study warning that climate change was 

threatening Europe’s skiing trade. 5 And this year, several January World Cup races 

were cancelled due to rain or lack of snow, even though officials tried to salvage 

the events by helicoptering-in snow. Meanwhile several Scottish resorts have shut 

down, and, according to a European chamber of commerce member who asked to 

remain anonymous, 47 ski resorts in the Alps simply did not open last year from 

lack of snow, warm glaciers that were out of condition for skiing, or long periods 

of rain. ‘‘We don’t expect to have snow in low lying resorts such as Klosters for more 

than the next 10 years,’’ said Werner Schmultz, from the World Radiation Centre 

in Switzerland. And in July 2006, ‘‘Swiss researchers from the University of Zurich 

concluded that the Alps will lose 80 percent of their glaciers by the end of the century. (That’s the average temperature rise scenario of 3 degrees Celsius. The high 

end projections—a 5 degree C increase—will result in the loss of all Alpine glaciers.)’’ 6 In response, some Swiss resorts are wrapping their glaciers in reflective 

blankets to try to protect them. 

‘‘Temperatures have risen to the point where artificial snow is melting faster than 

the snow machines can churn it out,’’ Bill Wright of the Cairngorms Campaign enviVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:52 Jul 31, 2007 Jkt 098700 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 L:\DOCS\34820.TXT Hresour1 PsN: KATHY
51

7Seenan, Gerard. ‘‘Global warming forces sale of Scottish winter sports resorts,’’ The Guardian, Saturday, February 14, 2004. Available online at http://sport.guardian.co.uk/news/story/

0,10488,1148094,00.html 8 Harrison, Pete. ‘‘Scottish Skiing Meets Global Warming,’’ Reuters. January 2, 2004. Available 

online at http://www.zapworld.com/about/news/watchlscottishskiing.asp. Accessed February, 

2006. 9 Ibid. 

10Zimmerman, Gregory, O’Brady, Caitlin, and Hurlbutt, Bryan. Climate Change: Modeling a 

Warmer Rockies and Assessing the Implications. p. 99. From The 2006 Colorado College State 

of the Rockies Report. April 10, 2006. http://www.coloradocollege.edu/stateoftherockies/

06ReportCard/Climate%20Change,%20updated%2005-01-05.pdf Accessed August 11, 2006. 11Saunders, Stephen, and Maxwell, Maureen. Less Snow, Less Water: Climate Disruption in 

the West. September, 2005. pp 13-15. Available online at http://www.rockymountainclimate.org/

website%20pictures/Less%20Snow%20Less%20Water.pdf. Accessed August 11, 2006. 12Katzenberger, et al. Climate Change and Aspen: An Assessment of Impacts and Potential 

Responses. A Report of the Aspen Global Change Institute. July, 2006. pp 71-81. Available online at http://www.agci.org/aspenStudy.html. Accessed August 11, 2006. 13 Ibid, Katzenberger, et al. P. xvi, Executive Summary. 14 An executive summary of the study, which isn’t public yet, is available at http://

www.saveoursnow.org/ExecutivelSummary.pdf 

ronmental group told Reuters. ‘‘The Scottish skiing situation is verging on crisis,’’ 

he said. ‘‘It’s hard to resist the conclusion that global warming is a factor.’’ 7

Resorts in Scotland are moving away from ski-based economies. Some are successfully transitioning to non-winter-sports economies; others are going out of business. 8

A growing concern in Europe is the financing of the ski industry. In Switzerland, 

for example, ‘‘Banks have stopped lending to resorts below 1,500 meters, worried 

that they will never get their money back.’’ 9

Back to the American West, the Colorado College report analyzed climate modeling data to try to predict ski country April 1 snowpack loss, from 1976 to 2085. 

Some areas, like the Utah resorts of Alta and Snowbird, are predicted to see 84% 

snowpack loss. Southern resorts like Taos will see 89% loss, essentially putting 

them out of business. (In the winter of 2005-6 New Mexico resorts received virtually 

no snow, and, by all accounts, had a catastrophic season.) Aspen’s resorts—

Highlands, Aspen Mountain and Snowmass, are predicted to see a 43% loss in 

April 1 snowpack. The reports notes that ‘‘Most ski counties in Colorado are predicted to lose around 50% [of April 1 snowpack.] Predictions for future mountain 

climate are warmer winters and shorter snow seasons. Winter sports dependent 

upon snow: downhill skiing, cross-country skiing, snowshoeing, and snowmobiling, 

are expected to decrease in popularity with warming because of worsening conditions, potentially becoming unviable as soon as 2050. According to Aspen Skiing 

Company CEO Patrick O’Donnell...if climate change shortens the ski season, ‘it is 

going to be an economic disaster.’’’ 10

The report Less Snow, Less Water: Climate Disruption in the West predicts that 

by the end of the century, with a mid-range estimate of predicted warming, Aspen 

would have the climate of Colorado Springs, a desert community in southern 

Colorado with no ski business. The report also predicts smaller snowpacks and earlier snowmelt. In fact, new data already shows declining snowpacks, and increased 

warming, particularly at night and in winter, 11 with consequent impacts on 

snowmaking that have been previously described. 

The 150-page study Climate Change and Aspen: An Assessment of Impacts and 

Potential Responses reports that ‘‘sometime between 2030 and 2100, Aspen climate 

will work against its reputation as a destination ski resort...The scenarios do imply 

greater costs and effort in terms of mountain and visitor management. If season 

delay or poor conditions do shave 5 to 20 percent off of skier numbers by 2030, then 

the economic consequences could be significant, ranging from losses of $16m to 

$56m in total personal income (in today’s dollars.) Though it cannot be reliably 

quantified, poorer ski conditions are likely to affect the resort real estate market 

in Aspen, thus adding to losses.’’ 12

Most strikingly, according to the report: ‘‘High greenhouse gas emissions scenarios 

(A1FI) are likely to end skiing in Aspen by 2100, and possibly well before then, 

while low emission path scenarios preserve skiing at mid- to upper mountain elevations. In either case, snow conditions will deteriorate in the future.’’ 13

The Park City study reports that by 2075, Thanksgiving will no longer be a ski 

holiday, and midseason snow depths will be 15 to 65 percent lower—meaning an 

end to Utah’s famous champagne powder. Throughout the Rockies, atmospheric 

warming will increase roughly a third faster than the global mean temperature, 

which means that snowmaking won’t be possible, in most years, until the end of November. 14

52

15http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,650221809,00.html 16http://www.saveoursnow.org/ExecutivelSummary.pdf. 

According to a Deseret News report, the Park City study ‘‘painted a bleak picture 

for Utah, where the tourism industry relies on the winter ski and snowboarding season. By 2100, the ski season could extend only from Christmas to Presidents Day, 

under the best-case scenario. Even a small 4- to 5-degree warming could be disastrous for the resorts—and winter. ‘‘We only maintain snow under the low-emission 

scenario through midwinter. Remember, that’s a 10- to 15-degree increase,’’ said 

Brian Lazar of Stratus Consulting, which conducted the study with the Institute of 

Arctic and Alpine Research at the University of Colorado in Boulder. ‘‘Under the 

high-emission scenario, we don’t get snow.’’ The report used a snow-modeling computer program to estimate the climate changes and snow levels for 2030, 2075 and 

2100 under three different emission scenarios. Lazar said global warming will even 

affect the quality of the snow, turning the current Utah powder into skiers’ cement.’’ 15 16

In short, there is compelling evidence that the ski industry stands to suffer significant financial losses from global warming induced changes such as shorter seasons, warmer nights, and reduced snowpack, and that impact is just one indicator 

of later, broader impacts of climate change. In a worst-case scenario, the industry 

will be gone by 2100. In a best case scenario, the cost of doing business will increase 

exponentially and profit margins will drop precipitously, along with the quality of 

the product offered to guests. The irony is that this threatened industry operates 

mostly on public lands—and how the United States chooses to use other public 

lands will affect the future of our industry. 

At the same time, in CO in particular, we see the response to climate change—

and even how public lands are used in this effort—as an economic opportunity. In 

fact, this is a major piece of our current Governor’s platform. A great example of 

the potential for our state is the Grand Junction, CO based ski lift manufacturer 

Poma, which is moving towards manufacturing wind turbines. This could be an indigenous business in Colorado that provides manufacturing jobs while helping 

ranchers and farmers, who can install turbines, making their land do double duty. 

Might it be possible to make BLM lands easier to lease for wind farms? Would a 

federal fee for fossil fuel extraction help address the impacts of burning that fuel? 

We’re not experts in public lands solutions to climate change, but in the end, global 

warming is clearly both a challenge and opportunity for Colorado and the West. 

Mr. COSTA. Thank you very much, Mr. Schendler, and thank you 

for staying within the five minutes as well. 

Mr. Noah Matson is our next witness. He is the Director of Federal Lands for the Defenders of Wildlife. Mr. Matson. 

STATEMENT OF NOAH MATSON, DIRECTOR, FEDERAL LANDS 

PROGRAM, DEFENDERS OF WILDLIFE 

Mr. MATSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to the Members of 

the Subcommittee. 

I am the Director of the Federal Lands Program at Defenders of 

Wildlife, and I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify before this committee. 

Energy policy, climate change, and public lands are inextricably 

linked. Current energy policy on America’s public lands is doubly 

damaging for wildlife. The rapid and haphazard expansion of oil 

and gas drilling has devastated wildlife habitat, while the ultimate 

burning of these fossil fuels contributes to global warming pollution, which is the single greatest threat facing people and biolife 

today. 

Mr. COSTA. We need to have the microphone a little closer. I am 

sorry. 

Mr. MATSON. Sure. Auden mentioned the economic value of skiing to Colorado. Wildlife-dependent recreational uses throughout 

the United States, hunting, fishing, and bird watching, contribute 

53

over $100 billion to the U.S. economy, and the ecological services 

provided by fish, wildlife, and plants are almost incalculable. Yet 

wildlife is already bearing the brunt of global warming. The impacts of global warming of wildlife includes melting sea ice, habitat 

shifts, rising sea levels, longer droughts, increased wildfire, 

changes in weather extremes, and the spread of invasive species. 

As Deborah Williams testified, global warming is reeking havoc on 

Alaska wildlife and ecosystems. Sea levels are also on the rise. 

There are approximately 160 national wildlife refugees and 50 national park units in coastal areas. Many of these refugees and 

parks protect coastal marshes that are only one or two feet above 

the current sea level. Even the lowest estimated sea level rise over 

the next century will have profound effects on these wetlands upon 

which millions of ducks and geese and other migratory birds 

depend. 

These are just some examples of the myriad global warming impacts wildlife are already experiencing. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, even if we stopped emissions 

today global warning and associated sea level rise will continue for 

centuries due to the time scales associated with climate processes. 

In other words, there is at least a century’s long bottleneck that 

we must help wildlife navigate so that they can survive to reap the 

benefits from reductions in greenhouse gas emissions undertaken 

now. 

Consequently, our national strategy for combating global warming must include reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and responses 

to help wildlife navigate the looming bottleneck of complex threats 

caused by global warming. 

If global warming was the only stress on wildlife, more species 

might be able to weather it. Wildlife will have little chance of 

adapting to the impacts of global warming, however, if already 

stressed by loss and fragmentation of habit, competition with 

invasive species, and pollution. Thus reducing these other problems 

affecting wildlife is key to ensuring that wildlife and wildlife habitat are resilient to these changes. 

Unfortunately, our current energy policy does the exact opposite. 

The Bush Administration has treated wildlife as an impediment to 

the distraction of the energy and other resources from America’s 

public lands. On national forests, the Bush Administration eliminated the 20-year-old requirement that national forests maintain 

viable wildlife populations, giving the Forest Service the green 

light to offer our national forests to energy companies with little 

assurance that wildlife populations would be left when these companies have gone. 

The administration has essentially converted the Bureau of Land 

Management into an agency dedicated to energy development. The 

number of drilling permits approved by the BLM has quadrupled 

over the last five years. The result, an industry-funded study in 

Pine Dale, Wyoming, documented a 46 percent decline in the 

mealier population in an area of rapid energy development, 

reflective of the dramatic adverse effects to the ecology of the entire 

region. 

The direct impacts of energy development are just a tip of the 

melting iceberg. These impacts compound the threats of global 

54

warming as Well. Take the sage grouse. There is broad overlap between known oil and gas reserves and sagegrass habitat in the 

intermountain west. Oil and gas development requires clearing of 

habitat for roads, well pads, and pipelines. Noise from oil and gas 

operation interferes with the breeding behavior of sage grouse, 

which must hear distant calls to locate mates. 

Oil and gas development also facilitates the spread of noxious 

weeks like cheatgrass. Cheatgrass, a fire-adapted species, increases 

the risk of devastating fires in sagebrush habitats. Cheatgrass has 

also well adapted to global warming and will take over sagebrush 

habitats that sage grouse and other species depend on as the 

climate of the West changes. 

This emphasizes the importance of conservation measures now, 

to increase sagebrush and other vulnerable habitats resilience, the 

impacts of global warming. Unfortunately, most of the core sage 

grouse strongholds have been leased for oil and gas development. 

On top of this, staff and funding from BLM’s wildlife program are 

regularly diverted to process drilling permits. 

A coordinated interagency response is essential to address the 

impacts of global warming. It makes no sense for each coastal wildlife refuge or national seashore to re-invent responses to rising sea 

levels. Agencies should also be required to address global warming 

in their program planning, land management, and environmental 

analyses. 

Finally, substantially more money than is currently provided to 

conservation is needed to help wildlife navigate the global warming 

bottleneck. 

Defenders of Wildlife looks forward to working with the Committee to ensure that wildlife survive the next century. Thanks 

again for the opportunity speak to speak before you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Matson follows:]

Statement of Noah Matson, Director,

Federal Lands Program, Defenders of Wildlife 

Mister Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am Noah Matson, Director 

of the Federal Lands Program at Defenders of Wildlife. Founded in 1947, Defenders 

of Wildlife has over 500,000 supporters across the nation and is dedicated to the 

protection and restoration of wild animals and plants in their natural communities. 

I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify before the subcommittee. 

Energy policy, climate change and public lands are inextricably linked. Current 

energy policy on America’s public lands is doubly damaging for wildlife: the rapid 

and haphazard expansion of oil and gas drilling has devastated wildlife habitat, 

while the ultimate burning of these fossil fuels contributes to global warming pollution, which is the single greatest threat facing people and wildlife today. 

Fish and wildlife are a fundamental part of America’s history and character, and 

the conservation of fish and wildlife is a core value shared by all Americans. Wildlife conservation provides economic, social, educational, recreational, emotional and 

spiritual benefits. The economic value of hunting, fishing, and wildlife-associated 

recreation alone is estimated to contribute over $100 billion to the U.S. economy, 

through job creation, tourism infrastructure, and recreational spending. In addition 

to these direct economic benefits, fish, wildlife, and plants provide important ecological services to our economy that are irreplaceable, including pollination of our crops, 

water and air purification, flood control, and an increasingly important service: 

carbon sequestration. 

Our vast system of federal public lands is critical to the future of wildlife in America. Public lands protect endangered and threatened species, and help prevent species declining to the point where Endangered Species Act listings are necessary. 

Public lands provide comparatively intact tracts of land that serve as refuges from 

human development and other pressures, and provide important migration corridors 

55

for many species to respond to the changing climate. They help keep common species common, including game species valued for hunting and fishing activities. They 

provide refuge for species impacted by the effects of global climate change, and will 

play an important role in the adaptation of both people and wildlife to those impacts 

in the future. 

To ensure that our cherished wildlife survive beyond the next century, we must 

reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, reform the way energy and other extractive 

uses are produced on our public lands, and develop programs to assist wildlife in 

the face of global warming. 

Impacts of Global Warming on Wildlife 

The subcommittee’s hearing could not have come at a more important time. Last 

month the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that evidence of global warming is unequivocal, and that dramatic changes to the planet’s 

climate are, with a 90 percent certainty, the result of human-generated emissions 

of greenhouse gases. Quite simply, there is no remaining scientific debate: we are 

causing global warming and it is past time that we do something about it. 

We are already in the midst of what Harvard Professor Edward O. Wilson and 

others have referred to as the sixth great mass extinction crisis in the history of 

the planet. However, unlike previous extinction events, this one is due entirely to 

human activity, principally habitat destruction, pollution, and overexploitation of 

wildlife and finite natural resources. In the United States, over 15,000 species are 

at risk of extinction and the country loses a staggering 6,000 acres of open space 

a day, stressing natural systems and diminishing recreational opportunities and 

quality of life. Moreover, in each of the previous mass extinctions, it took more than 

10 million years for new species to evolve to replenish the biodiversity that was lost. 

Global warming only makes a bad situation worse. Under some climate change 

scenarios, the National Academy of Sciences predicts extinctions of 60% of all species on the planet. Extinctions alter not only biological diversity but also the essential evolutionary processes by which diversity is generated and maintained. Furthermore, we continue to destroy much of the habitat needed for species to survive and 

recover. The first response to reduce the impacts of global warming on wildlife must be 

to reduce greenhouse gas emissions so wildlife can have a future. Second, immediate 

steps must be taken to reduce the non-climate related threats that wildlife is facing. 

Securing and restoring habitat, fighting invasive species, and reducing pollution all 

strengthen natural resilience in wildlife and wildlife habitat to cope with global 

warming. Finally, strategies must be developed to help wildlife adapt to changing 

ecological conditions. 

Types of Global Warming Impacts 

Global warming will impact—and is already impacting—wildlife in a variety of 

ways: 

Sea and land ice meltdowns 

According to the IPCC, average Arctic temperatures increased at almost twice the 

global average rate in the past 100 years. Satellite data since 1978 show that annual average Arctic sea ice extent has shrunk by 2.7% per decade. Temperatures 

at the top of the Arctic permafrost layer have generally increased since the 1980s 

(by up to 3°C). The maximum area covered by seasonally frozen ground has decreased by about 7% in the Northern Hemisphere since 1900, with a decrease in 

spring of up to 15%. 

Indeed, polar bears depend entirely on sea ice as platforms for hunting the marine 

mammals that provide their nutritional needs. Because the necessary ice bridges 

linking land and sea have disappeared, adult and young polar bears have starved 

and drowned. Some polar bears have even resorted to cannibalism, leading scientists to remark that they are witnessing stressors unprecedented in decades of observation. Consequently, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has proposed listing the 

polar bear as threatened under the Endangered Species Act, a proposal which Defenders of Wildlife strongly supports. There are numerous other arctic species that 

are fairing no better than polar bears. 

On land, prospects are no better. Disappearance of permafrost has led to draining 

of Arctic wetlands, aquatic habitats used extensively by the breeding waterfowl that 

winter in the lower 48 states and support a multi-billion dollar sport hunting 

economy. 

One place where all of these changes are occurring is the Arctic National Wildlife 

Refuge in Alaska. The Arctic Refuge is the most important on-shore denning habitat 

for polar bears in the United States. As offshore sea-ice denning areas melt away, 

the Arctic Refuge becomes one of the last places for these polar bears to winter with 

56

their newborn cubs. The refuge’s famed Porcupine caribou herd is also being affected by global warming. Caribou are departing their wintering grounds a month 

earlier than normal and are still having trouble making it to the coastal plain of 

the Arctic Refuge in time for the earlier arrival of spring, when the most nutritious 

forage is available for their calves. Thus, the importance of the Arctic Refuge to 

wildlife is made even greater by global warming, making proposals to open the refuge to oil and gas development even more misguided. 

Habitat shifts 

As the planet warms, the habitat occupied by particular species shifts as well, 

typically northward in the northern hemisphere, upslope, and inland. Species’ northern and elevational ranges have shifted, on average, almost four miles northward 

and 20 feet upward each decade. Clearly, if you’re a species that already lives at 

high elevation, you may be out of luck as habitat choices simply run out. 

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that many tree species 

may shift their ranges 200 miles to the north. Places like the Green Mountain and 

White Mountain National Forests are expected to lose tree species wholesale, including the regionally important sugar maple whose range may shift entirely out of the 

United States. Changing forest composition will directly affect wildlife that depends 

on the current tree species of New England’s forests, like Bicknell’s Thrush, a very 

rare bird dependent on New England’s high elevation balsam fir trees, which may 

decline 96% by century’s end due to global warming, according to the EPA. 

Rising sea levels 

Estimates of sea level rise from global warming range from 7 to 22 inches over 

the next century, according to the latest IPCC report. Catastrophic melting of Antarctica or Greenland could raise sea levels by over ten feet. However, even a minor 

rise will have negative consequences for some wildlife. Coastal species like the endangered Florida Key deer depend entirely upon low-elevation barrier islands, and 

are especially vulnerable to sea level rise. 

Federal properties and resources are at serious risk. There are approximately 160 

national wildlife refuges and 50 national park units in coastal areas. Many of these 

refuges, like Breton National Wildlife Refuge in Louisiana, protect coastal marshes 

that are only a foot or two above the current sea level. Even the lowest estimated 

rise in sea level over the next century will have profound effects on coastal wetlands, which are one of the most biologically productive ecosystems on earth. Coastal marshes also happen to be tremendous carbon sinks, and their loss will reduce 

their ability to absorb carbon and potentially even release more carbon dioxide into 

the atmosphere as inundated marsh plants decompose. 

Longer droughts 

Drought resulting from global warming poses an additional threat to species that 

rely on already scarce water in arid environments such as the American southwest. 

For example, even in the best of times, survival can be precarious for desert bighorn 

sheep. Inhabiting steep, rocky terrain in the driest areas of the American southwest, 

they live in small groups isolated by miles of blazingly hot terrain. In southeastern 

California, rainfall has declined by up to 20%, leading to drying up of springs and 

disappearance of plants. More than a third of the sheep populations that once lived 

in California’s mountains have disappeared in the last century. 

Non-arid regions are going to face dramatic changes as well. In our recent report, 

Refuges at Risk—The Threat of Global Warming: America’s 10 Most Endangered 

National Wildlife Refuges 2006, Defenders of Wildlife highlights the impact of global 

warming on the National Wildlife Refuge System. We point out that the prairie pothole region of the country is the nation’s ‘‘duck factory’’; its thousands of small lakes 

and ponds providing ideal habitat for breeding waterfowl. Over 50 national wildlife 

refuges, such as Medicine Lake refuge in eastern Montana, and Devils Lake Wetland Management District in North Dakota, have been established in this region to 

protect breeding bird habitat. Climate scientists predict that warmer climates in the 

northern prairie wetlands region will increase the frequency and severity of 

droughts—so much so that the number of breeding ducks in this region could be 

cut in half. 

Increased wildfire 

Related to longer droughts is increased frequency and intensity of wildfires. Fire 

suppression and risk reduction programs already consume almost half of the U.S. 

Forest Service’s budget. Increased fire directly inhibits our public lands from providing the suite of benefits we demand from them, including supporting wildlife, 

recreation, and timber production. In a study published in the journal Science, researchers found that compared to data from the 16 years prior, the period from 1987 

57

to 2003 was 1.5 degrees higher in the West, had a 78-day longer fire season and 

four times as many large wildfires, which burned over six times more land than the 

previous study period. These dramatic changes were correlated with decreased winter rains, earlier snowmelt caused by warming temperatures, and have caused dramatic changes to national forests and other public lands. 

Excess carbon dioxide 

Often described as the rainforests of the ocean, coral reefs support a dazzling 

array of creatures. But die-offs of corals, as much as 98% in some locations during 

the last 25 years, landed two coral species on the endangered species list. Staghorn 

and elkhorn coral form massive thickets, provide cover for numerous reef fish, and 

are essential for the health of entire reef ecosystems. However, warming ocean temperatures are stripping corals of the algae they need to survive, while carbon dioxide 

emissions are increasing the acidity of the oceans. Reefs subsequently turn into rubble because of decreased concentrations of carbonate ions, a key building block for 

calcium carbonate required by the corals. 

The threat from global warming to coral reefs affects many national wildlife refuges, including the Northwest Hawaiian Islands refuge, Guam National Wildlife 

Refuge, and the Palmyra Atoll, Midway Atoll, and Kingman Reef refuges in the 

south Pacific. 

Other impacts 

Global warming will affect wildlife in other ways as well. For example, changes 

in migration patterns will alter some species’ ability to find suitable habitat and 

food. For example, the timing of bird migration is finely tuned to available food resources, and many species are struggling to cope with changing seasonal patterns. 

Changes in average precipitation (far more or far less annual rain and snow than 

falls currently) will place strain on species adapted to current precipitation patterns. 

Another result of global warming is that certain weather events will become more 

extreme, causing a greater probability of freshwater flooding inland and more intense and violent storms and other weather events, such as hurricanes, along the 

coasts. Rapidly changing environments will also heighten the risk of invasive native 

and invasive non-native species, both of which can pose threats to the species they 

displace. For example, global warming has been implicated in the recent severe outbreak of bark beetles in southwestern forests including New Mexico and Arizona. 

In the 2002-2003 season, 3.5 million acres of pin ̃ on pine and 2 million acres of ponderosa pine were affected. Warming-induced drought stressed trees so they were unable to protect themselves with increased sap production. Warmer winters also reduced bark beetle mortality and expanded their breeding season. 

Helping wildlife navigate the global warming bottleneck 

According to last week’s IPCC report, global warming and associated sea level rise 

will continue for centuries due to the timescales associated with climate processes 

and delayed feedbacks, even if greenhouse gas concentrations are stabilized now or 

in the very near future. Thus, even if we act now, as we must, to reduce greenhouse 

gas emissions, wildlife will continue to feel the effects of global warming for at least 

the next 100 years, the period in which carbon dioxide already in the atmosphere 

will persist. In other words, there is at least a century-long bottleneck that we must 

help wildlife navigate, so that it can survive to reap the benefits from reductions 

in greenhouse gas emissions undertaken now. Consequently, our national strategy 

for combating global warming must consist of two parts. First, we must act now to 

reduce greenhouse gas emissions, to address the root cause of climate change. Second, we must also craft responses and mechanisms now to help wildlife navigate the 

looming bottleneck of complex threats caused by global warming. Some ways to do 

this are suggested in the following pages of my testimony. 

Energy Policy Reform and Building Resilience to Global Warming 

Many species and ecological systems have the ability to tolerate and adapt to 

some degree of ecological and climate changes. If global warming was the only stress 

on wildlife, more species might be able to weather it. Wildlife will have little chance 

of adapting to the impacts of global warming if already stressed by loss and 

fragmentation of habitat, competition with invasive species, and pollution. Thus, 

reducing other stressors on wildlife is key to helping wildlife navigate the bottleneck 

of global warming impacts, and ensuring that wildlife and wildlife habitat are resilient to these changes should be a top priority. Unfortunately, our current energy 

policy does the exact opposite. 

The Bush administration has treated wildlife as an impediment to the extraction 

of energy and other resources from America’s public lands. On National Forests, the 

Bush administration eliminated the 20 year old requirement that national forests 

58

maintain viable wildlife populations. This requirement, adopted under the Reagan 

administration, helped ensure the persistence of wildlife while Forest Service pursued timber and energy production and other uses. Without this requirement, the 

Forest Service has been given the green light to offer our national forests to energy 

and timber companies with little assurance that, after these companies reap the 

benefits of public resources and leave, wildlife populations will be left for Americans 

to enjoy. 

The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), unfortunately, has never had such a requirement. Still, the agency is supposed to sustain wildlife in managing the suite 

of multiple-uses BLM lands provide. Yet, the administration’s energy policy has essentially converted the BLM into a dominant-use agency, an agency dedicated to 

energy development. Wildlife protections under the Bush administration have been 

specifically targeted as impediments to energy development, instead of viewing wildlife conservation as the cost of doing business on public lands. 

The result: Nationwide, the number of oil and gas drilling permits approved by 

BLM more than quadrupled, from 1,803 to 7,736 for the years 1999 through 2005. 

Last year the BLM predicted they would receive over 10,000 drilling permit applications in 2007. There are over 60,000 producing wells on public lands and over 35 

million acres are under active leases. 

The impacts on wildlife are clear. In the Farmington, New Mexico field office, 

BLM approved plans to develop nearly 10,000 new wells. Yet the high level of drilling that has already occurred in the area has devastated wildlife. According to the 

New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, the elk population in the area plummeted 88% from 1999 to 2004. Even an industry funded study in Pinedale, Wyoming 

documented a 46% reduction in the mule deer population in an area of rapid energy 

development. Gas and oil drilling doesn’t just impact elk or mule deer, of course, 

but these species are indicative of the dramatic adverse affects to the ecology of the 

entire region. 

In addition to the direct impacts all this development has on wildlife through 

habitat loss and on-site pollution, the processing of thousands of drilling permits is 

consuming all BLM staff time in the field offices where energy development is greatest. According to the GAO, ‘‘dramatic increases in oil and gas permitting activity 

have lessened BLM’s ability to ensure that environmental impacts are mitigated.’’ 

Worse still for wildlife, according to a BLM internal review, up to 50% of staff and 

funding from BLM’s fish, wildlife, and threatened and endangered species programs 

have been diverted to support the energy program, slashing the agency’s ability to 

conduct habitat management and restoration, population monitoring and other wildlife management activities. 

The synergistic effects of global warming and energy development and other nonclimate related threats to wildlife and ecosystems are best illustrated by two examples: sage grouse and coastal wetlands. 

Sage grouse, oil and gas development, and global warming 

Two years ago, the Fish and Wildlife Service was petitioned to list the sage grouse 

under the Endangered Species Act. This caused wide-spread concern within the 

BLM and with the many users of BLM lands, particularly the oil and gas industry. 

And for good reason: There is broad overlap between known oil and gas reserves 

and sage grouse habitat in the Intermountain West. For example, in Wyoming, 

26,000,000 acres (66.7%) of the state’s remaining sage grouse habitat falls within 

areas of potential oil/gas development; 9,000,000 acres (28.1%) in Colorado; 

3,000,000 acres (43.5%) in Utah; and 1,700,000 acres (16.2%) in Montana, according 

to an analysis conducted by Trout Unlimited. 

Oil and gas development requires clearing of habitat for roads, well pads, and 

pipelines. In many areas, new power lines are erected to operate equipment, providing raptor perches where none previously existed, threatening sage grouse with 

increased predation. Noise from oil and gas operations interferes with the breeding 

behavior of sage grouse, which must hear distant calls to locate localized mating 

grounds. Finally, there is always the likelihood of spills, leaks and explosions of natural gas, oil, and other chemicals and contaminated water. 

Oil and gas development also facilitates the spread of invasive species like cheatgrass. Cheatgrass, a fire-adapted species, alters the fire regime of sagebrush 

ecosystems causing larger-scale, hotter fires than would normally burn in this system. Oil and gas development also increases the risk accidental human-caused wildfire ignition. Sagebrush typically recovers very slowly after a fire, and may take 30 

years or more to reestablish at the same level of coverage as pre-fire conditions. In 

the period of time before regrowth has occurred, sage grouse lack cover and are 

more vulnerable to predators, and there are fewer succulent plants and insects 

available for them to eat. 

59

Cheatgrass is well adapted to global warming, and is an example how global 

warming can disrupt ecosystems. Because cheatgrass is fire adapted, it can withstand the increased fire risk of the drier conditions caused by higher evaporation 

rates with global warming. Cheatgrass and other exotic grasses have also been 

shown to out-compete native plants with increased atmospheric concentrations of 

carbon dioxide, the main contributor to global warming. In other words, global 

warming is expected to significantly alter sagebrush ecosystems that sage grouse 

and other species depend on. 

This emphasizes the importance of conservation measures now to increase sagebrush and other vulnerable ecosystems’ resilience to the impacts of global warming. 

Unfortunately, most of the core sage grouse strongholds have been leased for oil and 

gas development. On top of this, stipulations to development designed to limit disturbance to sage grouse during the sensitive breeding period are regularly waived 

by the BLM. Add to this the diversion of staff and funding from BLM’s wildlife program to process drilling permits and the gutting of the Forest Service’s wildlife viability requirement, and the picture looks grim for the future of sage grouse, even 

if global warming were not a threat to its survival. 

Restoring the Forest Service’s requirement to maintain viable populations of wildlife and instituting a similar requirement for BLM would go a long way towards restoring the balance of uses on our public lands and help wildlife survive now and 

in the future in the face of global warming. 

Coastal wetlands, oil and gas development, and global warming 

Coastal wetlands are extremely productive ecosystems, important to both migratory waterfowl and commercial fisheries. Louisiana is home to 40 percent of remaining wetlands in the contiguous U.S. Louisiana’s coastal marshes provide vital wintering areas for millions of ducks and other birds, and important resting areas for 

birds crossing the Gulf of Mexico. These wetlands also produce 20 percent of the 

country’s commercial fish harvest, according to the USGS National Wetlands Research Center. These wetlands serve as vital buffers against storm surges. For every 

mile of coastal wetlands, storm surges are reduced by one foot in height. 

These important wetlands are disappearing at the rate of 40 square miles of 

marsh a year—a full 80 percent of the wetland losses in the country. This devastating loss is caused by a variety of factors, including the loss of marsh-building 

sediment from the historic flooding of the Mississippi River, subsidence, sea level 

rise, and oil and gas development. 

Louisiana is the portal for most of the offshore oil and gas production in the Gulf 

of Mexico. The oil and gas industry has dredged thousands of miles of canals 

through Louisiana’s coastal wetlands, including through federal lands like Delta National Wildlife Refuge at the mouth of the Mississippi River. Canals allow saltwater 

to intrude into freshwater marshes, killing sediment-trapping vegetation, speeding 

the pace of erosion. 

Global warming-induced sea level rise will further accelerate this problem. Not 

only will the loss of these wetlands have dire consequences for fish and wildlife, it 

will harm the oil and gas industry itself. Over 20,000 miles of oil pipelines crisscross 

these marshes from offshore—pipelines that will be directly exposed to whims of nature as wetlands recede around them. 

Again, this example emphasizes the critical importance of timely conservation 

measures to buffer against the effects of global warming. Though we cannot stop 

the seas from rising, we can fill in canals and restore a portion of the historic sediment flows from the Mississippi River to these wetlands to prevent catastrophic loss 

of coastal marshes. 

A Coordinated, Interagency Response is Essential 

In addition to building ecological resilience to global warming by reducing the current threats to wildlife and habitat, federal agencies must use their existing authorities and be given additional direction to consider the impacts of global warming on 

wildlife in program planning, land management, and environmental analysis pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act, the Endangered Species Act, and 

other relevant laws. Though the brunt of some global warming impacts may not be 

fully felt for a number of years, planning to address and ameliorate those impacts 

on wildlife and wildlife habitat must begin now. 

Equally important, new governmental processes and structures need to be explored that will themselves be resilient and adaptive to the threats from global 

warming. While it is important for each federal agency to develop measures for protecting wildlife from the effects of global warming, it is insufficient for individual 

agencies, or even individual federal land units, to contemplate and plan strategies 

purely on their own. The problem is simply too complex. 

60

We believe it is imperative that a national strategy be developed for addressing 

the impact of global warming on wildlife, with the express purpose of helping wildlife navigate the bottleneck of global warming impacts over the next century. This 

strategy should examine management issues common to geographic areas and 

threat type (e.g., sea level rise, increased hurricane frequency and intensity). Individual agencies and land management units should then coordinate their management activities with these national and regional goals and strategies. State strategies, particularly those set forth in state wildlife action plans, should address global 

warming impacts on wildlife and also be coordinated with the national strategy. 

Scientific Capacity Should be Enhanced 

Building more robust scientific, inventory and monitoring programs is essential to 

managing wildlife and federal lands in a world altered by global warming. The scientific capacity of federal agencies, however, is woefully inadequate. No federal land 

system has a comprehensive biological inventory of their lands. The National Park 

Service has completed inventories on individual units, but other federal land systems, including the National Wildlife Refuge System, do not have comprehensive biological inventories. How are agencies to know how ecological systems are changing 

as a result of global warming, and subsequently what adaptive responses may be 

necessary, if they do not even know what is there? Building applied research, inventory and monitoring capacity across the agencies is essential. 

A coordinated science arm of a national strategy for addressing the impacts of 

global warming on wildlife will also be essential in developing and determining the 

efficacy of specific measures to address those impacts. A number of different types 

of responses have already been proposed by the scientific community including the 

protection and restoration of habitat corridors to assist species in shifting their 

ranges and the protection of climate ‘‘refugia’’—areas that are not as vulnerable to 

the whims of a changing climate and are better able to preserve biodiversity 

through the climate bottleneck. These and other strategies will need to be further 

developed and tested. 

Providing Funding to Address Global Warming’s Impacts on Wildlife 

Development and implementation of a national strategy to address global 

warming’s impacts on wildlife, providing the necessary science to underpin that 

strategy, and taking action to reduce other stressors on wildlife will require substantially more money than is currently provided to conservation. As Congress develops legislation to cap greenhouse gas emissions, it is likely to create a system 

of emissions credits that can be traded. In the process, there is an opportunity to 

auction some of these credits, producing substantial revenue for the federal Treasury. A portion of that revenue should be dedicated to programs to offset the impacts 

of global warming on wildlife, with special emphasis on providing funding to address 

federal responsibilities for wildlife and land conservation in the face of global warming. 

In addition, as the subcommittee explores methods to capture the true costs of 

energy development on public lands, including requiring mitigation fees and increased royalties, a portion of these funds should be dedicated to restoring wildlife 

and wildlife habitat to build natural resilience to the impacts of global warming. 

This was the promise of the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF). The 

LWCF, funded largely by a portion of federal offshore oil and gas royalties, was designed to provide a permanent conservation benefit to the American public in exchange for the liquidation of federal natural resources. The promise of the LWCF, 

however, has never been fulfilled. In fact, the Bush administration’s FY 2008 budget 

request includes the second lowest request in the history of the 40 year program. 

The need for land protection through the LWCF and programs like it has never 

been greater. In designing revenue streams for conservation, the subcommittee 

should ensure that funds are dedicated to conservation and mitigation purposes. 

Conclusion 

Global warming is the conservation challenge of our time. It casts a long shadow 

over all of our other efforts to conserve and recover wildlife. We must act promptly 

to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to halt and eventually reverse the changes we 

are causing to our planet from global warming. At the same time, we must take 

steps to enable wildlife to survive the next century of inevitable impacts from global 

warming, to navigate this bottleneck, so that wildlife and, ultimately, humans, will 

benefit from the actions we take now to stop global warming. 

On behalf of Defenders of Wildlife, thank you for the opportunity to share our perspective on this critical issue. We look forward to working with this subcommittee 

and others in Congress to develop a program that will result in effective measures 

to help wildlife navigate the global warming bottleneck so that our children and 

61

grandchildren will be able to enjoy the wealth of wildlife and its habitat that we 

have enjoyed. 

Mr. COSTA. Thank you very much, Mr. Matson. 

Our last witness, and we will be able to go to questions, comments of the Committee on the second panel, is Dr. timothy Ball, 

who is the Chair of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project. So 

you have a presentation as well, a PowerPoint. Very good, Mr. Ball. 

I really apologize to members of the Subcommittee. We have to 

have a better presentation than this. For those of us who are now 

getting to a chronological age where we are being challenged, this 

is a tough, tough read for me. But I think you have the accompanying documents in our packets. So with that understood, please 

begin. 

STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY F. BALL, CHAIR,

NATURAL RESOURCES STEWARDSHIP PROJECT 

Mr. BALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee, and pictures are worth a thousand words, and maybe 

in my case, a million. 

It is interesting to sit here and listen to these presentations, and 

as Yogi Berra said, ‘‘It is deja vu all over again,’’ because I remember when I started my career in the 1970s, I was hearing exactly 

the same arguments about global cooling, about the impending 

doom, about the disaster on species, and so on. And so as I said, 

it is an extremely interesting experience for me. 

I am also pleased to hear that climate change is finally being accepted. I have been called as recently as the last six months in The 

Times of London a climate change denier. My whole career has 

been going around the country and the world telling the people 

that climate changes all the time. The illustration I have before 

you is a production from the Canadian Geological Survey, and it 

shows you the ice conditions just 22,000 years ago, and you see the 

dark blue area there, the largest area is ice up to 10,000 feet thick, 

covering almost all of central and eastern Canada, and the ice 

stretching down into the northeastern and central United States, 

and I say that is just 22,000 years ago. 

There was a similar ice sheet in Scandinavia and two more in 

Siberia, and at that time sea level was 500 feet lower than it is at 

present. So the idea about sea level changing is nothing new, and 

what is significant about this is that all that ice melted in about 

5,000 years, and this was long before there was human CO2 or anything else, and the explanation for that melting is primarily given 

by these factors which are called the Milankovitch Effect, and interestingly enough, this is not included in most of our textbooks 

across North America today. I have checked them out. 

What it shows in the lower right is the orbit of the earth around 

the sun as an almost circular but slightly elliptical orbit. That is 

the situation right now. But the orbit is changing every single year 

pulled by the gravitational pull of the planet Jupiter, and what you 

see on the lower left is the orbit as it was 22,000 years ago, an extreme eclipse, so the orbit is changing every single year. 

And in the center of the diagram you see that the tilt is shown 

at 23.5 degrees. It isn’t. It is just close enough for government 

62

work. But it also constantly changes from 21.4 to 24.8, and that 

has nothing to do with the wobble. That is a straight change in tilt. 

Both of those factors are changing every single year. None of 

these things are included in the IPCC climate models, and they 

argue is because they are too short a time span. But we are talking 

about projections of 50 and 100 years when they become significant. 

In the IPCC report and all the studies, they only look at one factor of solar variability and that is changes in the electro-magnetic 

radiation or heat and light. But even with that, they acknowledge 

that it explains 50 percent of the warming of the last 130 years. 

What they leave out is what I have just shown you, the sun/earth 

relationships, the orbit tilt. They also leave out what is called the 

corpuscular radiation or the solar winds, and that very, very highly 

correlates with climate changes I will show you shortly. 

This is an ice core temperature record from Greenland, and what 

it shows you on the right side is the dramatic warming that occurred about 10,500 years ago as we came out of that Ice Age, and 

the ice sheets started to melt, and then on the left side it shows 

you the present temperature, and you will see that for most of the 

last 10,000 years the world has been warmer than it is at present. 

In fact, you could argue that it has been cooling since about 8,000 

to the present. 

This warming between four and 8,000 years is called the Holocene Optimum, and there are people that are trying to get rid of 

it, just like they tried to get rid of the Medieval warm period, because it hampers their argument that today is warmer than it has 

ever been. It is simply not true. 

We don’t need just scientific graphs to show it. This is a photograph of a white spruce. It is 100 kilometers north of the current 

tree line taken by Professor Ritchie and used with his permission. 

Its radio-carbonated at 4,940 years old, and in order to have a tree 

of that dimension growing that far north of the current tree line, 

the world would have had to have been between 3 and 5 degrees 

Celsius warmer than it is at present. So we have seen much warmer, even since the end of the last Ice Age, so what is going on today 

is well within our normal variability. 

What you see here is the sunspot data starting at 1610, and it 

shows you that the variability, and basically when the sun is 

warmer, or when the sunspots are higher the earth is warmer. 

When the sunspots are lower the earth is cooler. This shows you 

the greenhouse gases, water vapors. Ninety-five percent of the 

greenhouse gas is virtually ignored. CO2 is less than 4 percent. 

And just to finish up, Mr. Chairman, I beg for five second, this 

shows you the CO2 record for 600 million years from the geologic 

record. We are currently at an all-time low of CO2, at 385 parts per 

million. Plants operate best at 1,000 parts per million, and that is 

being done in commercial greenhouses, so the plants essentially are 

CO2 low and starved. So to suggest lowering the CO2 is just ludicrous. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ball follows:]

63

Statement of Dr. Timothy F. Ball, Chair,

Natural Resources Stewardship Project 

Rapid change is normal especially in climate. Despite scientific knowledge of this 

most people still view change as gradual. This allows extremists to argue that any 

new change is not normal and therefore due to human activities. Climate always 

changes. Just 22,000 years a massive ice sheet covered ago Canada. Thirty years 

ago the scientific consensus said we were entering another ice age. 

Science works by creating then testing theories. Each theory is only as valid as 

its assumptions. If the assumptions prove correct and the theory produces accurate 

predictions then it may become a law. 

The theory of global warming assumes; CO2 is a greenhouse gas that traps heat 

keeping the earth warm; that if the atmospheric levels increase the global temperature will rise; that human addition of CO2 will cause an increase in CO2 and therefore temperature. 

The warming theory became a fact and a law before the research had even begun. 

Scientists who tried to question the theory were sidelined as skeptics. The scientific 

method was almost completely thwarted. 

The evidence continues to grow and show that the theory is completely wrong. Ice 

core records show that the temperature rises before CO2 not as assumed. Geologic 

and other records show no correlation between CO2 and temperature. Changes in 

the sun explain almost all of the temperature known change. 

The biggest problem is that all ‘‘predictions’’ of global warming are based on computer models (known as General Circulation Models (GCM) that simply don’t work. 

The models can’t recreate known conditions, can’t handle clouds and are unable to 

forecast for six months from now, yet we’re expected to accept forecasts for 100 

years are accurate and certain. This is now the basis of massive and expensive public policy. 

What’s wrong with warming? In fact most of the world is better off in warmer 

times. 

They say we should act anyway. This is known as the Precautionary Principle. 

However, it assumes there is some validity to your theory and it can make accurate 

predictions. This is simply not true for the global warming theory. Besides, there 

are far more important issues. 

We are totally committed to warming, but the scientific evidence is we are cooling. 

[NOTE: Photographs and ‘‘180 YEARS OF ATMOSPHERIC CO2 GAS ANALYSIS’’ 

by Ernst-Georg Beck, Reprinted from ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT, Volume 18, No. 

2 2007, have been retained in the Committee’s official files.]

[Attachments to Mr. Ball’s statement follow:]

64


34820.005 34820.006
65


34820.007 34820.008
66

Mr. COSTA. All right. Thank you very much, Mr. Ball, for your 

testimony, and now we will have the opportunity to question the 

witnesses. I will begin. 

Dr. Westerling, in your testimony you used the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as one of your baseline sources 

for tracing warming trends. There are a lot of other studies that 

I keep hearing about, and projections on trends that are specific to 

the western United States. 


34820.009 34820.010
67

Can you give us a bottom line based on your studies and looking 

at others what trends do you see in the next five to 10 years? I 

know you spoke while I was gone, but you had made a presentation 

yesterday, and I know about the correlation with regards to forest 

fires. 

Mr. WESTERLING. Yes, sir. Five to 10 years is a very short time 

frame. 

Mr. COSTA. I think so. 

Mr. WESTERLING. And one of the things to keep in mind is that 

all of the IPCC projections, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change projections, whether you vary the models or the scenarios or the types of emissions we have, basically have identical 

results for the next decade or so because they don’t begin to diverge 

until later in the century as the small differences between these 

models and between the scenarios tend to accumulate over time. 

Mr. COSTA. Let us stipulate for the record there are a number 

of factors, but do you want to respond? 

Mr. WESTERLING. Right. So what I am going to say is that over 

the next five to 10 years I would expect to see just a lot like the 

last five to 10 years. 

Mr. COSTA. OK. 

Mr. WESTERLING. And whereas, you know, mid-century I would 

expect to see, according to the IPCC, minimum warming in the 

western United States that is double what produced the very impressive increase in wildfire activity in the western Iraq. 

Mr. COSTA. I am concerned not only about wildfires, but also the 

impacts on our water supply and water quality. Let me ask another 

quick question, then I want to move on to one of the other witnesses. 

You are doing work for Governor Schwarzenegger with the State 

of California, and you have quantified economic costs and risk. Can 

that analysis that you are doing be expanded to other western 

states that have similar forestry conditions? 

Mr. WESTERLING. Certainly it could be done. Yes, we could expand it to the rest of the western United States very easily. 

Mr. COSTA. All right. Ms. Williams, quickly again because of 

time, I am familiar with, you know, all politics is local, but when 

I was first in the legislature with the first energy crisis and Governor Brown created an energy commission, and did a lot of interesting things, some better than others, but to try to find a mix of 

renewables. One of the areas in conservation that we did with btu’s 

allowed, and of course, our climate that is more temperate so that 

makes it better in California, of course, but where we used a lot 

less than the national average in terms of thermal units per individual. 

Any thoughts on how that is applied in Alaska and where that 

can be applied elsewhere? 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Well, Congressman, you are absolutely correct. 

The very first strategy should be energy conservation and energy 

efficiency. 

My father was a great Republican Conservative, and he taught 

me at an early age the base of conservative is conserve, and so first 

and foremost we, as Americans, should lead the way on energy conservation and energy efficiency, and that is something that we are 

68

discussing a great deal in Alaska and trying to implement, and 

that is something that we should do as a nation and that is something that this committee can certainly promote. 

Mr. COSTA. Appreciate that. 

Mr. Ball, I was interested in your comments. Let us say for the 

sake of argument that some of the information that you provided 

here is not used in some of the other evaluations that has been 

done, but it just seems to me that, based on some of the slides you 

showed us, that I don’t think there is a debate that the climate is 

changing, and has constantly changed, so I think you testified to 

that, is that not correct? 

Mr. BALL. I think that the public has generally been educated in 

what is called the——

Mr. COSTA. No, no, I am talking about what—you said what your 

view was on the public, how they have been educated. But I am 

just saying I don’t think there is a debate that the climate has not 

changed, will continue to change. That is a force of nature. 

Mr. BALL. I don’t agree with that. With 30 years of speaking to 

the public and educating, most of the public think change is very 

gradual over long periods of time. What we are really talking 

about, the rate of change and the variability, the degree of variability of change, and it is much greater than the public have been 

led to believe. 

Mr. COSTA. But I am not talking about the public. I am talking 

about the facts that scientific testimony, I think, has clearly indicated, going back to the Ice Age, to your information, that it is a 

natural evolving for a lot of factors, some of which you submitted 

in your testimony, that the climate continues to change. 

Mr. BALL. Well, as I said, I respectfully disagree. My experience 

is that that is not what is taught in the schools. That is not——

Mr. COSTA. No, I am not talking about what is taught in the 

schools. I am asking you if you believe whether or not the climate 

is staying the same constantly, or whether you believe it is changing. That is what I am asking. 

Mr. BALL. No, I have said right in my comments that I was 

accused of being a climate change denier. My whole career has 

been trying to get people to understand the rate at which climate 

changes in very short periods all throughout the earth’s history. 

That is the point I am trying to make. 

Mr. COSTA. Well, I know, but I think the discussion, the debate, 

and that is what I opened up here with my comment, and I have 

run out of time now, excuse me for a second, if you will bear with 

me, is the debate is as to what impact man is having on climate 

change. But my point is that I don’t think there is any debate that 

the climate has continued to change over the 4.5 billion years of 

the history of the plant, and Ice Age to receding Ice Age, I mean, 

how the Great Lakes broke from the Ice Age. I don’t think there 

is any debate about the climate changing. We may not agree on 

this point. I thought we might. 

Mr. BALL. Well, I think we can to some extent, but I say the degree to which it has changed, but also until you understand the extent of natural variability and the mechanisms of natural variability, it is simply impossible to separate out any minuscule effect 

that humans might have, and so I think that that is——

69

Mr. COSTA. Well, that, I think, is the subject of the debate, but 

I understand that. I understand your point on that, and I thought 

your testimony was helpful in highlighting your view on that. All 

I am trying to do is make the point that—and again I have gone 

beyond my time, thank you for bearing with me, my colleague—the 

degree man is impacting is minuscule, I think is the term you just 

used. 

Mr. BALL. Minuscule. Yes. 

Mr. COSTA. Thank you. 

Mr. PEARCE. Thank you. 

Mr. Murray, I am told that China plans to build 544 new coalpowered plants. That would be one new coal plant every week for 

more than 10 years, and so my question is will regulating CO2 unilaterally by the U.S. serve any purpose if developing nations do not 

likewise do something? 

Mr. MURRAY. It would do very little for the climate on earth, very 

little. As I testified, they are currently building 50, and that would 

fit well with the 544 over 10 years. They are not looking at any 

sort of carbon capture, transfer, or sequestration. They don’t even 

consider it. 

The G-77 countries, all developing countries led by China, told us 

this winter that post-Kyoto in 2012 they have no intention of capturing carbon dioxide. So what we are really talking about here is 

killing American jobs, exporting more American jobs for little or no 

environmental benefit. 

Mr. PEARCE. OK. In your testimony, you mentioned some companies that have come out in obvious support of global warming. 

Would you explain to me why—I mean, you are a business guy, 

they are business guys—why would companies do that? They are 

worried about exporting jobs, too. 

Mr. MURRAY. Congressman Pearce, I can answer it in one word. 

Profit. And they are not acting in the best interests of the United 

States of America. Let me explain. 

Energy and Excelon have nuclear power and natural gas plants, 

so they want to see coal-fired go away, so their power can compete 

in the global marketplace. Had a discussion with Jeffrey Immelt, 

Chairman and CEO of General Electric. He is out to make a profit 

off of the global warming, and says that. Caterpillar, Alcoa and you 

have two European companies here, BP American and Shell, and, 

of course, they want economically dominate the United States. 

Mr. PEARCE. Sure, I understand. Now, you are in the coal business, and coal provides about 52 or 53 percent of our nation’s energy. 

Mr. MURRAY. Correct. 

Mr. PEARCE. Now, what is going to happen to coal-producing 

states if we implement the legislation that is before us? What is 

going to be the—in other words, we have go coal exporter states, 

coal importer states. So what is going to happen to the coal exporter states? 

Mr. MURRAY. Folks on fixed incomes will have a great deal of 

time, trouble maintaining their standard of living. That is the first 

thing that will happen because electric rates will go out of sight. 

These proposals right now are equivalent to a $65 a ton tax on coal 

that I sell for 20. 

70

Mr. PEARCE. Why will electric utility rates go out of sight? I am 

not sure I understand what you——

Mr. MURRAY. Because right now coal accounts for 52 percent of 

the electricity in the country. But it is the cheapest. It is one-third 

to one-fourth the cost of electricity from natural gas. 

Mr. PEARCE. OK. 

Mr. MURRAY. And it is even cheaper to nuclear. It is disparate 

across the country. Some states like Ohio have 88 percent coalfired. They are going to be hurt. People on fixed incomes are going 

to lose their standard of living, and, sir, Ohio is never going to export another product in the global marketplace because low-cost 

electricity is a staple of life, and something we have got to have in 

this country to export our products competitively in the global marketplace for no environmental benefit. That is what we are looking 

at. 

Mr. PEARCE. So again, what about the job bases then in these 

coal-producing states like West Virginia? 

Mr. MURRAY. It will be depressed and placed into reverse the 

economy of this United States. We are exporting jobs right now to 

China, and they have told us they don’t plan to do anything between now and 2012, and after 2012, yet we are exporting jobs to 

China. Why are we—this Congress—are not looking at this side of 

it? We are exporting jobs to China. We are going to continue to do 

it because they are going to be more competitive while this Congress shoots every American worker in the head. 

Mr. PEARCE. I appreciate your passion for workers. I had employees, too, and you get invested in their lives. You get to understand 

their kids, and you understand what that is like to be—I was in 

the oil and gas business in 1999 and 2000, when the price of oil 

fell to $6, and I saw competitors lay off 68 percent of their employees. My wife and I made the choice to be buyers after fixed pay, 

with no pay cuts, and I mean, I understand what you are talking 

about. 

Mr. MURRAY. It is a human issue, sir. 

Mr. PEARCE. I know. 

Mr. MURRAY. And I know the names of the people whose lives 

are going to be destroyed for little or no environmental benefit 

here. 

Mr. PEARCE. I appreciate——

Mr. MURRAY. It has become a political hysterical rampage. 

Mr. PEARCE. Appreciate your passion for the employees and employees’ families, and I know that you said you have a plane to 

catch, you need to get out. 

Mr. Chairman, I think if that is OK with you, we will watch him 

depart there. 

Mr. COSTA. I did have a couple of questions but I can submit 

them in writing. 

Mr. MURRAY. No, sir. Go ahead. Mr. Chairman, I am at your 

pleasure, sir. 

Mr. COSTA. All right. Quickly, Mr. Murray, as one of the largest 

independent cooperators, if I understand that correctly, we are 

talking—I mean, first of all, I come from a perspective where I 

don’t think there is one silver bullet, and notwithstanding my support for renewables, I represent a large agriculture area looking at 

71

what agriculture could do to reduce our dependency, every conversation I have ever had with folks talk about the important role 

that coal has in America’s future. 

I don’t like to make blanket statements, but that is just me, but 

I do believe that clean coal technology in large-scale applications of 

emission reduction is going to be part of our future. I would like 

to get your take on what you think the possibilities are in the coal 

area for emission reduction. 

Mr. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is an excellent 

question. 

I spent 15 years of my life building the Great Plains Coal/Gasification Project in North Dakota. That is the only clean coal technology project that has been built to a commercial scale in the 

Western Hemisphere. I am as skeptic about clean coal technology 

because there is no commitment to it. 

First, the Congress has appropriated funds for clean coal technology, but the administration hasn’t spent it, and that has gone 

on now for years. So I am skeptic about clean coal technology. It 

has been 40 years since I spent 15 years of my life building the 

Great Planes Coal/Gasification Project. I know clean coal technology as well as anybody alive. I am an engineer, and I have lived 

it, and I am a real skeptic that there is any commitment in this 

country to a development of clean coal technology, and that needs 

to come first before the legislation because, Mr. Chairman, we have 

no way of getting and capturing CO2 right now on a commercial 

scale. 

Mr. COSTA. Well, I believe this is one of the areas that certainly 

the Subcommittee intends to look at, and I wanted to get your take 

based upon your own experience on that area. 

Let me move on to, and if you need to leave, Mr. Murray, we will 

release you. 

Mr. MURRAY. Please, sir. 

Mr. COSTA. Mr. Schendler, as an industry that works with Federal lands and having——

Mr. MURRAY. Are you finished with me, sir? 

Mr. COSTA. I am finished. 

Mr. MURRAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. COSTA. I mean for this afternoon. 

Mr. MURRAY. Thank you, sir. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. MURRAY. Thank you. You have been very gracious. Thank 

you. 

Mr. COSTA. Thank you. 

I am sorry, Ms. Williams, do you have to leave too? 

Ms. WILLIAMS. No, I deferred my appointment. Thank you. 

Mr. COSTA. All right. I am trying to be fair with all of our witnesses. 

Mr. Schendler, a lot of complaints are oftentimes with Federal 

regulations on public lands, and certainly I have constituents who 

come to me in the past with trying to just fix the problem. I would 

like to know your business, you know, is in some of the very beautiful parts of the Rockies, as we say, how the ski industry has been 

able to impact or deal with the various government types of regulation that for the best of intentions try to protect public lands? 

72

Mr. SCHENDLER. Historically, government regulations have not 

affected the industry. If anything, it has enabled it, so we have had 

a very positive relationship, I think, with the government on the 

use of public lands. 

Mr. COSTA. I think the time has gone to reset, but I am going 

to defer to my colleague here, because I don’t know what is happening with this time thing. We are going to have to get a better 

sink here. 

Mr. PEARCE. All right, thanks. 

Mr. Ball, you heard the discussion earlier with Mr. Myers about 

the level of carbon pre-1940. What was that level? He said 250, and 

my question is, is there any——

Mr. BALL. The pre-industrial level was set at 280 parts per million——

Mr. PEARCE. OK. 

Mr. BALL.—based on the ice core record, and also on an article 

by Tom Wigley, on climate change in 1983, and also by the research of Calendar. There is an article that came out just today in 

the Journal of Energy and Environment by Ernst Beck, which 

takes the 90,000 atmospheric readings from the Nineteenth Century, starting in 1812, and shows that the CO2 level in the Nineteenth Century was actually at 360 parts per million. 

Mr. PEARCE. That is a significant difference. 

Mr. BALL. Sir? 

Mr. PEARCE. Significant difference in the——

Mr. BALL. Oh, tremendous difference. 

Mr. PEARCE. Is Mr. Beck a scientist? 

Mr. BALL. sir? 

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Beck is a scientist? 

Mr. BALL. Mr. Beck is an atmospheric chemist in Germany, and 

I have been working with him for a year on this article, and he not 

only shows that the average level of pre-industrial, but also that 

the CO2 varies tremendously from year to year. 

Mr. PEARCE. What would this do to the models if that—Mr. 

Chairman, I would ask unanimous consent to submit an article like 

that. 

Mr. BALL. Yes. 

Mr. COSTA. Without objection. 

Mr. BALL. Thank you. 

Mr. COSTA. OK. 

[NOTE: The article submitted for the record has been retained 

in the Committee’s official files.] 

Mr. PEARCE. What would it do to the models if that input is significant? 

Mr. BALL. Well, it changes the whole slope of the CO2, the whole 

argument of human injuring global warming is based on that slope 

of a pre-industrial natural level of 280 to a current level of 385. If 

you push up the 280 to 360, the slope virtually disappears. 

By the way, that also speaks to some of the serious problems 

with the CO2 record in the ice cores, and in that CO2 record in ice 

cores, the temperature changes before the CO2, not as the basis 

assumption is. 

73

Mr. PEARCE. OK. Mr. Westerling quoted significantly from that 

IPCC report. Have you read the report or just the executive 

summary? 

Mr. WESTERLING. You mean the new report? 

Mr. PEARCE. No. 

Mr. WESTERLING. Since it is not published yet. 

Mr. PEARCE. Have you read the new report? 

Mr. WESTERLING. I have read the executive summary. 

Mr. PEARCE. And were scientists, Mr. Ball, were scientists allowed to give input on that executive summary or was that 

policy——

Mr. BALL. There were two people that were involved with the 

guidance of the politicians and the bureaucrats that wrote the report. One was Phil Jones and the other was Kevin Trenberth. 

Mr. PEARCE. So the executive summary does not have the scientific input——

Mr. BALL. No. 

Mr. PEARCE. OK. I am going to walk down, and just yes or no, 

and if it is not a yes or no, I am sorry, I am going to take my time 

back because we are up against this clock and that clock. 

Coal generates about 52 percent of the energy today. Do you believe that with your world view that you are describing here today 

that America can continue to get 50 percent of its power from coal 

and help you to achieve your world views? Yes or no, Mr. Matson? 

Mr. COSTA. Who are you directing the question to? 

Mr. PEARCE. I am going to walk straight down the panel. 

Mr. COSTA. Oh, OK. 

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Matson. 

Mr. COSTA. Mr. Matson. 

Mr. PEARCE. Ms. Williams and right on down the panel. Yes or 

no? 

Mr. MATSON. Repeat the question. Sorry. 

Mr. PEARCE. Yes, can we continue to get 50 percent of our energy 

from coal and achieve what you feel like we need to achieve as far 

as climate? 

Mr. MATSON. Unlikely, but I think there are alternatives to coal. 

Mr. PEARCE. Unlikely. Ms. Williams? 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Unlikely. 

Mr. PEARCE. Unlikely. Mr. Schendler? 

Mr. SCHENDLER. Mr. Schendler or Mr. Westerling? 

Mr. PEARCE. I am sorry. Yes, Mr. Westerling. Mr. Schendler, you 

will be next. 

Mr. WESTERLING. Not with current topology. 

Mr. PEARCE. Not with current. 

Mr. SCHENDLER. No. Yes, with sequestration. 

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Ball? 

Mr. BALL. Yes. 

Mr. PEARCE. OK. We are going to do the same exercise on nuclear technology. If we are going to convert from coal, something 

has to be there. In other words, we know we provide 300 million 

people, about 1 million get energy from wind, and about 1 million 

for solar, so something has to have enough capability, enough 

quantity. Nuclear, yes or no? 

Mr. MATSON. To do what? To entirely place our energy? 

74

Mr. PEARCE. Yes, to fill the void left by the coal that we are 

going to shut down. 

Mr. MATSON. I think there is a tremendous opportunity in energy 

efficiency. 

Mr. PEARCE. Yes or no? Can you give a yes or no, nuclear? 

Mr. MATSON. We should be using it as an alternative. There are 

plenty of other alternatives to examine. 

Mr. PEARCE. Nuclear, yes or no? Nuclear, yes or no, Ms. 

Williams? 

Ms. WILLIAMS. To fill the entire void, no. 

Mr. PEARCE. No. No. 

Ms. WILLIAMS. To fill some of the void, yes. 

Mr. PEARCE. Nuclear, yes or no? 

Mr. WESTERLING. Depends on the time frame of nuclear. 

Mr. PEARCE. Yes or no? 

Mr. WESTERLING. Yes or no? Yes or no to what? I mean, it 

really——

Mr. PEARCE. To fill the void. We are going to shut down coal to 

achieve your world view, and I am just asking if you will accept 

technology of the nuclear to provide that void. 

Mr. WESTERLING. I think there is going to be an important component, but I don’t think it would be——

Mr. PEARCE. OK. 

Mr. WESTERLING.—sufficient by itself to fill the void. 

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Schendler? 

Mr. SCHENDLER. As a portion, nuclear would be part of the solution. 

Mr. PEARCE. All right. 

Mr. BALL. Yes. 

Mr. PEARCE. OK, just trying to figure out what our options are 

going to be. 

I see my time has expired, Mr. Chairman, and I would have another round if you have the opportunity. 

Mr. COSTA. Mr. Westerling, Dr. Westerling, excuse me, in your 

testimony you talked about the cost of fire suppression, and the 

human terms of the severe fire seasons. Any of us who live in western states understand the cost impacts and the map that we looked 

at yesterday clearly indicates that. 

Both the Government Accountability Office and the Inspector 

General have raised related concerns in escalating wildfire costs. 

Assuming that the trends are going to continue, and you and I kind 

of got in between five or 10 years what those trends are, what is 

your recommendations on how we can continue to protect our communities that today have been impacted by forest fires? 

Mr. WESTERLING. There are a range of measures and some of 

them are already being done, and I would refer you to say literature on the fire-wise communities, for example. So there are 

ways to make homes and communities more resistant to wildfire 

by, for example, clearing vegetation around structures, changing 

the kinds of materials used in building the structures. So we can 

continue to do more of that, but we are already doing quite a lot 

in that area. 

Another set of measures is related to fire suppression, and as you 

pointed out yourself, we are already spending a great deal of 

75

money on fire suppression in the western United States, and there 

has been very significant technical innovation in the kinds of resources that we have to apply to suppress fires. And so it is not 

likely that we will see any sort of revolutionary impact of additional resources or technological change in fire suppression in the 

near future. 

Mr. COSTA. Regardless, it is going to cost us——

Mr. WESTERLING. It is going to——

Mr. COSTA.—on the Federal level and it is going to cost us on the 

state level. 

Mr. WESTERLING. For the longer term, the best thing that we 

could do would be to reduce the growth of sprawl, reduce the 

growth of urban——

Mr. COSTA. Sound planning would obviously impact not just forests, but our farming as well, but I don’t want to get into that. 

That is not the subject of our hearing. 

Our friend from Alaska, Ms. Williams, you mentioned something 

in your comments about conserving and conservation. Of course, 

one of the great conservationists, presidents of the Twentieth Century was Theodore Roosevelt, and you know, I guess it is because 

I just don’t see the world through black and whites, but shades of 

gray, and unless you are trying to play a ‘‘gotcha’’, I am really looking for how we deal with the challenges we face. 

Let us say for just a moment for the sake of the discussion that 

the climate warming issue and man’s impact was just put on the 

side for a moment, but just common sense in terms of, you know, 

the planet had less than 200 years ago 2 billion people on it, today 

it has got more than 6 billion. I like to joke I am one of the few 

people, much to my mother’s dismay, who is actually doing something about this population issue, because I have not contributed 

to the problem, but when we talk about sustainability, I mean 

doesn’t common sense tell us that we have to employ a host of 

management tools to deal with our sustainability notwithstanding 

the argument or the discussion or the debate that we have had this 

afternoon on climate impacts? 

Ms. WILLIAMS. I agree with you very much, Mr. Chairman, and 

I think that is the role of Congress in tackling this greatest threat 

that we face. There are many contributors to it. We have discussed 

some of them today. What we have also discussed is just some of 

the costs. 

We have heard from a couple of the witnesses about the human 

costs of maybe restricting coal production, but I can assure you, 

Mr. Chairman, the human costs of climate change are very dramatic, and I would invite the Subcommittee and the entire committee to come to Alaska. Go to Shishmaref, and see the tears 

going down peoples’ faces as they have to relocate their community 

that they have been occupying for 4,000 years because of the impacts of global warming are requiring relocation. 

So when we see the impacts, my mother had to be hospitalized 

because of smoke from the 2004 fires, at 90. And so when you look 

at health costs, cultural costs, economic costs, I have friends who 

fish and their children may not be able to fish because of the acidification of the ocean and the loss in fishing opportunities. 

Mr. COSTA. My time has expired. 

76

Ms. WILLIAMS. So, Mr. Chairman, our goal is indeed to look at 

the full spectrum of contributors to this because this is the greatest 

threat that we face as a nation. 

Mr. COSTA. We may take you up on your suggestion. Informed 

sources tells me that the Chairman has committed to the Ranking 

Member of the Full Committee—I am not talking about the two of 

us here—but Mr. Young, the Representative, the gentleman from 

Alaska, for the Committee to actually go up to Alaska in August, 

I believe, of this year. 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Wonderful. 

Mr. COSTA. And so how many of the members will be able to 

make the trip up there, but I will certainly suggest to the Chairman your reference about the visit you suggested, and I would suggest to all the members of the Committee, having been up to Alaska several times, that those that can do because it is one of America’s great treasures and great resources, and it would be good to 

see firsthand some of the issues you pointed out. 

For the last round, the gentleman from New Mexico. 

Mr. PEARCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. How long are we going 

to have to submit questions? 

Mr. COSTA. Standard 10 days. 

Mr. PEARCE. OK. 

Mr. COSTA. I made that in the opening comment. 

Mr. PEARCE. OK. I am sorry. 

Mr. Ball, up here I am looking at a chart of the sources of greenhouse gases. Now, when I look, I see the orange is water vapor, 

and then the other biological activity and the human element at 

about .28. 

Is that the standard view? In other word, is that a correct scientific view that that is about the size of the human element? 

Mr. BALL. Yes, that is about the size. 

Mr. PEARCE. All right. Let us move to the next chart here. We 

have a lot of ground to cover so I don’t mean to cut everybody off 

but we are going to go through a lot of questions. 

Now, this one doesn’t show, but you can barely see a turquoise 

line which shows the increase of carbon, and it is moving up on 

this scale right in there. In other words, they had to blow that 

thing up quite a bit. This is the scale really shows how the CO2

has changed. If we blow it up a thousand times, then we go to this 

chart, and so am Y reading these charts correctly that to get this 

kind of really dramatic increase in carbon where it shows up on the 

scale you have to blow the scale up tremendously big? 

Mr. BALL. The top graph is from Mount Aloa, and of course, the 

first about 15 years of that record is very questionable and not usually used. And yes, it is the way that it is presented to——

Mr. PEARCE. OK. Ms. Williams raised questions about the polar 

bears. You just wrote an article about polar bears. Tell me what 

happened to polar bears in the medieval time? 

Mr. BALL. Mitch Taylor is the expert in Nunavik, up in Iglulik, 

and worked with him, and also with Marcel Dick of Churchill, and 

of the 14 groups of polar bears in the Canadian Arctic, which are 

the majority, only one has shown any sign of decline, and that is 

the group around Churchill, and the evidence is that they have 

shown decline. They are the ones where they talk about thinning, 

77

the animal getting thinner and sparser, smaller. That is because of 

a decrease in the food supply. 

Mr. PEARCE. OK. We need to move on. I am sorry to interrupt. 

We have just got a very short period of time here. 

Just to get into the record, we had testimony that the elk population—in one of our written testimonies—in New Mexico have decreased, and yet when I look at the 1912—1875, there was 2,000 

elk; 1912, decreased down to 60; 1956, 213 released, 365 on private 

lands; 1958, 8,000; today we are at about 72,000, so I am not sure 

where we got the 88 percent decline in our population for New 

Mexico, but just to put that into the record. 

Let us see, we talked about modeling. Many of the people today 

talked about modeling, Mr. Ball. Tell me about scientific process 

versus modeling. Help me understand that. 

Mr. BALL. The modeling leaves out so many of the variables on 

global climate that it really does not simulate. When they run them 

backwards in what is called hindsight forecasting, they can’t re-create conditions of even 30-40 years ago. They certainly can’t re-create the Ice Age conditions. 

Mr. PEARCE. The modeling is a leap of some sort. 

Mr. BALL. Yes. 

Mr. PEARCE. Now, we had testimony also that within a decade 

the children will live in a plant that is unrecognizable, and then 

we also had testimony that everything is kind of in this long 

playout, that even if we put changes in today, you get a century’s 

worth of effects. Is it believable that within 10 years our children 

are going to live in a plant that is unrecognizable? 

Mr. BALL. No, absolutely not, and these kind of predications, we 

have a fellow in Canada by the name of David Suzuki. He said we 

have 10 years to live, but he said it 20 years ago. 

Mr. PEARCE. OK. Mr. Westerling, your testimony says that where 

the changes observed in western hydroclimate and wildfires as a 

result of greenhouse is presently unclear. That is an article back 

July of 2006. So you are describing it as very unclear, and that is 

in the ‘‘Science Express.’’

Then in today’s testimony you say that it is an absolute slamdunk. That it is a human-caused climate change. 

Which of those is really—there is a difference in those. Would 

you like to address that? 

Mr. WESTERLING. Yes. Well, first, I would like to correct you if 

I may, sir, that the actual language in the published paper after 

peer review, which is not the ‘‘Science Express’’ version, says ‘‘Beyond the scope of this study,’’ not presently unclear. 

Mr. PEARCE. So the article is incorrect, the way it was printed? 

Mr. WESTERLING. Yes, sir. 

Mr. PEARCE. So you didn’t say it was unclear? 

Mr. WESTERLING. No, sir. 

Mr. PEARCE. OK. 

Mr. WESTERLING. But it——

Mr. PEARCE. It is published under your name. 

Mr. WESTERLING. That is correct. Have you ever published a 

paper with Science, sir? It is a rather chaotic experience. 

What I would say is that the work I presented in this paper was 

not intended to be evidence of climate change with only a 34-year 

78

record, and what we wanted to make clear was that we were taking that as a given, but we were not establishing that with our 

work. 

Mr. PEARCE. OK. But your testimony today, you slam-dunk it. 

That is absolute. You make a very strong connection between the 

human activity——

Mr. WESTERLING. Of course. 

Mr. PEARCE. Yes, OK. 

Mr. WESTERLING. I have great confidence, sir, in the scientific 

process and in the IPCC process. 

Mr. PEARCE. OK. 

Mr. WESTERLING. And I think it produces science that we can 

rely on. 

Mr. PEARCE. Is the science unclear? Is the science a slam-dunk, 

Mr. Ball? 

Mr. BALL. Absolutely not, and as I said, there are so many variables. I mentioned the sun, and other variables not included, so it 

is not a slam-dunk at all. 

Mr. PEARCE. OK, that is all I needed to know. Appreciate it. 

Mr. Chairman, thanks for your indulgence. Great hearing. 

Mr. SCHENDLER. May I make a correction to the record? 

Mr. COSTA. I am sorry, Mr. Schendler. You wanted to correct the 

record? 

Mr. SCHENDLER. Just one quick note. What I said was that if we 

don’t act within 10 years, this is quoting James Hanson, we would 

live on a planet that would be unrecognizable to us, not that the 

plant would be unrecognizable in 10 years. Thank you. 

Mr. COSTA. All right. Sometimes we speak and we convey images—I mean, I do it on occasion—that have unintended consequences, and so I certainly want to allow opportunities for people 

to make sure that people understand clearly what they intended to 

say, and so I certainly allow you that opportunity. 

I want to thank all the witnesses for your valuable testimony. I 

want to thank the members for your questions. As I indicated, if 

there are additional questions for the witnesses, we would ask that 

you respond in writing. We have a 10-day rule. I will urge all the 

members of the Subcommittee for Subcommittee staff purposes to 

not wait until the ninth day to submit the questions or like some 

students do their homework, but preferably if you can get the questions in within the next couple of days, that will make it very helpful to the members of the staff. 

If there is no further business before the Subcommittee, once 

again I want to thank everyone, and the Subcommittee is now 

adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 5:15 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

Æ