U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

97–803 PDF 2016

S. HRG. 113–763 

FARMING, FISHING, FORESTRY AND HUNTING 

IN AN ERA OF CHANGING CLIMATE 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON GREEN JOBS 

AND THE NEW ECONOMY 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JUNE 3, 2014 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

BETTINA POIRIER, Majority Staff Director 

ZAK BAIG, Republican Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON GREEN JOBS AND THE NEW ECONOMY

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon, Chairman 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

BARBARA BOXER, California (ex officio) 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana (ex officio) 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

JUNE 3, 2014 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Merkley, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from the State of Oregon ................................ 1 

Wicker, Hon. Roger, U.S. Senator from the State of Mississippi ........................ 2 

Sessions, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama ............................. 7 

Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma .................... 8 

Tester, Hon. Jon, U.S. Senator from the State of Montana ................................. 14 

Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island, 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 251 

WITNESSES 

Ashe, Hon. Dan, Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ................................... 17 

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

Walls, James, Executive Director, Lake County Resources Initiative ................ 34 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 37 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Sessions ............................ 40 

Pope, Clay, State Association Executive Director, Oklahoma Association of 

Conservation Districts ......................................................................................... 41 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 44 

Cohen, Daniel, Owner, Atlantic Capes Fisheries .................................................. 52 

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

South, David, Ph.D., Emeritus Professor, School of Forestry and Wildlife 

Sciences, Auburn University ............................................................................... 90 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 92 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Vitter ............................................................................................ 124 

Senator Sessions ........................................................................................ 133 

Legates, David R., Ph.D., CCM, Professor, Department of Geography, University of Delaware ................................................................................................... 138 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 140 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Vitter ............................................................................................ 165 

Senator Sessions ........................................................................................ 171 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

Minding the Campus article, May 19, 2014, Climate-Changing Shenanigans 

at the U. of Delaware, posted by Jan Blits ........................................................ 256 

Wall Street Journal article, May 26, 2014, The Myth of Climate Change 

‘97%’ by Joseph Bast and Roy Spencer .............................................................. 258 

Testimony by Richard S.J. Tol, May 29, 2014 ....................................................... 261 

(1) 

FARMING, FISHING, FORESTRY AND HUNTING 

IN AN ERA OF CHANGING CLIMATE 

TUESDAY, JUNE 3, 2014 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, SUBCOMMITTEE ON GREEN JOBS AND THE NEW ECONOMY, Washington, DC. 

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

406, Dirksen Senate Building, Hon. Jeff Merkley (chairman of the 

subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Merkley, Wicker, Whitehouse, Sessions, 

Inhofe, and Vitter. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF MERKLEY, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OREGON 

Senator MERKLEY. I call this hearing of the Green Jobs and the 

New Economy Subcommittee to order. 

Just yesterday, the President made a historic announcement 

moving forward with the proposal to tackle the single largest 

source of climate pollution in the United States: coal-fired power 

plants. This action could not have come too soon. What we are seeing already are real impacts of climate change, impacts that are 

being felt today on the ground. It is no longer a conversation about 

hypothetical events or computer models, what might or might not 

happen in the future, it is a conversation about the real costs to 

our natural resources in our rural communities and our economy 

right now. 

A few weeks ago, the National Climate Assessment came out 

with the most up-to-date review of climate science and particularly 

focused on the impacts we were already seeing across the United 

States. This report combines the expertise of dozens of the most 

preeminent scientists to conduct a comprehensive review of the scientific literature to illuminate both the climate impacts we are 

starting to see today and the types of impacts we can expect to see 

in coming years. 

What was notable on that report is how much impact we are already seeing in sectors that are critical to our rural communities 

and their economies, such as farming, fishing, forestry, and hunting. 

These impacts aren’t always straightforward, as we will hear 

from some of our witnesses today. Climate change is one of many 

challenges facing these sectors. It is playing an increasingly important role in making existing challenges such as drought and disease even worse. The long term trend toward warmer and shorter 
2 

winters is allowing more insects like bark beetles to survive the 

cold, causing massive tree die-outs in forests across the country 

and making forests more susceptible to larger and more intense 

wildfires. 

For a State like Oregon, where so much of our rural economy depends on a vibrant forest sector, this trend is very troubling. The 

warmer, shorter winters are also decreasing the amount of snow 

pack, leaving less water for farmers to use during the growing season. In Oregon, the snow melt is a critical component of irrigation 

water since so little rain falls during the summer months. This 

year, for example, Klamath County in Oregon has seen one of the 

worst droughts on record, after record droughts in 2001, 2010 and 

2013, demonstrating the devastation we can expect to see as severe 

and intense droughts becoming more common. 

The decrease in snow pack also means that our streams are 

warmer and drier during the summer months, which is impacting 

freshwater fishing. Less snow melt and hotter summers are expected to contribute to a significant decline in salmon populations. 

Our ocean fishermen have been dealing with the effects of climate change, too. Warming oceans are causing fish to migrate, and 

oceans are absorbing much of the carbon dioxide emitted into the 

atmosphere. This causes water to gradually become more acidic, 

which has had devastating impacts on northwest oyster farmers 

whose oyster seeds, which are the baby oysters, are dying in those 

more acidic waters. 

This is why we are holding a hearing today, to hear directly from 

those who work in these sectors, and whose livelihoods depend on 

us taking strong action to prevent the impacts of climate change 

from getting worse. 

The witnesses we have invited here to testify are people who 

have first hand experience working in the farming, fishing, and forestry sectors. We will also hear from two of our minority witnesses 

who will present their viewpoints as climate change skeptics. 

Finally, I would like to extend a special gratitude to our colleague, Senator Jon Tester, who is here to speak on this subject. 

Not only is the Senator from a State that will be impacted by climate change, but he is a farmer himself. We will ask Senator Tester to speak as soon as the opening statements are completed. With 

that, I will turn this over to Ranking Member Senator Wicker to 

give his opening remarks. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROGER WICKER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI 

Senator WICKER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. I will note that it is our first hearing together as 

a subcommittee. I also want to thank all of our witnesses for being 

here today, our first witness, and the panel that will follow. As we 

discuss the impact of climate on farming, fishing, forestry, and 

hunting, we must not neglect the effects that draconian climate 

regulations would have on these industries. 

Yesterday, as part of the President’s climate action plan, EPA 

Administrator Gina McCarthy announced a new set of rules to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from existing power plants. These 

regulations would have little effect on the climate, but the rules 
3 

would have a negative effect on the livelihood of all energy users, 

including farmers, foresters, and fishermen, who are the focus of 

today’s hearing. The President’s costly regulations mean that farmers who irrigate their crops by pump would face higher utility bills. 

Foresters would pay more for electricity to turn their timber into 

building materials and paper, products that are essential to our 

economy. 

These industries already face a myriad of challenges in a difficult 

economic environment, but at what cost are we going to hurt these 

economic sectors in the pursuit of aggressive, but dubious, climate 

regulations? 

The costs to these industries are sure to go up. The benefits are 

not. Farmers are said to be on the front line of climate change because they are most likely to be affected by altering weather patterns. In a recent scientific, peer reviewed study that examined 

U.S. crop producers’ perceptions of climate change, researchers 

found there is little belief among farmers that climate change will 

have a negative effect on crop yields. 

In fact, in my home State of Mississippi, corn and soybean yields 

are at record high levels. Farmers have been managing their crops 

effectively and adapting to variable climate conditions for generations and generations. This is nothing new. Unfortunately, this 

generation will now have to cope with high electricity costs because 

of questionable climate regulations. For farmers who properly manage their land, a changing climate is not the problem, but burdensome regulations that increase the cost of farm production are. 

America’s forests provide many benefits and services to society, 

including clean water, recreation, wildlife habitat, and a variety of 

forest products. Need we be reminded that carbon dioxide is required for photosynthesis, the process by which these forests use 

sunlight to grow? Plants tend to grow better under conditions of 

higher CO2 levels. Scientists have dubbed this effect CO2 fertilization. 

The economic impact of our forests must not be overlooked. Forestry in Mississippi is a $14 billion industry and supports more 

than 63,000 full- and part-time jobs. Healthy, productive, and wellmanaged forests cover more than 60 percent of my home State. 

These healthy forests support industry that employs 25 percent of 

Mississippi’s manufacturing workforce. Given the current depressed market for forestry goods, higher prices for electricity 

would only worsen industry problems for foresters who properly 

manage their trees. Changing climate is not the problem, but onerous regulations that increase the cost of forestry production are. 

I am struck, Mr. Chairman and my fellow Senators, with the increasing number of academics who are willing to come forward and 

say yes on some of this conventional wisdom. They are skeptics. I 

ask to put into the record, at this point, Mr. Chairman, a transcript 

of an interview yesterday afternoon on WTOP with Dr. Peter 

Morici, a University of Maryland professor at the Robert H. Smith 

Business School. 

Senator MERKLEY. Without objection. 

[The referenced information follows:] 
4 
5 
6 

Senator WICKER. Let me just point out, in the final minute, Mr. 

Chairman, Professor Morici says a lot of this, speaking of the President’s new plan yesterday, is going to needlessly raise costs, but 

more importantly, much more importantly, the President’s goal, the 

amount of carbon dioxide we will save, China makes up with additional emissions in only 18 months. Because, I want to point out, 

‘‘Remember CO2 emissions are very different than smog, and the 

environmentalists right now want to confuse that issue, saying, you 

certainly don’t want smog and asthma and things like that.’’ CO2

emissions are about the greenhouse effect and rising temperatures. 

When asked about the thought that if the U.S. doesn’t do something, countries like China and India definitely won’t, Professor 

Morici says, ‘‘Well, we are already doing something, and China is 

not joining us.’’ He says, ‘‘It is a fool’s journey into the night to 

think that setting a good example will cause China to follow.’’ The 

anchor says, ‘‘Well, we need to do something,’’ and Professor Morici 

says, ‘‘We are doing something, but the trick is to do something 

that matters, that has an effect. The President is touting this as 

a solution, and it is not.’’ Finally, he concludes, ‘‘We are going to 

have to deal with the rising sea level whether we do this or not. 

The question is: will we have an economy that can bear what will 

be the truly large burden, much larger than this one?’’ 

I thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. We 

should be creating jobs and strengthening the economy, not hindering it. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Wicker follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. ROGER WICKER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

I would like to thank the Chairman for holding this hearing—our first together. 

I would also like to thank the witnesses for being here today. I look forward to your 

testimony this morning. 

As we discuss the impact of climate on farming, fishing, forestry, and hunting, 

we must not neglect the effects that draconian climate regulations would have on 

these industries. 

Yesterday, as part of the President’s Climate Action Plan, EPA Administrator 

Gina McCarthy announced a new set of rules to regulate carbon emissions from existing power plants. Although these regulations would have a dubious effect on 

changing the climate, I am fearful the rules would have a negative impact on the 

livelihood of all energy users, including the farmers, foresters, and fishermen who 

are the focus of today’s hearing. 

The President’s costly regulations mean that farmers who pump irrigate their 

crops would face higher utility bills. Foresters would pay more for electricity to turn 

their timber into building materials and paper, products that are ubiquitous in our 

economy. These industries already face myriad challenges in a difficult economic environment. At what cost are we going to hurt these economic sectors in the pursuit 

of aggressive climate regulations? The costs to these industries are assured to go 

up, but the benefits are not. 

Farmers are said to be on the ‘‘front line’’ of climate change because they are most 

likely to be affected by altering weather patterns. In a recent scientific peer reviewed study that examined U.S. crop producers’ perceptions of climate change, researchers found that there is little belief among farmers that climate change will 

have a negative effect on crop yields. 

In fact, in my home State of Mississippi, corn and soybean yields are at record 

high levels. Farmers have been managing their crops effectively and adapting to 

variable climate conditions for generations and generations. This is nothing new. 

Unfortunately, this generation will have to cope with higher electricity costs because 

of questionable climate regulations. For farmers who properly manage their land, 

a changing climate is not the problem, but burdensome regulations that increase the 

cost of farm production are. 
7 

America’s forests provide many benefits and services to society, including clean 

water, recreation, wildlife habitat, carbon storage, and a variety of forest products. 

I would also remind my colleagues that carbon dioxide is required for photosynthesis, the process by which these forests use sunlight to grow. Plants tend to grow 

better under conditions of higher CO2 levels. Scientists have dubbed this effect ‘‘CO2

fertilization.’’ 

The economic impact of our forests must not be overlooked. Forestry in Mis- sissippi is a $14 billion industry and supports more than 63,000 full- and part-time 

jobs. Healthy, productive, and well managed forest covers more than 60 percent of 

my home State. These healthy forests support industry that employs 25 percent of 

Mississippi’s manufacturing workforce. Given the current depressed market for forestry goods, higher prices for electricity would only worsen industry problems. For 

foresters who properly manage their trees, a changing climate is not the problem, 

but onerous regulations that increase the cost of forestry production are. 

In a difficult economic environment, the stakes are high for responsible policymaking—not impractical and misguided climate regulations. We should be creating 

jobs and strengthening the economy, not destroying it. Our hardworking farmers, 

foresters, and fishermen deserve it. 

I would like to thank our witnesses for testifying today. We look forward to hearing your views. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you. 

Senator Sessions. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF SESSIONS, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The conversation is not over. Good discussions need to be held; 

we need to ask ourselves what the true facts are, and we will do 

so. A growing number of scientists are demonstrating the falsity of 

many of the allegations that have been made as a result of warming temperatures and climate change. We simply have to be honest 

about that. Our economy is exceedingly fragile. It is very fragile. 

The average median income for working Americans today is $2,400 below what it was in 2007. We have fewer people working 

today than we had in 2007. Unemployment remains high, and we 

simply cannot regulate an imposed cost on American industry to 

the extent to which they cannot compete in the world market and 

damage our economy. Only a healthy economy in free nations has 

the environment consistently improved. Unhealthy economies in totalitarian countries have the worst record by far of environmental 

issues. 

Mr. Chairman, I see Mr. Ashe will testify. I am pleased in his 

written statement; at least, he did not repeat his previous statement before this committee that we are having more frequent and 

severe storms, flooding, droughts, and wildfires. Now, that is not 

sod. When I asked him about it, he gave anecdotes. He submitted 

not one scientific report to justify that statement which many scientific reports rejected. President Obama has twice claimed that 

temperatures are rising faster than predicted, even over the last 10 

years, he said. In fact, temperatures have flattened over the last 

15 years, well below the average computer models for environmental expectations. 

All I am saying is, I don’t know, maybe this is a temporary pause 

in some of the climate change that has been projected. Maybe temperatures will rise again, but they are not rising like the experts 

predicted today, and we have more scientists like Dr. Smith of Forestry today that will puncture some of the irresponsible statements 

that are being made about forestry. 
8 

Mr. Chairman, I grew up in the country, near Vredenburgh, Alabama, and you understand the timber industry. I guess the sawmill 

in Vredenburgh was one of those classic, big sawmills. I saw logs 

hauled in front of my house all the time, but all that land has been 

replanted. It is being managed exceedingly well today; farmers and 

timber owners are managing better than ever. Scientifically, in 

each one of those trees, as they grow, they suck carbon out of the 

atmosphere; a dead and dying tree, once it dies, it emits carbon 

back into the atmosphere. Harvesting it and making it this wood 

and putting it in this building for a hundred years, has reduced 

carbon in the atmosphere. Wood and forests are one of the very 

best ways we can reduce CO2 in the atmosphere. It just is, so I feel 

strongly about that. 

With regard to hunting and wildlife, behind my house was a little creek. I calculated one time that I spent a year of my life in 

and around that creek, swimming in it, playing in it, fishing in it. 

Behind that creek, there are miles of just basically forest. We saw 

very few deer and very few turkeys. In Alabama today, you visit 

people in my area of the State and talk to friends and you leave 

your home at night and they will say, watch out for the deer. Deer 

are everywhere; they are eating people’s gardens. They are almost 

a pest, because of better management, or I don’t know why. People 

are hunting better, they are managing their lands better, and we 

have a clear, without a doubt, increase in game in Alabama today, 

and I think throughout the rest of the country. 

So we have made a lot of progress; we need to continue to make 

progress. I look forward to the hearing today, and I have another 

hearing in Judiciary involving the amending of the First Amendment to limit people’s ability to speak out in elections, so I am 

going to oppose that in a little bit. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate this good hearing. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Inhofe. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I have to tell you, Senator Sessions, that my wife is upset because the deer are eating her begonias. You know my wife well 

enough to know that if she’s not happy, I am not happy, so I have 

a stake in this. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator INHOFE. First of all, I am glad that Clay Pope is here 

from Oklahoma. I appreciate your coming, Clay; you and I have 

worked together with Frank Lucas on some of our small dam rehabilitation projects, and I look forward to hearing your testimony, although I have already read it and I won’t be able to stay for it. 

That does not mean I don’t love you, anyway. 

All we talk about around here since Barbara Boxer became chairman of this committee is trying to make people believe that the 

world is coming to an end. This is the 31st, 31st, hearing this committee has had, I am talking about the whole committee now, on 

global warming since Senator Boxer came in as Chairman, and 

with each one, the polling data has declined. It started off as a No. 
9 

1 or No. 2 issue. The last Gallup poll said it was number 14 out 

of 15. 

I have to say that I know Oklahoma’s global warming regulations 

are no friend of farmers. It is interesting that the title of this hearing is Farming, Fishing, Forestry, and Hunting. With farming, you 

can come to Oklahoma and talk to farmers, and they will tell you 

that this is really a crisis that we are in the middle of right now, 

considering all these regulations. In fact, I am going to quote Tom 

Buchanan; he is president of the Oklahoma Farm Bureau. He told 

me just yesterday, ‘‘They will have a devastating effect if these regulations go into effect on the farmers of rural Oklahoma. It will be 

our No. 1 concern and No. 1 issue.’’ That is the Oklahoma Farm 

Bureau that is speaking. 

Let me express my concern with the EPA’s just announced regulations. For existing plants, and we understood our new plants, 

that was a little bit different, that was very costly, but existing 

would be even more so. The figures that we have is that it would 

require power plants around the country to reduce their greenhouse emissions by 30 percent to 2005 levels. We have done our 

own study for a long period of time going all the way back to right 

after Kyoto was never submitted for ratification. We had found 

that the cost of it, and this comes from Wharton School, it comes 

from MIT, it comes from Charles Rivers Associates, is between 

$300 billion and $400 billion a year. That would be the largest tax 

increase in history. 

We know that the Chambers came out with the amount of money 

it is going to cost in jobs and all that. For decades, the environmental left has pushed to enact the cap and trade, and again, Congress has rejected it. We have tried, we have had this before Congress now about 12 times; it has been rejected every single time, 

and each time, by a larger margin. The first one was 2003; that 

was the McCain-Lieberman bill, and 2 years later, it was rejected 

by an even larger amount. 

So it used to be the No. 1, and now it is the No. 14 concern, and 

it is a very light concern. Regardless, the President is pushing this 

regulatory thing. 

We don’t have to look any further thank Obama’s model to come 

up with a conclusion. He talks about his green dream being Germany. You and I were just there, not long ago, I say to Senator 

Sessions, and that country is about 3 years ahead of us in coming 

through with all these regulations; had it continued a war in fossil 

fuels like our President Obama has had since he’s been in office. 

Their costs for electricity have doubled since they started that program 3 years ago. Doubled. It is now three times the cost per kilowatt hour of what we have here in this country. 

We know the American people know that the rule will be expensive, and it is very alarming that we have to do this. 

To stay within my timeframe, I am going to have to submit the 

whole statement for the record. If this is true, if we are now in a 

spell, in a period of time, 15 years, where there has been no increase in temperature, and they are now saying that this might be 

the coldest year in the weather the year. All that is a matter of 

record, then why does this all of a sudden surface as an issue? I 

will tell you why it surfaced. There’s a guy right here, his name 
10 

is Tom Steyer. He has come out and he has documented that he 

is a multi-billionaire, he is going to put a hundred million dollars 

into the legislative process to try to resurrect global warming as an 

issue. Fifty million of this is his own money, and he’ll raise the 

other $50 million. 

And I can tell you right now that it is not going to work. I know 

it is a lot of money, and it is going to candidates who are going to 

be supporting global warming and all that stuff, so we know that 

it is going to have an impact. And it is a lot of money, but the people of America won’t buy it. I would say this: I have already made 

an announcement, Mr. Chairman that, and there’s a possibly I 

could be chairing this committee again, that when these regulations are finalized, I am going to offer a CRA, Congressional Review Act, on each one of them. Because that is the only way that 

we can have people get on record of either supporting or rejecting 

this. I have a feeling that we are going to be able to stop it in spite 

of $50 million. 

By the way, I ask unanimous consent for this article to be put 

in the conclusion of my opening statement. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

First, I’d like to say that it is good to see Clay Pope here today. He and I have 

worked closely together with Congressman Frank Lucas on the small dam rehabilitation program, which helps ensure the ongoing operation of important flood control 

structures and dams throughout Oklahoma. 

This is the 31st hearing this committee has had on global warming since Senator 

Boxer became chairman, and with each one the polling shows that the American 

people care less and less about the issue. 

I have to say that I know Obama’s global warming regulations are no friend of 

farmers. Tom Buchanan, president of the Oklahoma Farm Bureau told me just yesterday that they ‘‘will have a devastating impact on farmers and rural Oklahomans.’’ 

Let me express my concern with the EPA’s just announced greenhouse gas regulations for existing power plants. 

This rule will require power plants around the country to reduce their greenhouse 

gas emissions by 30 percent by 2030 compared to 2005 levels, and it is going to 

come at an enormous cost. It’s a form of cap and trade, which we all know costs 

between $300 billion and $400 billion per year. 

The Chamber of Commerce recently conducted a study on a similar design of regulations and concluded they would cause the loss of $51 billion in GDP and 224,000 

jobs each year. 

For decades, the environmental left has pushed for the enactment of cap and 

trade legislation, but time and again Congress has rejected it. And it’s no wonder— 

Americans rank climate change as the 14th most important issue out of 15. 

Regardless, the President is pushing the regulatory construct of a cap and trade 

program he couldn’t implement legislatively. 

We don’t have to look any further than Obama’s model: Germany, to see where 

this path leads. Germany has pushed aggressive policies that are taking their nation away from traditional fuels and nuclear power and toward alternatives. Now 

they’re trying to reverse course, but it’s already too late. Germany has doubled the 

cost of electricity and prices are 300 percent higher than they are here in the United 

States. EPA’s rules will push us in the same direction. 

The American people know that this rule will be expensive, which is why the 

President is pivoting to tout the rule’s benefits to human health. But this is especially alarming because EPA has itself admitted that greenhouse gases ‘‘do not 

cause direct adverse health effects such as respiratory or toxic effects.’’ 

To make matters worse, the new greenhouse gas regulations will not do anything 

to mitigate global CO2 levels. We know this because Lisa Jackson, the President’s 
11 

first EPA Administrator, told us at this committee that ‘‘U.S. action alone will not 

impact world CO2 levels.’’ So it is the largest tax increase in history with no benefit. 

Between 1998 (which is about the same time the Senate began debating global 

warming) and 2013, there has been no increase in global surface temperatures. No 

one disputes this; it has been cited by the IPCC, Nature magazine and the Economist. 

Normally, that would make me wonder why the President is pushing regulations. 

But then I remember Tom Steyer, the new poster child of the environmental left. 

He’s the one who promised to direct $50 million of his own money try to resurrect 

the dead issue of global warming. That’s a lot of money, but the American people 

won’t buy it. 

I’ve already announced that I will file a CRA on all the onerous regulations once 

they are finalized, and I have a feeling that next year we’ll have the votes to do 

it. 

[The referenced article follows:] 
12 
13 
14 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you, without objection, your time has 

expired. 

We are now going to hear from Senator Tester. We are delighted 

to have you with us today, both in your roles of U.S. Senator and 

observer of effects on the ground at Montana and as a generational 

farmer. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JON TESTER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA 

Senator TESTER. Thank you, Chairman Merkley and Ranking 

Member Wicker. 

I would just like to say before I get into my prepared remarks, 

I don’t know Tom Steyer from a bar of soap, but I would be more 

than happy to work with anybody on the roster today or anybody 

else to put some transparency on the dark money that comes under 

these elections. I know this isn’t a hearing about elections and dark 

money, but if we want to save our democracy, I think that is the 

first step. I think that we could really get to the bottom of a lot 

of this stuff that is going on as far as influencing our political agenda here in Washington, DC. 

Senator INHOFE. Since my name was used, I can react. This isn’t 

dark. This is light. This is something that everybody knows. It is 

out there, it is been in all the publications. That means that much 

to some people. I just want to clarify that. 

Senator TESTER. Then let’s get rid of that and the dark money, 

too. 

Mr. Chairman, I first of all appreciate your having me here 

today, along with Ranking Member Wicker. It feels like we should 

be on Crossfire, Roger, but we will do it here. I am not a lawyer, 

I am not a scientist, I am a U.S. Senator, but more importantly, 

I am a farmer. The impacts of climate change are felt far and wide 

and I believe we need to take responsible steps to mitigate the impacts. What those steps are, some came out by the EPA yesterday 

of some folks who have some other ideas. I am more than happy 

to listen to them. The EPA released a proposal for reducing carbon 

emissions from existing power plants. They went with a Statebased solution. I think that is smart to our problems and I will 

work to ensure this proposal works for Montanans in my home 

State. 

I think refusing to act to protect clean air, clean water, is not a 

viable option. I think in the long term, and in the short term, it 

is going to cost jobs, and a way of life. As I said a minute ago, I 

am a third generation farmer. I farm in north central Montana. I 

have seen the impacts of climate change first-hand. This does not 

mean I have people that farm the land; this means that I do it with 

my wife. We finished seeding 2 weeks ago last Saturday. 

This piece of land was homesteaded by my grandfather, and we 

have farmed it for the last 40 years, my wife and I, my folks 35 

years before that, and my grandparents 35 years before that. For 

the average American, particularly those of us from rural America 

the political conversation about climate change seems worlds away. 

For us, we have had warmer winters, we have had more extreme 

weather events, and they are already presenting new challenges for 

a way of life. 
15 

Now, do I say those statements because I read an article in some 

magazine? No, I say it because this is what I have seen on the 

farm. Let me give you an example. My dad farmed from 1943 to 

1978 and he never got a hailstorm that allowed him to collect more 

than his premium that he paid for that hail insurance. I have been 

hailed out four times in the last 35 years. In this month alone, I 

should say last month, we are in June now, in the month of May, 

we have seen severe hailstorms all over the State of Montana totally irregular, totally out of character. These are storms that usually would hit in July or August. They are storms that break out 

windows of cars, that break fences, golf-ball sized hail or bigger. 

We have had up in my neck of the woods, just south of my place, 

to down in Billings, 230 miles south of that. 

At the turn of 1999 to 2001, we have a reservoir in a place my 

dad built in the late 1940s, and when he dug it, it filled up with 

water. In 1999, 2000, 2001, it dried up for the first time ever. If 

you take a look at what is going on as far as disaster assistance, 

and I appreciate some of the comments made by the Senators on 

the roster, and how this could affect our timber industry, how this 

could affect—I am talking about the new EPA regulations—how 

this could affect agriculture. 

Twenty years ago, the Forest Service spent 13 percent of its 

budget on fighting fires. And I can almost guarantee you that 20 

years ago, that budget was a heck of a lot smaller than it is today, 

and they spent 13 percent of it. Now it is 40 percent, and they still 

have to transfer half a billion dollars to cover costs. We are going 

to spend more than $15 billion on Hurricane Sandy relief efforts 

alone. I cannot think of a time we have had a hurricane hit New 

York. But it did with Sandy. 

I think today’s hearing appropriately focuses on the experiences 

of farmers, ranchers, sportsmen and women that they are going 

through. And I think unfortunately the stories are often overlooked, underreported, or not reported at all. As a Nation, I think 

we need to start paying attention because these experiences are important if we are going to have a debate here in Washington, DC, 

and we are going to listen. Scientists tell us that climate change 

will bring shorter, warmer winters, and in Montana I see it. When 

I was younger, frequent bone chilling winds whipped across the 

prairies, 30 below for 2 weeks at a time was not an exaggeration. 

Now, it seems like if we have temperatures below zero, it is the exception. 

Do you want me to cut it off now, has this been 5 minutes already? My God. Sorry about that. 

Senator MERKLEY. It moves quickly, but I think we’d like to hear 

the rest. 

Senator TESTER. OK, I apologize. I usually don’t do this. 

Changes in the weather are forcing Sharla and I to look at different ways to operate our farm. To be honest with you, it is more 

difficult to figure out how. We haven’t had a gentle rain this month 

of May. May is our wettest month. We finished planting those 

crops 2 weeks ago; they are not going to come out of the ground 

until we get some moisture. This is pretty abnormal. We have had 

droughts before, but this is abnormal stuff. 
16 

The end of bitter winters, you think, gosh, it is less oil you are 

going to have to heat the house, or propane or whatever you are 

doing it. But the fact is those winters, and the lack of cold winters 

is a lot of little beasts called soft fly show up, and if you don’t deal 

with the soft fly by adding another operation into how you, by 

swathing your wheat ahead of time, it can take as much of the crop 

as a hailstorm would, three-quarters of it quite easily, and it is 

very time sensitive. The dead trees, many of which litter our national forests, as you go south of Flathead Lake, our forests are 

dead. Combining with historic drought and the wildfire season is 

longer and hotter, and it is rougher, and it costs more money to 

fight. 

These stories go down the list and I can just tell you that a couple years ago, we flew into, down around by Billings they were having record floods. The next year, the same people whose houses 

were underwater 1 year ago were being burned out the next. Same 

land. I don’t know what is going on. I don’t know if the Earth is 

getting warmer, I don’t know if we are just in a cycle. But I can 

tell you, we can talk about all the things that need to be done here, 

and we can talk about how it is going to impact farmers and ranchers and sportsmen and all that, but if we end up passing on a climate to our kids that doesn’t allow our kids to move forward with 

an economy that will help support, I think we are making a huge 

mistake. 

Now, last year we had a record crop. I can tell you right now it 

is going to be a pretty open summer for me if we don’t get some 

rain pretty damn quick. Those kinds of variations in weather farmers always talk about as being normal, but this is above anything 

that I have ever seen in my 57 years on this place. By the way, 

I lived within a hundred miles of that place until I got this job. 

That is where I have spent my entire life. I have seen things happen in our climate that I have never, ever, ever seen before. Maybe 

it is just happenstance, maybe it is just choice, maybe if we ignore 

it, it will go away. 

But I think that if we can put a man on the Moon in 10 years, 

we can certainly, going off of 2005 standards, reduce the amount 

of CO2 going into the air by 30 percent in 25 years. I don’t think 

it is that much of a stretch. 

Is coal going away? I don’t think so. Not for a while. By 2030, 

nearly a third of our energy will still be coal. I don’t think that is 

a bad thing. 

So, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your having this hearing. Ranking Member Wicker, you know that I have a tremendous respect 

for you, and I appreciate your contribution to this. I think we have 

a choice as people who serve in the Senate and the House. We can 

do nothing, or we can try to find solutions that help drive our economy forward and address issues of climate. If we do nothing, then 

we are wrong. Think about that. Just think about that. Means 

there is going to be a lot of hungry people. 

With that sobering thought, I will say thank you for the opportunity to testify. I very much appreciate it. I apologize I ran over 

by damn near double, but such is life. Ashe will have to cut his way 

back. 

[Laughter.] 
17 

Senator MERKLEY. Senator, thank you very much for your testimony and giving this kind of direct, on-the-ground impression of 

these effects from hail, to fires to new pests to fewer, as you put 

it, bone chilling winds. Indeed the point of this hearing was to hear 

about effects on the ground, and we are going to now have witnesses to take a look across America. We really appreciate your 

giving your sense. Thank you. 

I would like to invite Director Dan Ashe of the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service to join us. Dan has had a long career in public 

service. Prior to being director, he served as the Service’s Deputy 

Director for Policy, as a science advisor, and as the Chief of the National Wildlife Refuge System. Mr. Ashe spent 13 years as professional staff on the former Committee on Merchant Marine and 

Fisheries in the House of Representatives and earned his graduate 

degree in Marine Affairs from The University of Washington. 

He is here today to give us a perspective on how we can expect 

to see climate change impacting our natural resources that are key 

to sustaining our fishing and hunting economies. It is terrific to 

have you. Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DAN ASHE, DIRECTOR, U.S. FISH AND 

WILDLIFE SERVICE 

Mr. ASHE. Thank you, Chairman Merkley. Thank you, Ranking 

Member Wicker. 

It is a privilege to be here before this subcommittee, and thank 

you for the opportunity to testify today, really in behalf of America’s sportsmen and women. 

As Americans, we are extraordinarily blessed and among these 

blessings are the natural landscapes and the healthy, abundant, 

native fish and wildlife that they support. Today’s blessings are 

largely due to the leadership and the foresight of yesterday’s hunters and anglers, good people, and professional managers who found 

the will and the ability to face the great challenges of their day. 

It may have been the Dust Bowl in the 1930s or pesticide use in 

the 1950s and 1960s and wetlands destruction in the 1970s and 

1980s. These women and men found the will and the way to work 

with Congress and others to address those challenges. 

Today, I am really proud of my country and my colleagues in 

public service. In 1990, I was a committee staff member in the 

House of Representatives, worked with the House Marine and Merchant Fisheries Committee, the House Science Committee, and others, and this committee, in the Senate, to enact the Global Climate 

Change Research Program Act. A few years ago we worked with 

our State colleagues and other partners to develop the National 

Fish Wildlife and Plants Adaptation Strategy. 

Just recently, we saw the most recent National Climate Assessment, and then yesterday the EPA proposing reasonable and effective regulation of greenhouse gas emissions. So I feel like our country finally has the information and the wherewithal and is finding 

the will to address this great challenge. 

Hunting and fishing are vital components of the Nation’s economy, especially in many rural areas. In 2011, Americans spent 

$145 billion on wildlife related recreation, nearly 1 percent of the 

Nation’s gross domestic product. The changing climate system is af-
18 

fecting hunters and anglers today, and it is darkening the prospects for hunters and anglers tomorrow. Shorter winters and earlier springs are disrupting delicate waterfowl migrations that have 

evolved over eons. 

Drought and water scarcity are increasing, jeopardizing populations of native fish and aquatic species in dozens of watersheds. 

Rising water temperatures are reducing habitat and altering breeding and spawning opportunities for many species of fish. Milder 

winters are increasing the prevalence of parasites and disease. 

That can have decimating effects on big game and forest habitat 

while enabling invasive species to spread into new areas and displace native wildlife. 

In Oregon and across the Pacific Northwest, climate change 

poses a major threat to salmon, a vital element of the region’s economy and culture. A study published in 2013 concludes that coastal 

Coho salmon, a federally listed species, faces a significant climate 

driven risk to future sustainability. The scale and intensity of these 

current and future climate change impacts pose a serious threat to 

America’s hunting and fishing traditions, and in turn to the benefits they provide to wildlife and people. 

Faced by these threats, the Administration is taking significant 

steps to ensure forward thinking and effective conservation of fish, 

wildlife, and plants and their habitats. This includes strategic planning through the President’s Climate Action Plan, the National 

Fish Wildlife and Plants Adaptation Strategy, as I mentioned before, which we developed in cooperation with our State colleagues 

and tribal colleagues. Our survival and quality of life as a species 

in inextricably linked to the health of ecosystems which also provide clean air, clean water, food, shelter, and employment for the 

world’s human population. 

How and whether we choose to respond here and now will determine the kind of world that we leave to our descendants, including 

whether we pass them a world that has a place for the great traditions of angling and hunting that we are able to practice today. 

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and the subcommittee for 

holding this hearing and calling attention to this important and 

pressing issue. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Ashe follows:] 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you. We will now have 5 minute periods for questions, comments. 

Just to summarize, what you are seeing from your expertise 

within the Fish and Wildlife Service are effects on the ground right 

now? 

Mr. ASHE. There is no doubt, Senator, that we are seeing effects 

of changing migration patterns in our waterfowl. We are seeing 

changing, increasing parasitism and decreasing reproductive rates 

in big game species like moose in the southern extent of their 

range. We are seeing rising water temperatures which reduces the 

habitat quality and availability for cold water fishes, so there is no 

doubt that we are seeing these impacts across the board. 

Senator MERKLEY. So let me take just a couple pieces of that. Let 

me start with the diseases related to big game. 

One of our Senators from New Hampshire was showing a picture 

recently of a moose with clumps on its back and pointed out that 

those big lumps, if you will, big black lumps, were actually big infestations of ticks. It was not cold enough to kill them, and they 

were carrying them year-round and this was resulting in both disease and a continuous loss of blood, if you will, from the ticks, and 

thus an impact on the moose populations. 

Is that one of the most prominent examples of impact on big 

game, or what else are we seeing? 

Mr. ASHE. We are definitely seeing that. We have a refuge in 

northern Minnesota, Agassiz National Wildlife Refuge. We have 

seen a 98 percent reduction in the moose population at Agassiz 

Refuge. We have seen a severe reduction in moose population 

throughout the State of Minnesota and so they are no longer hunting moose in Minnesota. 

The reason is the rising average temperature in the summertime 

places physiological stress on the animal, so they are not reproducing the way that they used to. Plus, we are seeing these pests, like 

ticks in New Hampshire, which are able to have multiple generations now during the spring, the summer, the fall, and fewer of 

them are being killed off by severe winters. So the animals are besieged by pests which put further physiological stress on the animals. 

So throughout the southern range of moose, we are seeing declines in the population. So in States like New Hampshire, decline 

in the population. That represents a lost opportunity for the American sportsman. 

Senator MERKLEY. So you said 98 percent loss, so 49 out 50 of 

moose that were there before are gone. That is a pretty dramatic 

collapse. Is that over just a few years? Have we had seen that in 

earlier periods of just a few years of variation in temperatures, that 

the moose population crashed and then resurged, have we ever 

seen anything like this before? 

Mr. ASHE. We have not seen anything like this before. We have 

always had warm spells where you would have a summer of two 

consecutively where you would then have a depression in the population. They would rebound then as the weather returned to a normal pattern. 

But what we are seeing now is that steadily rising temperature 

in the summertime, so that the mean temperature in the summer 
28 

is now putting physiological stress on the animals which is affecting their reproduction. 

Senator MERKLEY. Let me turn to your comments about migration patterns for waterfowl and specifically ducks. What is causing 

the ducks to modify their direction? Are the pools that they would 

land in disappearing, or what is going on? 

Mr. ASHE. Migratory birds like waterfowl again have a very delicate and refined migration pattern that has evolved over eons. So 

what we are seeing, look at it from the perspective of a hen mallard, who is leaving her wintering grounds, maybe in Yazoo National Wildlife Refuge in Mississippi, and is heading toward American prairies. She is stopping along the way, feeding and resting; 

she has a very narrow window. 

When she gets to the prairies, she is looking for a place, a small 

pothole or wetland to make a nest. In prehistoric times, if that 

didn’t exist in South Dakota, she would go to North Dakota and 

then she would go to Saskatchewan, and she would fly until she 

found that habitat. 

What we are doing is, human development, we are constraining 

the habitat. So we have agricultural development, we have oil and 

gas, energy development, that is constraining her ability of habitats. So now she’s much more restricted in terms of where she can 

go. So if she doesn’t make that decision in about a 2-week window 

of time, she is not going to have a successful nesting season. 

What we are seeing is birds are leaving later, they are migrating 

later, in the spring, they are migrating earlier in the spring, they 

are migrating later in the fall, so their basic pattern is changing 

because of their response to weather, we believe. Then the habitat 

availability for her is shrinking. What the climate assessment tells 

us is that wet areas will get wetter and dry areas will get drier. 

So as wildlife managers, we are now looking at a more complicated picture. How do we put that habitat on the ground for that 

hen mallard? What we have to do is be able to look into the future 

because we are not just responsible for today’s waterfowl hunters, 

we are responsible for tomorrow’s waterfowl hunters. We have to 

be able to think about habitat 10 and 20 and 30 years from now. 

We need to recognize that the climate is changing, that the habitat 

needs of waterfowl are going to change, their migratory patterns 

are going to change. We need to understand that better so that we 

can provide the opportunity for hunters in the future. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you very much for your testimony, I 

appreciate it. 

Senator WICKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In absentia, thank 

you to Senator Tester for coming. We do appear occasionally on 

Crossfire and enjoy trying to match wits. 

I am sorry Senator Tester is experiencing hailstorms, increased 

hailstorms. I think he made a very telling statement, though, when 

he said, I don’t know what is going on. I am not sure what is going 

on. But I know that scientists of good will disagree about what is 

going on. I would say to you, Dr. Ashe, and Mr. Chairman, Gail 

and I have lived on 521 Magnolia Drive, Tupelo, Mississippi, for 

over 32 years. The lady that built the house before us planted 

Saint Augustine grass over 50 years ago, and for the first time this 

winter, I experienced winter kill of my Saint Augustine grass. 
29 

Now, I don’t know what is going on. But the fact of the matter 

is, that I can play anecdotes all day, I will just say that it was 

somehow the cold and the ice and winter got to my Saint Augustine grass that hadn’t happened in 50 years on Magnolia Drive. I 

don’t know what that proves except that we can give anecdotes 

that don’t really have much anything to do with science. 

Let’s talk about the migration of the ducks. Mr. Ashe, it is my 

understanding that because of the increased demand for corn used 

in ethanol production, we are seeing reduction of available breeding 

grounds in Midwest wetlands and grassland for ducks in Mississippi and Louisiana flyways. Don’t you think that there is an impact caused by the fuel standards on hunting species, and don’t you 

think this is an unforeseen consequence of Congress interjecting 

itself into the markets? 

Mr. ASHE. Senator, thank you. I would say we are seeing what 

Ducks Unlimited and others are calling a crisis in the prairies. If 

you think about the States of North Dakota and South Dakota, 

which are really the heart of waterfowl production for the United 

States of America. We have energy development, Bakken Oil 

Fields, squeezing from the west and we have agriculture development squeezing from the east. So there is no doubt that we are seeing widespread and unprecedented conversion of habitat. 

Senator WICKER. If I can interject, because that clock is ticking, 

part of that reduction in habitat is putting more of the land into 

corn to respond to this public policy decision that the Federal Government has made. That is a fact, is it not? 

Mr. ASHE. Certainly a part of the demand is related to use for 

ethanol, but the market is a global market for corn and soybean. 

The global market is what is driving the demand for that commodity. 

What is important for us to realize is that climate change lies 

over that, so as we are trying to maintain and now restore and protect habitat for migrating waterfowl, we have the increasing complexity associated with changing climate and the disruption of their 

migratory behavior. If you think again about that hen mallard as 

she is migrating, if the temperatures are warmer, think about you 

or me. If we were making a journey of some 2,000 miles and the 

temperature is now a degree and a half warmer than she was 

evolved to tolerate. The prospect now is for temperatures to rise 

throughout the end of the century. 

So she, from a thermodynamic standpoint, she not only has to 

make that trip with less habitat, she going to have to make that 

trip in a hotter world. It is a strenuous endeavor. Migration is a 

strenuous and risky endeavor for any species, and now we are increasing the stress on that animal to make that trip. She has to 

make it every year, she has a tight time schedule, she has demanding food and energy requirements, and we are making that journey 

harder for her. 

Senator WICKER. I realize, Mr. Director, this is not a climate 

issue, but I am merely trying to point out that you are concerned 

about the migration of ducks, as am I, as are our people in Mississippi, particularly along the river counties and the delta counties. I would just submit to you that there is a lot more to it than 

increasing of temperatures by one degree or one and a half degrees. 
30 

I am going to want to take a second round with this witness, Mr. 

Chairman, so I will yield back to you for questions if you would 

like, but I would like to take a second round. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you. Are you going to be able to stay 

with us through the second panel as well? 

Mr. ASHE. Yes. 

Senator MERKLEY. OK, terrific. Why don’t you go ahead and take 

your second 5 minutes? 

Senator WICKER. OK, well, let me ask you this, Mr. Director. Do 

you just dismiss altogether the scientific evidence that Senator Sessions mentioned this morning that global temperatures have flatlined for the last 15 years, do you dismiss that as being inaccurate? 

Mr. ASHE. I do, sir. 

Senator WICKER. So you have a disagreement with the scientists 

who have demonstrated that we basically have flat-lined. 

Mr. ASHE. There is no scientific disagreement. If what people are 

doing is taking 1998, which was a high year for temperature, and 

then they are either looking from 1998 to 2013 and they are saying 

there is no rise in temperature. You can’t look at a temperature 

record that does go up and down and so you will have warm years, 

relatively warmer and relatively cool years. You can’t pick 1 year 

out of a 150-year data base and say, well, if I use 1995 which was 

a particularly warm year, and I compare all the succeeding years 

to that, there has been no increase in temperature. 

If you look at the complete temperature record, there is no doubt 

that temperatures are rising and the temperatures have risen during the course of the last decade. The last decade is the warmest 

decade on record. When you look objectively and completely at the 

scientific record, there is no disagreement. The National Climate 

Assessment reflects that science, that large consensus body of 

science. 

Senator WICKER. Do you acknowledge that the Earth’s climate 

has been changing up and down for tens of thousands of years? 

Mr. ASHE. Millions of years. 

Senator WICKER. Millions of years, OK. And that has been irrespective of carbon dioxide content on the atmosphere, is that correct? 

Mr. ASHE. Carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere has changed 

over time, and has been correlated with by looking at the carbon 

dating record, has been correlated with increasing and decreasing 

temperatures. But what we are seeing now and which again 

science clearly points to, is that human-based emissions of greenhouse gases are driving concentrations in the atmosphere that have 

not been seen for hundreds of thousands of years. 

Senator WICKER. Are you suggesting that every time over the 

last million years that temperatures have gone up, it is been due 

to carbon dioxide? 

Mr. ASHE. I am not testifying, I can’t say every time, but what 

scientists have confirmed looking back into the paleontological 

record is that ice age, warm periods and cold periods have been associated with elevated and decreased levels of carbon dioxide in the 

atmosphere. 

Senator WICKER. Let me ask you about forest management. You 

won’t be here during panel two. Dr. David South, in his prepared 
31 

testimony says policymakers who halt active forest management 

and kill green harvesting jobs in favor of a hands-off approach contribute to the buildup of fuels in the forest, and this eventually increases the risk of catastrophic wildfires. Also, James Walls on 

panel two will say because of past management of fire suppression, 

the worst neighbor a timberland owner can have is a national forest. 

How would you respond to that, and basically in a nutshell the 

argument is by refusing to allow the underbrush there is this 

buildup of fuels and this intensifies forest fires, how do you respond to that? They have a point. 

Mr. ASHE. I would not say that U.S. Forest Service is a poor 

neighbor. I don’t think they have a point about that. I would say 

that the build up of fuels in our Nation’s forests, public and private, has been a challenge for us. So whether it is a national forest, 

Bureau of Land Management lands, a national wildlife refuge, a 

national park, a State park, or State wildlife management area, 

fire management is a challenge for any land manager. 

I would say the greatest need in that regard is funding for preventative management. In this year’s budget, the President has 

proposed a so-called fire fix that allows us to begin to treat fires 

like other natural disasters and gives us more flexibility to do what 

you are calling for Senator, which is to do prescriptive management 

of our Nation’s forests. 

Senator WICKER. Part of that would be removing the fallen trees 

and the underbrush that amounts to fuel for forest fires? 

Mr. ASHE. In some cases. As a wildlife manager, sometimes 

deadfall and understory is a good thing for wildlife management. 

But in some cases, managing forests, as Senator Merkley knows, 

in the Pacific Northwest, we are working together with our State 

and Federal colleagues on ecological forestry, which involves many 

of the principles that you are speaking of, which is getting, do 

thinning, do understory management. I think good, improved forest 

management is an important aspect of our adaptation to changing 

climate. It is an important aspect of wildlife management in providing the habitat that our game species are going to need in the 

future. 

So I agree with you that that is an important adaptation for us 

to take. We need better capacity to do that and knowing what we 

now know about climate change and what the future is going to 

look like. 

Senator WICKER. The Chairs agree to indulge me on one other 

question. 

There’s a strategic plan for responding to climate change that includes increased data collection initiatives to increase awareness 

and habitat conservation programs. How much money and how 

many employees is this going to take, and will this negatively impact other fish and wildlife service programs? 

Mr. ASHE. I am not sure what strategy you are talking about. 

Senator WICKER. OK. Well, let me ask you: does Fish and Wildlife Service have a strategic plan for responding to climate change? 

Mr. ASHE. We do have a climate change strategic plan, and as 

I mentioned before, one of the outgrowths of that plan is the Na-
32 

tional Fish Wildlife and Plants Adaptation Strategy and it identifies a number of common sense steps that we can take. 

Senator WICKER. My question is about the cost of this and 

whether employees will be taken away from other programs and 

placed into this initiative. 

Mr. ASHE. No, because they are basically synonymous with good 

management, as you have identified with forest management. 

What we need to do is we need to provide our managers, our Federal and State and tribal managers with the tools they need to do 

better forest management better range management with the scientific information that they need. It will cost, it will take additional capacity to do this, but it needs to be done. 

Senator WICKER. Where is that additional capacity going to come 

from? 

Mr. ASHE. I think as the President has provided in the specific 

context of fire management, as I said, the President has provided 

in this year’s budget that 30 percent of the funds for suppression 

should come from the disaster funding ceiling. That will free up 

dollars for us to do more preventative management for fire. I think 

we know we have common sense approaches to find and build the 

capacity that you are talking about, and I think the President has 

proposed one such step in his 2015 budget. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you, I will take my 5-minute turn 

then. 

I would like to say that that Forest Service plan makes a lot of 

sense, because what we have had with the large fires has been 

complete depletion of the Forest Service and then trying to restore 

the funds for every other function they have other than fighting 

fires. And that is not treating emergencies as emergencies, and just 

a huge disruptive factor in the ordinary work of the Forest Service. 

That is a terrific proposal. I commend the Forest Service for it. 

You mentioned in your testimony that some of the migrations 

that are occurring and specifically you mentioned the Pacific brant, 

and that it has migrated, its range has changed dramatically. Can 

you just explain what is going on there? 

Mr. ASHE. Sure. Pacific brant is a small goose, and Pacific brant 

have range that are breeding grounds in the Arctic. And they 

range, they migrate historically, down to Mexico; winter in Mexico 

or summer in Mexico. And what we are seeing increasingly is brant 

are staying in Alaska throughout the breeding season. 

So what that creates is a potential that we will have a disruption, that we will have a severe weather event and the birds will 

not have migrated and will take a big population reduction. So 

these changes in migratory patterns put more uncertainty into the 

game for the wildlife managers. If we are facing more uncertainty, 

the way we typically deal with that is that we reduce opportunity. 

I think that is the restriction that we are looking at. 

Senator MERKLEY. My impressions were, seeing this in studies of 

lots of species some of my colleagues have talked about the migrating lobsters, so on and so forth, so this is not just one particular, 

lots of ocean species are things that are changing. 

Mr. ASHE. Across the board, we are seeing changes in the blooming of flowers, the green-up in Alaska tundra in the springtime. We 

are seeing changes in migratory patterns as we have talked about. 
33 

We are seeing changes in habitat availability for cold water fish. 

While one study in 2012 of cold water fishes estimates that by 

2100, we can see a reduction of 50 percent in habitat availability 

for cold water fishes, trout, salmon, a loss of as much as six and 

a half million angler days, and as much as $6.5 billion in economic 

activities. These changes are not inconsequential for sportsmen and 

women. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you. I want you to take a look at a 

chart on the surface temperature issue that was raised. This chart 

shows change in surface temperature from 1970 through 2013. It 

basically shows that there is about a .6 degree Celsius change in 

just that 44-year period. One can draw impressions about this. I 

have another chart here that has a line that simply represents 

kind of the rising direction of temperature. But I wanted to specifically emphasize the second chart, which shows the rising temperatures in a series of steps, and because a number of folks have commented and said, well look, this last bar is flat, and it is flat over 

a period of approximately 10 to 12 years, and therefore nothing to 

worry about. 

But when you see this chart, going backward, we see a series of 

periods where the average temperature keeps increasing by steps, 

if you will. Is there any reason to think that if we are looking at 

this chart 10 years from now, that we will see a new step that is 

lower than the step we are at now, is there any reason to think, 

no issue here, that this trend is not going to continue? 

Mr. ASHE. I am not aware of any scientific study that predicts 

a decline in temperature from this point forward. Your observation, 

as I was saying in response to Senator Wicker’s statement, is you 

look at the long term temperature record, it is unequivocal that 

temperatures are rising and that predictions are for the temperatures to rise and the rate of temperature increase to rise in the future. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you very much for your testimony. I 

appreciate it very much, and your bringing the expertise of your 

agency to bear on these broad trends that we are experiencing. 

Senator WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if there is any reason 

to believe that if we raise electricity rates on American farmers and 

ranchers by double digits that that line is going to change one way 

or the other? 

Senator MERKLEY. Is that something you want to speculate on? 

Senator WICKER. I have already speculated. 

Senator MERKLEY. I will note that I have entered into the record 

an analysis looking at future power costs. It actually anticipates a 

reduction, but that is maybe for another hearing, or another debate 

and discussion. 

[The referenced material was not received at time of print.] 

Senator MERKLEY. Let’s turn to our second panel, if they could 

come forward. 

Welcome. It is great to have you all, I am happy to introduce our 

second panel of witnesses. We have a very diverse group that includes three individuals who will talk about how climate change is 

impacting their area of expertise. We also have two minority witnesses who will present their perceptions as climate change skep-
34 

tics. I will go ahead and introduce everyone now, and then we will 

proceed with the testimony. 

Our first witness is Jim Walls, who I am particularly delighted 

to have here, from Oregon. Jim serves as the Executive Director of 

Lake County Resources Initiative, an organization dedicated to improving forest management on national forests and expanding the 

use of renewable energy in rural communities. He has been a leader in forestry and clean energy in Oregon, working to foster more 

collaborative approaches to forest management, as well as working 

to make and attract more biomass, geothermal, hydro, solar and 

wind energy projects to Lake County. 

Our second witness is Clay Pope; he is a fourth generation wheat 

farmer and cattle rancher in northwest Oklahoma and also serves 

as the State Association Executive Director of the Oklahoma Association of Conservation Districts. Clay served in the Oklahoma 

House of Representatives from 1994 through 2004. Welcome. 

Our third witness is Daniel Cohen. Daniel is a commercial fisherman and owner of Atlantic Capes Fisheries, a scallop harvesting 

and marketing company based out of New Jersey, but it does business on both coasts. 

David South is a retired professor of Forestry at Auburn University, where he also earned his Ph.D. in forestry. Mr. South also 

served as Director for the Southern Forest Nursery Management 

Cooperative. 

David Legates, our final witness, is a joint associate professor of 

Geography at the University of Delaware. He is also the former director of the Center for Climatic Research at the University of 

Delaware. 

Welcome everyone, and Mr. Walls, if you could kick off the testimony, the show is yours. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES WALLS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, LAKE 

COUNTY RESOURCES INITIATIVE 

Mr. WALLS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and fellow members, it 

is a privilege to be here and an honor. 

As said my name is Jim Walls. I run a small non-profit in Lake 

County, Oregon, concentrating on Federal forest lands and renewable energies. We are 78 percent government land-owned in our 

county, and that is over 8,500 square miles, so it is big, it is bigger 

than some eastern States. 

Within that, like many communities with forests over the past 

three decades, we have suffered high unemployment, poverty rates 

and stuff due to policies on our national forest. We look at renewable energy as a way to change that economy and bring new green 

jobs to the forefront. 

When discussing climate change on forests, I can’t separate the 

actions of past forest management and the impacts of climate 

change. They are both in the same treatments, will have the same 

effects, and that is we under-thin, take the understory and remove 

it, and remove that amount so there is a more back to a natural 

area, a natural stand condition that was pre-European. That is also 

the strategy we need to use for climate change. So they are intertwined. 
35 

In our case, I would like to point out that over the past decade, 

what has that meant in our forests. In 10 years, the first fire was 

the Winter Rim Toolbox fire, we lost 100,000 acres. Then we had 

a beetle kill of over 350,000 acres. Then in 2012, we had the Barry 

Point fire, 93,000 acres. In less than a decade, we have now lost 

24 percent of the Fremont, part of the Fremont-Winema National 

Forest. If we keep this rate up, because fires are getting more intense, insects are getting more intense, because of the warmer climate change. If we keep this up, we will lose, in three decades, our 

whole forest, and I think that is a real and severe threat to us. 

It is not only a threat to our industry in timber. It is a threat 

to our agricultural industry, too. We average 10 to 20 percent moisture during the winter; our summers are hot and dry, normally. 

Without that snowpack, we don’t have agriculture. We don’t have 

irrigational water. All you have to do is look to our neighbors in 

the Klamath Basin this year and what is going to happen there. 

And even in Lake County, we are seeing reduced irrigation rates 

because of the drought, droughts that we have never seen this severe before. 

I think we can debate the climate change, long term, short term, 

all that. I personally say, it is here, and the risk is way too high 

just to ignore those few, that you might be right that it is not happening. And I hope we don’t go there. By using renewable energy 

I feel that we can offset that. We have developed a plan in Lake 

County by all the ones that we have done an economic analysis and 

feasibility study on. We will offset 93 percent of the fossil fuel emissions in a decade in Lake County. And we will do it economically. 

So as we go forward with this debate, I would hope that we look 

at the things like that that make economic sense. Now, can renewables compete with hydro? No. Could it compete with other forms 

of coal and industry? Solar, the cost of a panel now is very cheap. 

It is reducing all the time. Wind is there. And as we invest in 

these, more and more of them will become competitive at other 

rates throughout the country. And it is a way to turn our jobs 

around. 

I ask you one thing, is to change the definition, which Senator 

Merkley will co-sponsor with Senator Wyden on, on the renewable 

energy. Biomass off Federal lands is not considered a renewable 

energy source. That reduces our investment. We have two companies looking at locating in Lake County. We only have supply for 

one, so hopefully one of those will make it, and that is a cellulosic 

jet-fuel company, and then a biomass energy production company. 

With that definition, they do not want to invest, because it is not 

considered renewable. So please do change that, Senate Bill 536, 

and get that passed so we change that definition. It does not make 

sense to me. 

The other thing I would like to say is that we need to increase 

the scale of getting treatments. I mentioned, and Senator Wicker, 

you said my full testimony about the worst neighbors, the Forest 

Service. It is not because we don’t know what to do, it is the length 

of time and the amount we are getting done. And we need to increase, rather than treating 3,000 to 4,000 acres of land that is 

overstocked, that we would be treating 20,000 acres a year. And 
36 

that we get to 100,000 acres in NEPA, and not just doing small 

acres projects at a time. 

So we don’t want to skip any environmental rules or do anything 

like that. We want to do it ecologically sound and economically as 

well. As we move on, I hope you also look at the fire spending that 

was mentioned. We cannot get ahead of this or achieve our goals 

of those acres if we don’t deal with fire borrowing that occurs every 

year. And as these fires get more intense and hotter, we need to 

look at that. And Senate Bill 1875, I hope you endorse that bill and 

get that through. Because it is far cheaper to treat the forest land 

than it is to suppress fire. And they are increasing. 

The other thing that climate change has done in the thicker forest is that it keeps the snow from hitting the ground. We get large 

amounts of evaporation rate in those thicker forests, so our 

snowpack is reduced. That is the other fact. 

So I do see by implementing and by doing common sense things 

today such as renewable energy, we can make some great impacts 

and then what is after that; let’s make the more challenging stuff. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Walls follows:] 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Walls. 

Mr. Pope. 

STATEMENT OF CLAY POPE, STATE ASSOCIATION EXECUTIVE 

DIRECTOR, OKLAHOMA ASSOCIATION OF CONSERVATION 

DISTRICTS 

Mr. POPE. Chairman Merkley, Ranking Member Wicker, and 

members of the committee, thank you very much for allowing me 

the chance to come before you today and speak about climate 

change and the challenges facing agriculture on the Southern 

Plains. 

First, let me say we have always had wild weather on the Southern Plains. I think Oklahoma Native Will Rogers put it best when 

he said ‘‘If you don’t like the weather in Oklahoma, wait a minute; 

it will change.’’ What is different, though, is the frequency and 

strength of the weather events that we are now seeing. Basically, 

our crazy weather has been put on steroids. The drought we have 

been suffering through for the last 5 years is a perfect example of 

this, and it is had a drastic impact on agriculture. In Oklahoma 

alone, we have seen a reduction in the cattle herd over 10 percent. 

By the first of this year, the cattle inventory in the United States 

had shrunk to its lowest level since 1951. And over 80 percent of 

these reductions happen in two States: Oklahoma and Texas. 

But the effects of the drought aren’t just limited to livestock. In 

Oklahoma, we may be looking at the fourth year in a row where 

at least 50 percent of the State’s cotton acres will be abandoned, 

and as bad as the cotton situation is, however, the real story is 

wheat. This year’s wheat harvest is expected to be the lowest since 

1957. It is estimated that the amount of wheat harvested in 2014 

will be 40 percent of what was cut in 2013, and that crop was 30 

percent below what was cut in 2012. 

Now, this drop in production isn’t just due to the drought. A late 

season freeze also took its toll on Oklahoma’s wheat crop. Now, late 

season freezes aren’t anything new, but what is new, though, is the 

frequency. This is the third time in 5 years that a late freeze has 

impacted Oklahoma’s wheat crop. Clearly, we have a problem. The 

question is what do we do about it? 

Well, the secret, Senators, in my opinion, is in the soil. Improving the health of our soil is a key to helping agriculture both mitigate and adapt to climate change. Our farm ground has lost between 60 to 80 percent of the organic matter that was present in 

the soil at initial plow-up. This is important because it is organic 

matter that feeds the microbial community of bugs, bacteria and 

fungus under the soil; therefore, my first and best line of defense 

against climate change. Every 1 percent increase in organic matter 

in the soil can triple that soil’s water holding capacity. That equals 

on average to an additional 25,000 gallons of water available per 

acre for growing crops. 

By converting then to cropping systems that also incorporates 

cover crops, we can greatly increase the infiltration rate of watering our farm ground while at the same time, reducing the amount 

of moisture lost to evaporation when that land is tilled, exposed to 

the sun. This helps our farms better weather the droughts that are 

being exacerbated by climate change while providing more mois-
42 

ture for growing crops. This increase in soil moisture also helps restore balance to the overall water cycle, which in turn increases 

stream flow, making more water available for humans and wildlife. 

By using no-till we can also greatly reduce soil erosion while at the 

same time reducing runoff from agricultural land. This not only 

protects the soil, it also reduces non-point source pollution in our 

streams and rivers. 

In addition, that same 1 percent increase in organic matter can, on average, make available up to $700 worth of additional nutrients per acre for growing crops. By improving the health of our 

soil, we can help plants more effectively absorb the nutrients available in the ground, helping us increase yields, and feed an ever 

growing planet. And as we do all this; we are also lowering carbon 

dioxide levels in the atmosphere. No-till can sequester on average 

roughly half a metric ton of carbon per acre per year. 

Now, we all know plants breathe in carbon dioxide and breathe 

out oxygen. That carbon dioxide is then stored in the soil in the 

form of organic matter. When you restore soil health, you help agriculture adapt to climate change while you improve water quality, 

while you improve wildlife habitat, while you increase yields, and 

at the same time, sequester carbon dioxide in the soil. This is 

something we need to do. And through the Farm Bill Conservation 

Program, USDA and RCS have the ability to help producers do it. 

Unfortunately, as budgets tighten, financial assistance through 

these programs and the funding for technical assistance continue 

to shrink. During the Dust Bowl it was determined that it was in 

the public’s interest to keep the farm ground in the Southern 

Plains in production. Through the partnership of the Federal and 

State governments and local conservation districts, the tide of dust 

was turned back. This partnership has the ability to address climate change in the same manner that they addressed the Dust 

Bowl, if they have the necessary resources. 

Even with these tools, though, researchers need to determine 

what kinds of technologies are best suited to help agriculture adapt 

to climate change. The USDA started this process by the formation 

of the regional climate hubs. They hold great promise that will go 

unrealized if that they aren’t provided with the resources necessary 

to do their job. 

As we focus on the droughts though, we can’t lose sight of the 

fact that floods will come again. In fact, droughts and floods have 

a tendency to come together in Oklahoma. Take the Hammond 

Flood in 1934. Happened in the middle of the Dust Bowl and it 

spurred the Federal Government to build small watershed dams 

through USDA, something Senator Inhofe alluded to earlier. Oklahoma alone has over 2,100 of these structures, most of which are 

in need of rehabilitation. When this work takes place, many of 

these could be made into reservoirs for nearby communities to help 

with water shortages and the flash floods made worse by climate 

change. With the passage of the Farm Bill, funding was authorized 

to do this work. Unfortunately, NRCS rules State can only be used 

to repair existing structures to their current size. This doesn’t have 

to be the case. A change in the rules would allow Federal funds to 

be made available to help several of our communities with new 

water sources. 
43 

In addition, when you look at the opportunities outlined in the 

original Flood Control Act, purposes like water quality and quantity, flood mitigation and wildlife enhancement, you see this program as another tool the USDA already has that can help our 

country better adapt to climate change. 

In closing, I would reiterate: Southern Plains agriculture is facing some serious challenges from climate change. The good news is, 

though, is that the USDA has some tools to cope with this challenge, and there is a path forward. The question is, will we take 

it? 

Thank you for allowing me to speak today, I will be happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pope follows:] 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you, very much, Mr. Pope. 

Mr. Cohen. 

STATEMENT OF DANIEL COHEN, OWNER, ATLANTIC CAPES 

FISHERIES 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you very much for the opportunity to address 

the committee as we evaluate the impact of climate change on our 

environment and livelihoods and for the next generations. 

The fishing and agriculture industry of the United States is, especially the shellfish industry, is extremely susceptible to increases 

in ocean temperature and ocean acidification. Like canaries in the 

coal mine our shellfish agriculture industry has already been significantly impacted and is the harbinger of the consequences of 

human use of fossil fuels and CO2 increases in our atmosphere. 

I am Daniel Cohen, president of Atlantic Capes Fisheries, a second generation fishing industry. Today, we operate vessels on the 

east coast and the west coast with facilities in New Jersey, Maryland, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and the Pacific Northwest. We 

are focused on scallops, crabs, clams, and squid. And I have spent 

a considerable amount of time in fisheries research in the academia 

and the National Marine Fisheries Service raising over a million 

dollars per year with the Mid-Atlantic Fisheries Management 

Council in primary science in conjunction with Rutgers University, 

Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences, National Marine Fisheries 

Service and Cornell University. 

About 15 years ago, recognizing that the wild harvests of our 

commercial fishermen sells would be capped to make certain that 

we had sustainable harvests for the future, and with these sustainable capped harvests, there would not be enough fish protein for 

a growing world population that then was 6 billion, now 7 billion 

soon, will be 9 billion, the industry begins looking more and more 

toward aquaculture to meet those rising needs. I will use examples 

today, but not anecdotes, but what actually what has happened to 

industry and then backed up with scientific research to bring what 

is actually happening. And I am going to do that with four examples that are really just examples, and we can talk more about others. These examples are coming from three sources: one, changes 

slowly over time and bottom temperature changes in the ocean; 

two, rising ocean acidity from carbon dioxide in the atmosphere 

going into the oceans as a pCO2 sink, raising levels of ocean acidification; and three, changes in ocean currents, which the scientists 

have ascribed to changes in bottom temperature. 

I have four examples: surf claim fisheries on the east coast, oyster hatcheries and farming in Oregon and Washington, and the 

food fishery in North Carolina to Rhode Island, and the scallop 

farming in British Columbia. The surf of clam fishery was historically centered off the coast of Virginia up through New Jersey. The 

robust New Jersey fishery in New Jersey landed over 50 percent 

of the surf clams for the entire country and surf clams are the No. 

1 ingredient in, obviously, clam chowder, which was and I think 

still is the No. 1 soup served in restaurants in the country and are 

also enjoyed as fried and buttered clam strips. 

As outlined in the written evidence I have given in addition, bottom temperature rise was first identified after a National Marine 
53 

Fisheries Service survey determined a large die off of surf clams off 

of Virginia, Rutgers and VIMS, scientists have determined it was 

due to bottom temperature changes. Cooler waters in New England 

saw greater spawning off New England. Clam plants have shut in 

Virginia and Maryland and New Jersey and new plants opened in 

Massachusetts and Rhode Island, showing a shift in the population 

of the clams due to bottom temperature rise documented by Rutgers, and therefore change in jobs. 

In the Pacific Northwest, we have seen large ocean acidification. 

In our written testimony is that of George Waldbusser from Oregon 

State University documenting over $110 million worth of losses to 

the hatchery industry alone where now they are having to buffer 

all their water similar to the way you buffer yourself with Tums 

because of ocean acidification. The only way they have been able 

to have successful hatcheries in the last few years because of major 

problem mid-part in 2000 when we discovered the problem coming 

from ocean acidity. 

In 2013 in British Columbia there was a major die-off, 90 percent 

of all the scallops being raised offshore. Three year classes were 

killed including my company. I sustained alone a $10 million loss. 

The scientists there, which are continuing to research this right 

now, believe that the ocean is the highest level of ocean acidification which were recorded last summer weakened the animals to become more susceptible to endemic disease. 

In terms of the fluke fishery, you have evidence in my written 

testimony mostly documented by an article that is being released 

today by the Daily Climate that is documenting work by National 

Marine Fisheries Service and NOAA, documenting temperature 

changes in the east coast affecting the migration and distribution 

of the fluke fishery. The fluke fishery in completely rebuilt because 

of good management practices by Mid-Atlantic Council. But because the distribution of those fluke are moving slowly north, the 

traditional way you traditionally fished off of North Carolina are 

now being fished off of New York and further north. Therefore 

there is a user conflict now of State by State allocation of the fluke 

fishery and recreational commercial conflict, all a consequence of 

change in distribution due to documented bottom temperature 

change. 

I am going to conclude by saying that I believe that it is irrefutable that climate change is happening, that leaders of the east 

coast fishing industry along with myself have formed a company 

called Fisherman’s Energy specifically to try, similar to what was 

testified here, to try to also adapt. We propose to build offshore 

wind farms and these are just examples that we as a society must 

take to be actually agents of change rather than victims of change. 

Thank you, I would be happy to answer questions whenever 

you’d like. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cohen follows:] 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you, Mr. Cohen. 

Dr. South. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID SOUTH, Ph.D., EMERITUS PROFESSOR, 

SCHOOL OF FORESTRY AND WILDLIFE SCIENCES, AUBURN 

UNIVERSITY 

Mr. SOUTH. It is a privilege to provide you with my views of forest and wildfires. Foresters know that there are many examples of 

how human activity affects both the total number and size of 

wildfires. Policymakers who halt active forest management and kill 

green harvesting jobs really end up contributing to the build up of 

fuels in the forest. This eventually increases the risk of catastrophic wildfires. 

To attribute this human caused increase to the fire risk, to carbon dioxide emissions is simply unscientific. In today’s world of climate alarmism, accuracy really doesn’t seem to matter. I am therefore not surprised to see many journalists spreading the idea that 

carbon emissions cause large wildfires. There is a well known point 

called the serenity prayer and it states: God, grant me the serenity 

to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the 

things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference. Now that I 

am 65, I realize that I can’t change the behavior of the media, and 

I can’t change the weather. 

Early in my career, I gave up trying to change the media and 

make them correct their mistakes about forest management. Now 

I just concentrate on my colleagues, trying to get them to do a better job of sticking to the facts. I will leave the guesses of the future 

to others. Untrue claims about the underlying causes of wildfires 

can spread like wildfire. The false statement that wildfires in 2012 

burned a record 9.2 million acres in the U.S. is cited in numerous 

articles and is found in more than 2,000 Web sites. But you can 

see by the looking at the graph that wildfires in the 1930s burned 

about four times that rate. 

Wildfires in 2012 were certainly an issue of concern, but those 

who push an agenda really need to exaggerate the claims in order 

to fool the public. This graph shows carbon emission rising since 

1926. If we cherry pick data from 1926 to 1970, we get a negative 

relationship between carbon dioxide and fire size. However, if we 

cherry pick data from 1985 to the current year, we get a positive 

relationship. Neither of these relationships proves anything about 

the effects of carbon dioxide on wildfires, since during dry season, 

human activity is the overwhelming factor that determines both 

the number and size of wildfires. 

In the 48 States there have been about 10 extreme mega-fires. 

Eight of these fires occurred during cool decades. These data suggest that extremely large mega-fires were four times more common 

before 1940, back when carbon dioxide concentrations were less 

than 310 parts per million. It looks to me like we cannot reasonably say that man-made global warming causes extremely large 

wildfires. 

Seven years ago, this committee conducted a hearing about climate change, and wildfires weren’t even mentioned in that meeting, but hurricanes, droughts, were mentioned a number of times. 

I am pleased to provide you with my forestry views because unlike 
91 

hurricanes, droughts, and the polar vortex, we can actually promote forestry practices that will reduce the risk of wildfires. Unfortunately, some of our national forest management policies have in 

my view contributed to increasing the risk of wildfires. 

I am certain that attempts to legislate a change in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere will have no effect on reducing the size of wildfires or on the frequency of droughts. In contrast, allowing forest management practices to create economically 

lasting forestry jobs in the private sector might reduce the fuel 

loads of dense forests. In years when demand or renewable resources are high and increasing the number of thinnings and harvesting jobs might actually have a real impact on reducing 

wildfires. 

Thank you for this opportunity to address the subcommittee. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. South follows:] 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you very much, Dr. South. 

Dr. Legates. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID R. LEGATES, Ph.D., CCM, PROFESSOR, 

DEPARTMENT OF GEOGRAPHY, UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE 

Mr. LEGATES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senators. 

Carbon dioxide is plant food, and more of it can be a positive. If 

global temperatures rise for any reason, the length of the growing 

season will be increased, the amount and diversity of crops will be 

enhanced, and more areas of the planet will be farmed. The big 

problem, however, is a limiting factor for agriculture in much of the 

world, water availability. Soil moisture in a normal world depends 

on a complicated interaction of changes in precipitation and increases in water demand. Globally, we have seen drought frequencies have not changed over the past 60 years. 

The percentage of the United States in moderate or extreme 

drought has not changed in 112 years, a pattern that has been 

noted by the climate change science program and the IPCC. Recently, droughts have not become more intense or of longer duration. Thus, the historical record does not warrant claiming that 

global warming will negatively impact agriculture. 

Dire forecasts of extreme drought arise, however, from climate 

model simulations which are only as good as their ability to simulate precipitation. Most models overestimate the frequency of rainfall but underestimate its intensity. Thus, while models may appear correct in the aggregate, they don’t get the process correct. 

How can models make accurate estimates of precipitation changes 

when they cannot simulate correctly the mechanisms that drive 

precipitation? 

Evaporative demand is driven by air temperature. But models 

have overestimated the air temperature rise since 1979 by almost 

1 degree Fahrenheit. If precipitation and air temperature are not 

modeled properly, how then can modeled soil moisture be relied 

upon to prepare farmers for an uncertain future? 

Climate changes because climate has always changed, and 

droughts have happened in the past and are likely to occur again 

with similar frequencies and intensities. Thus, I believe preparation for their return is a better strategy than trying in vain to mitigate them through draconian carbon dioxide emission control policies, such as those proposed only yesterday. 

However, I have become increasingly concerned as to how this 

scientific debate is being corrupted. In my 2003 Senate testimony 

regarding the hockey stick, I lamented that a healthy scientific debate was being compromised. An attack had been made on the scientific process. Editors at two journals have been harassed; one of 

the journals was threatened with an organized boycott by scientists 

over a paper it had published. The senior editor moved to bar two 

scientists from future publication in the journal solely because of 

their position on climate change, without a hearing, and without 

even accusation of fraud or plagiarism. 

I would like to report that things have become better. They 

haven’t. In 2009, ClimateGate shed light on how the scientific process was being subverted. In my case, I learned I had been denied 

publication of an important paper due to solely a conclusion be-
139 

tween another scientist and an editor. Over the years I have applied for several Federal grants, including NASA and U.S. Department of Agriculture, the latter having nothing to do with climate 

change. It is not that I received bad reviews; indeed I received no 

reviews at all. Program officers refused to respond by e-mail or 

telephone. Their behavior appears related to an article that appeared in the National Academies of Science which is often used 

as a blacklist to target ‘‘researchers unconvinced of anthropogenic 

global warming.’’ 

Several years ago, I and two colleagues in Delaware received 

FOIAs for material related to climate change. My story is documented in my written testimony. The university general counsel informed me that he would review my documents regardless of how 

or where they were produced. The other faculty members that participated in the IPCC indicated FOIA did not apply to them. I was 

told that although the law may not require him to turn over anything; it does not preclude him from doing so. In essence, I will be 

treated differently simply because he can treat me that way. 

So I sought legal counsel. The dean informed me I could not hire 

my own lawyer and the college would no longer support me. I was 

removed as the Delaware State climatologist, as co-director of an 

environmental network I has spent nearly a decade to develop, as 

faculty advisor to a student group and from all departmental responsibilities. Legal counsel finally agreed to treat all of us equally. 

This never occurred. He never went through materials for anyone 

else; I alone was targeted, then lied to. Even the faculty union that 

supported Dr. Mann at the University of Virginia told me that 

FOIA matters did not fall within their bailiwick. 

According to the CBO of the University, none of my research material or e-mails fall under the FOIA law. The actions of the university violate the terms of a Federal arbitration case. There is nothing in my records of which I am embarrassed. I tell you this story 

not because I seek sympathy, but because of many other cases for 

which the victims cannot speak out. This so-called war on science 

is nothing but a diversion. The real war is being waged within the 

halls of academia and within our Federal granting agencies. 

As with lysenkoism in the Soviet Union, a healthy scientific discussion is being subverted for political and personal gain. Scientists 

who deviate from the anthropogenic global warming playbook are 

harassed, have articles, grants, and proposals rejected without review, are treated more harshly than their peers, and are removed 

from positions of power and influence. Young scientists quickly 

learn to toe the party line or at least remain silent. Thus, they lose 

their career before it begins. 

I leave you with this thought: when scientific views come under 

political attack from within academia, the loser is independent 

thinking and good policymaking because all require rational 

thought to be effective. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Legates follows:] 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 
152 
153 
154 
155 
156 
157 
158 
159 
160 
161 
162 
163 
164 
165 
166 
167 
168 
169 
170 
171 
172 
173 
174 
175 
176 
177 
178 
179 
180 
181 
182 
183 
184 
185 
186 
187 
188 
189 
190 
191 
192 
193 
194 
195 
196 
197 
198 
199 
200 
201 
202 
203 
204 
205 
206 
207 
208 
209 
210 
211 
212 
213 
214 
215 
216 
217 
218 
219 
220 
221 
222 
223 
224 
225 
226 
227 
228 
229 
230 
231 
232 
233 
234 
235 
236 
237 
238 
239 
240 
241 
242 
243 
244 
245 
246 
247 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you all very much for your testimony, 

we will now have 5-minute periods. I believe the order after I ask 

my questions, we will go to Senator Sessions and then to Senator 

Vitter. Senator Wicker has said he’ll defer to his colleagues. And 

I didn’t see you come in, Senator Whitehouse. So, let me check on 

the order. We will go back and forth between Ds and Rs. Thank 

you. 

So, I wanted to start, Mr. Walls, in Lake County, I have been 

very struck when I visit there, it is obviously a rural economy, a 

rural part of the State of Oregon and a lot of emphasis on renewable energy, and I believe a stated goal of the county is to try to 

replace virtually all of the fossil fuels burned with renewable 

sources. Is part of the factor driving that conversation in Lake 

County general observations by folks about the impact of carbon dioxide on, as you were putting it, on the forests? 

Mr. WALLS. In the beginning, which would have been about 10 

years ago, when we started working on this, it became clear afterwards when we started analyzing and we did a paper on it, we 

could offset 93 percent. My board just approved this past week that 

we will go public with all our findings and try and develop a plan 

to use renewables to offset all carbon emissions. 

So we grew into that as we learned more and more of the benefits of the economic benefits of renewable energy, how it would impact us and we just said, well, what is that going to do to climate 

change? What is that going to do to carbon dioxide emissions? And 

like I said in my testimony, what we have on the drawing table 

today would offset 93 and to get to 100 is not that difficult from 

there. We are well on that road. I think we can be 100 percent offset within 10 years. 

Senator MERKLEY. Great. Thank you. I was looking at the National Climate Assessment and Summary. It notes that climate 

change is exacerbating major factors that lead to wildfire, heat, 

drought, and dead trees, that it outweighed other factors in determining the burned area in the western U.S. from 1916 to 2003, including the exacerbation of bark beetle outbreaks, which normally 

die in cold weather, more wildfires, as change continues. Then I 

saw that there is a 2011 report that estimates that if you increase 

the temperature 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit, which is approximately 1 

degree Celsius, that you would quadruple the amount of acreage 

burned. But as you look at the forest issues, if I understand your 

testimony correctly, you are seeing both the impacts of human 

management of the forest as a factor, but also the overlay of these 

climate factors. 

Mr. WALLS. Exactly, and as I mentioned it has impacted our 

snowpack dramatically. If you look in the Klamath Forest just to 

the south of us, this year they had six snow cell sites that were 

zero percent snowpack. 

Senator MERKLEY. And with that, drier conditions. 

Mr. WALLS. Yes, and then the beetle kill. We have never seen, 

well, beetle kill gets into lodgepole pine naturally. But it has never 

been the size that it is today. And that is because we don’t have 

the cold temperatures and they get to live year after year because 

of the warmer temperatures and they are not being killed. And 

350,000 acres is abnormal, nobody has ever seen that. And then I 
248 

think throughout the whole west, into Canada was over 4 million 

acres of beetle kill, somewhere in that neighborhood. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Pope, turning to the farming side, one of the things you mentioned were changes in the wheat farming, and are you arguing 

that the changes in wheat are being impacted by changing temperatures? 

Mr. POPE. Yes, and when you look at the situation in the southern plains right now, clearly the drought over the last few years 

has had a huge impact. I think too, that when you look at the situation as far as precipitation, and clearly, with wheat, wheat’s a 

really resilient crop, it depends on when you get the rain and what 

time the rains come. The challenge is the rain patterns that we 

have been seeing, the way that things are changing, you put into 

that the effects, late season freezes, the droughts; clearly, we are 

seeing an impact on the wheat crops from the changes in the climate that we are experiencing right now. 

I think there are some things that we can do to help adapt to 

that situation, I hope we can do some things to move forward a little bit as are as improving the soil health, try to do things to help 

make our farms more resilient to droughts, to freezes, to sudden 

flooding event, heavy rain events. I think that is a challenge we 

have got far in front of us is to try to make sure that we got those 

tools to do that job. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you, and in the 45 seconds I have left, 

I read a recent report about oysters in the Chesapeake declining 

in part because of acidity, but that also has a secondary impact because oysters filter the water in the Chesapeake, possibly offsetting 

many of the efforts to clean up the Chesapeake Bay. Is that consistent with what you are seeing? 

Mr. COHEN. So first, oysters are specifically a great benefit for 

the environment because they are filter feeders, and they do clean. 

One of the things why in the Chesapeake Bay they are trying to 

bring them back Is because they need to clean the Bay up. But in 

the Chesapeake, very similar to what is happening in the Pacific 

Northwest, is that we have rising levels of pCO2 the partial pressure of CO2 in the ocean, and therefore, rising acidity. In the Pacific Northwest, we have been able to document it because it is 

mostly hatchery based. And there as hatchery based, you can control what is happening and identify. 

It is a little harder in the wild environment to determine what 

is happening to see really whether or not this spawning that has 

taken place, again with the it is not really spawning; it is a little 

baby larvae have a hard time setting up their shell. They can’t accept the calcium into their shell because of the acidity. If you use 

Tums, in your stomach, it is really calcium, you are buffering. Does 

that answer your question? 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you, and I would ask a lot more, but 

my time is expired. I will ask everyone to keep their question within the 5 minutes. Maybe an answer we will go over, since we have 

a number of folks who certainly want to jump into this, and I believe, Senator Sessions, you are next. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
249 

Dr. Legates, the time that we can intimidate people who present 

scientific papers that disagree with the current idea that is in fashion needs to be over. And we need to challenge that. I am not going 

to rest easy about it myself. I know the President, and I have challenged this twice, he said the temperature around the globe is increasing faster than was predicted even 10 years ago. He said that 

twice. Do any of you gentlemen support that statement? Have any 

science that would back that up? 

Well, Mr. Ashe doesn’t because I have asked him about it. So we 

do not need to tolerate the President of the United States falsely 

asserting the status of climate in America. We need to be able to 

allow scientists to present contrary views without being intimidated by the politically correct crowd. I feel strongly about it, and 

we are going to keep working on that. The U.S. Climate Change 

science program said ‘‘In May 2008 a tendency toward a decrease 

in severity and duration of drought over the latter half of the 20th 

century, a decline. And a decrease in the severity and duration of 

drought.’’ 

So I think about that Kingston trio song, Mr. Pope, Texas you 

could substitute Oklahoma for Texas, they are riding in Africa, 

they are starving in Spain, the whole world is full of strife, and 

Texas needs rain. So we got a lot of drought in the 1930s, did we 

not in Oklahoma? More than you have today? In the Dust Bowl 

times? 

Mr. POPE. Actually, if I could answer, it is actually drier now 

that it was in the 1930s, and actually the drought in the 1950s is 

the drought of record in Oklahoma. The drought of the 1930s is actually the third worst, the one that we are in right now is actually 

worse than the one we had in the 1950s and the one we had in 

the 1930s. 

Senator SESSIONS. So you think it is more severe than the 1930s? 

Mr. POPE. Yes, it is. If it hadn’t been for the conservation practices on the land right now, I feel very confident in telling you we 

would be experiencing the challenges that we say in the 1930s as 

far as wind erosion. 

Senator SESSIONS. That is not the trend across the country, apparently. Dr. South, thank you for your statement and the data you 

submitted with it. You have a chart here that indicates that rainfall in forest lands in different regions of the country have increased over 100 years ago. Is that the way I read that? 

Mr. SOUTH. In the northeast. 

Senator SESSIONS. It indicates that others areas have increases 

also? 

Mr. SOUTH. Yes. 

Senator SESSIONS. Matter of fact, every one of the regions seem 

to show, you indicate other regions have had reductions. 

Mr. SOUTH. There’s no change in the west, there is a slight decrease in the southwest. 

Senator SESSIONS. Where the droughts are severe now. But you 

have a 4 percent increase in the northeast? 

Mr. SOUTH. Minus two-tenths of an inch in 100 years. 

Senator SESSIONS. OK, in the southwest? 

Mr. SOUTH. In the southwest. 
250 

Senator SESSIONS. Overall, we are not seeing a decline in rainfall 

that appears to me, throughout the country as a whole. Dr. South, 

isn’t it true that we have had a resurgence of game in Alabama? 

Mr. SOUTH. Certain species, that is correct. 

Senator SESSIONS. Isn’t it true that many forests are being managed far better than in the past? 

Mr. SOUTH. Better is a value term, but from a forestry perspective, I would say yes. 

Senator SESSIONS. Land that were once row cropped and broken 

up every year, marginal lands, highly erodible lands, are now in 

timber, are they not? 

Mr. SOUTH. Yes. 

Senator SESSIONS. And from an environmental and CO2 point of 

view, is that increase in timberlands in the southeast, that I know 

about, that is positive, would you not say for CO2 and the environment? 

Mr. SOUTH. From a mathematics perspective, yes. 

Senator SESSIONS. So the way we manage timber would be you 

would plant an open field that is being harvested every year, trees 

grow for 15 years, they are thinned, the trees then grow faster because there’s a thinning, and then they are harvested 15 years 30 

years 50 years, and replanted. I would say that is a renewable resource, would you not? 

Mr. SOUTH. Definitely. 

Senator SESSIONS. Would you oppose the idea that we shouldn’t 

treat wood as a renewable resource like we do corn? Would you oppose the idea that some are raising that we shouldn’t use wood for 

renewable energy or other resources like pellets? 

Mr. SOUTH. Yes. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you very much. 

Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I appreciate that planting trees helps reduce carbon, but it hardly offsets the coal plant next door that is 

putting out tens of thousands of tons of carbon dioxide. The 50 

worst carbon plants in the country put out more carbon than 

Korea, and Korea is a pretty industrialized country. We are seeing 

these effects in New England. 

Senator Sessions was pleased to bring up that there was actually 

additional rain falling in the Northeast, not only is there additional 

rainfall in the Northeast just as the climate projections expect, but 

it is falling in more powerful rain bursts, just as the climate experts predicted, and those more powerful rain bursts are causing 

repeated damaging flooding. We have had year after year of hundred-year floods in Rhode Island, we had one that hit the 500-year 

level, in Cranston, Rhode Island, and it just keeps coming. 

Like Senator Merkley, we are an ocean State, and we are seeing 

dramatic changes in our oceans. And people can quibble and quarrel at the far, remote fringes of the scientific debate, but tell that 

to our fishermen. We had a very nice guy, Chris Brown, head of 

the Rhode Island Commercial Fisherman’s Association, Mr. Cohen, 

you spoke about this, I will echo what you said, Chris is a fisherman. He grew up on the ocean. His dad and his granddad were 

fishermen. This is his life, and here’s what he said when he came 
251 

to testify for us: ‘‘I fish on a much different ocean today than when 

I first started fishing with my grandfather as a boy in the mid1960s.’’ Not that long ago. ‘‘When I started out catching haddock, 

in to the water around point Judith, it was commonplace. The last 

year, I caught only two. Regularly caught in Rhode Island now is 

the species of croaker, grouper, cobia, drum, and tarpon. My grandfather never saw a single one of these in his entire life as a fisherman.’’ 

As another fisherman said to me, Sheldon, it is getting weird out 

there. And it is not just Rhode Island waters, I traveled through 

the South Atlantic over the break, and they told me that off 

Charleston, they are catching snook. Snook is a fish you used to 

have to go down to Fort Lauderdale to catch. Now they are catching snook off of Charleston, and it is working its way up. Red fish 

are being caught as far north as Cape Cod. 

And in case the warming oceans and the moving around of the 

fisheries and all of that upheaval in the natural order isn’t enough, 

against Rhode Island shores, the oceans are 10 inches higher than 

in the 1930s. Sooner or later another hurricane like the Hurricane 

of 1938 is going to come and give us a punch. 

I ask my colleagues if you are genuinely interested in this issue, 

spend 10 minutes for my sake on Google looking at the images of 

what happened to my State in the hurricane of 1938. Then imagine 

what happens when that 10 inches that is there now and wasn’t 

then of additional sea level gets stacked up further by storm surge 

and thrown against our shores. It is a potential catastrophe. The 

idea that I am supposed to overlook this is preposterous, and the 

idea that my side of the ledger doesn’t count and the only side of 

the ledger that counts is jobs in the coal industry or jobs in the oil 

and gas industry is equally preposterous. 

The science out there has become spectacularly clear, even 

though there remains a fringe. But it is not a fringe that any rational person would put a bet on in their real lives in any other 

circumstance. 

So I want to conclude by thanking Senator Merkley for this program, I want to thank Mr. Cohen for his testimony about these 

fisheries. We are way past a debate on whether this is real. This 

is happening in people’s lives now in ways that are unprecedented, 

and we have got to get responsible about doing something about it. 

I thank the Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Whitehouse follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND

Today the Committee will discuss how American jobs that depend on our natural 

resources are being affected by climate change. I want to thank Chairman Merkley 

for drawing attention to this issue. 

From Rhode Island’s Narragansett Bay to the national forests of Oregon, nature’s 

bounty provides us with life’s essentials: clean air and water that sustain us; crops 

and timber that support industries like food production, manufacturing, and textiles; and the healthy, diverse wildlife that has always been part of outdoor recreation and tourism in this country. Climate change threatens to rob us of that. 

Yesterday, EPA proposed rules to limit the climate altering greenhouse gas pollution spewed from existing power plants. And already we’ve heard the same tired arguments from the big polluters and their Republican allies: The polluters are calling 

this part of a ‘‘war on coal’’ that will kill jobs and impose unfair costs on industry. 

Don’t believe them. Their claims are exaggerated at best, and flat-out false at 
252 

worst—and they always look at only one side of the ledger, ignoring the effects of 

carbon pollution on the rest of us. 

On the other side of the ledger are real, measurable costs for American citizens: 

damage to coastal homes, businesses, and infrastructure from rising seas and erosion; missed work days due to respiratory ailments triggered by smog; forests dying 

from beetle infestations and swept by unprecedented wildfire seasons; farms ravaged by worsened drought and flooding. This side of the ledger counts, too, and 

damage to hunting and fishing is on it. 

I want to particularly mention the toll climate change is already taking on the 

fishing industry, both commercial and recreational. Our oceans are ground zero for 

damage from carbon pollution. The oceans are warming. That’s a measurement, not 

a theory. Sea level is rising. That’s another measurement. Oceans are becoming 

more acidic. Again, a measurement, not a theory or projection. 

These changes are putting the natural order into upheaval. Some species are moving toward the colder water of the North and South Poles, shifting as quickly as 

10 to 45 miles per decade. Events timed for spring and summer, like egg laying or 

migration, are happening earlier—about 4 days per decade. 

Rhode Island Commercial Fishermen’s Association President Chris Brown testified at an EPW subcommittee hearing recently. Chris’s livelihood depends on the 

oceans. He put it like this: ‘‘I fish on a much different ocean today than when I first 

started fishing with my grandfather as a boy in the mid-1960s. When I started out, 

catching haddock in the waters around Point Judith was commonplace. . . . Last 

year I caught only two. . . . Regularly caught now in Rhode Island are the species 

of croaker, grouper, cobia, drum, and tarpon. My grandfather never saw a single one 

of these in his entire life as a fisherman.’’ 

He continued: ‘‘The wild caught fisheries of the Northeast may ultimately prove 

to be the ‘coal miner’s canary’ for this Nation as we grapple with the issue of climate 

change. A reconsideration of strategy is called for given the enormous chasm between what we have endured and what we have gained.’’ 

On a recent trip through the Southeast, I met with fishermen in South Carolina 

who told me that snook are now being caught off the coast of Charleston. And I’ve 

heard that redfish are being caught as far north as Cape Cod. This is new in these 

fishermen’s lifetime. As another Rhode Island fisherman told me, ‘‘It’s getting weird 

out there.’’ 

On the West Coast, as Senator Merkley knows, acidified ocean waters wiped out 

three-quarters of the oyster larvae at a hatchery in Oregon and crashed wild stocks 

in Washington State. 

Recent research led by NOAA scientists found that ocean acidification off our 

West Coast is hitting the pteropod especially hard. Pteropods are tiny marine snails 

that are food for salmon, mackerel, and herring. They are the base of the food chain. 

No pteropods means crashed salmon, mackerel, and herring fisheries. Dr. William 

Peterson, an oceanographer at NOAA’s Northwest Fisheries Science Center and coauthor of the study said, ‘‘We did not expect to see pteropods being affected to this 

extent in our coastal region for several decades.’’ For several decades. 

Without a doubt, these drastic changes put the jobs and livelihoods of fishermen 

at risk. And if you want to look at mammals, look at New Hampshire moose, dying 

with 50,000–100,000 ticks on them, because of less snow. Do not talk to me about 

the coal jobs at risk unless you’re willing to talk to me about what carbon pollution 

is doing to us, on the other side of the ledger. 

I look forward to today’s discussion. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you very much, Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator Vitter. 

Senator VITTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to our 

witnesses. 

First of all, I am sorry I came too late for the first panel featuring Director Ashe. On February 25th, when he was last before 

the committee, I had asked him questions, some important questions, I think, regarding the consultation under the Endangered 

Species Act with regard to EPA’s new proposals regarding existing 

power plants. His job is about endangered and threatened species 

and understanding impacts on that. Clearly, these new regulations 

have the potential for major impacts on that. 

I asked him if he and EPA were consulting under the law because of that. He didn’t know, he didn’t have answers; I asked him 
253 

to follow up. He has not followed up. I sent a letter to him and Administrator McCarthy regarding this mandated consultation on 

March 6th. I have gotten no response. So I will continue following 

up, but that is his job, this is a major set or regulations, and we 

do expect answers about their responsibility for consultation. 

Now in terms of questions, Dr. South, I share your concern that 

every weather item in the news it seems is sort of held up as the 

newest example of the impact of climate change with no real 

science behind that asserting, and this is also true of wildfires. 

Just recently, for instance, the Democratic Majority Leader Harry 

Reid claimed that global warming was the cause of increased 

wildfires, pure and simple. You testified about that. If you can go 

back and underscore, what do you think the science, the historical 

records lays out in terms of any trends over time regarding 

wildfires, No. 1, and No. 2, what do you think are the leading 

causes of any trends that do exist? 

Mr. SOUTH. Those who claim that CO2 causes additional wildfires 

are not making scientific statements. Instead, they are being easily 

fooled by journalists. Wildfires have typically been associated with 

droughts and with forest conditions that make wildfires more probable. The chart that I showed showing a lot of wildfires in the 

1930s before we started having really active wildfire fighting forces 

gives you an idea of how cyclic it can be. The downward trend that 

you see is caused by humans. Our activity is trying to fight the 

fires. The urban sprawl that has resulted in people building houses 

in the forest has my view and others taking manpower away from 

fighting fires and into protecting homes. And this can increase the 

size of the wildfire that they happen to be working on. 

So, spending more time on preventing houses from catching fire 

and taking the time away from attacking the front causes the size 

of the fire to be larger. 

Senator VITTER. Also in this area, what are your thoughts about 

current management of our forests and that factor regarding 

wildfires? 

Mr. SOUTH. Well, we have the general view of the public. We are 

starting to let the public manage our forests instead of letting foresters, and when the public causes litigation, delays, thinning practices, delays, fuel wood reductions, activities, we get a buildup of 

fuels and an increased risk of wildfires. So by enacting polices that 

lock up wilderness areas decreases harvesting rates. We used to 

harvest about 12 billion board feet per year off of a national forest 

and that has dropped down to nothing now. So our national forests 

are getting bigger, and this is all causing for more catastrophic 

wildfires when they do occur. 

Senator VITTER. OK, thank you. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you very much, Senator Vitter. 

Senator Wicker. 

Senator WICKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have to say this: 

I have not today nor have I ever in a committee hearing insulted 

the integrity of witnesses on the other side of an issue, and we 

have come perilously close to that in this committee today. It has 

been suggested by my friend from Rhode Island that Dr. South and 

Dr. Legates are part of a fringe. To me, this is the very kind of 

public intimidation and insulting rhetoric that Professor Legates 
254 

has talked about in having experienced at the University of Delaware, and I take exception to it. 

Now, Dr. Legates, you are a signatory of the Oregon petition, are 

you not? 

Mr. LEGATES. Yes, sir. 

Senator WICKER. That Oregon petition says there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide 

and methane or other greenhouse gases is causing or will in the 

foreseeable future catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere 

and disruption of the Earth’s climate. I assume this is some petition that you and some fringe scientists from Oregon got together 

and signed. Is that correct? 

Mr. LEGATES. No, I believe there are thirty-some thousand people 

who signed that petition. 

Senator WICKER. Thirty-some thousand people. Would you describe these people? 

Mr. LEGATES. Many of them are scientists, Ph.D.s in other disciplines, or people who are connected with climate change and 

doing research in various areas associated with it. 

Senator WICKER. Well, I just have to say that I appreciate someone standing up and challenging the conventional wisdom. Martin 

Luther did that. Martin Luther King did that. I appreciate some 

people who are willing to hold up their hand and say, wait a 

minute, I have some data here, and I would like to suggest a contrary position. 

Mr. LEGATES. Well, I would not put myself quite in that category. 

Senator WICKER. Well, but it is an important issue, and I have 

to say I admire you for standing up, and Dr. South also, for standing up, and saying you have a right to be heard and a right to be 

listened to and a right not to be insulted by being called part of 

a lunatic fringe. Now, you have concluded that droughts in the 

United States are more frequent and more intense during colder 

periods. Is that correct? 

Mr. LEGATES. Yes, that is what the data indicates. When we look 

at droughts over the last 2,000 years, they tend to become more intense and more frequent when the temperatures have become colder. 

Senator WICKER. Dr. South, you have offered a couple of bets to 

your fellow scientists over time. Is that correct? 

Mr. SOUTH. Yes, sir. 

Senator WICKER. I believe, 5 years ago, you offered a bet on an 

ice-free Arctic in the summer of 2013, when a BBC journalist wrote 

a 2007 article entitled Arctic Summers Ice-Free by 2013. And several ice experts declined to bet with you. Is that correct? 

Mr. SOUTH. That is correct. 

Senator WICKER. If they had bet with you, they would have lost 

that bet. Is that correct? 

Mr. SOUTH. That is correct. 

Senator WICKER. You currently are offering a bet on sea-level 

rise. Would you tell the committee about that? 

Mr. SOUTH. Yes. I am looking for someone who would be willing 

to bet $1,000 on the sea-level increase for the year 2024 in Charleston, South Carolina. The rate currently is around 3.15 millimeters, 

I do not know how they do that to the nearest hundredth of a milli-
255 

meter, but you can do it mathematically; I do not know how you 

can do it scientifically. I will bet that the rate 10 years from now 

is not over 7 millimeters. If a 7-millimeter rate starts now and goes 

to the year 2100, it would equal about a 2-foot increase. Many people are talking about a 14-millimeter rate being equivalent to a 4- 

foot increase. So I am essentially betting that for the next 10 years, 

it will be not increasing at a rate that would equal a 2-foot increase 

by the year 2100, but I am not going to be living that long, so I 

cannot win that bet. 

Senator WICKER. Would this bet apply to your heirs and assigns? 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. SOUTH. Yes, it would. 

Senator WICKER. Thank you very much. We have had a good 

hearing, and there are people watching this, and there will be people late at night, Mr. Chairman, watching this hearing, that are 

suffering from insomnia, and perhaps someone will take Dr. South 

up on his bet. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you very much to all of our witnesses. 

I appreciate you bringing your expertise to bear. We have heard 

today that climate change is having impacts on the ground right 

now; that it is not an abstract theory; it is not about models, decades, or multiple decades into the future; that the changes on the 

ground right now are real and measurable, and they are affecting 

American’s livelihoods, and farming, and hunting, and fishing, and 

forestry. These are real jobs and real impacts on this generation 

and the next. 

We have heard about bark beetle infestations; we have heard 

about migrations of fish; we have heard about the impact of intensifying wildfires, the impact of magnified droughts, the impact of 

more acidic oceans in the Pacific and their impact on oyster reproduction. I just have to wonder, if baby oysters are having trouble 

forming a shell, how many other shellfish impacts are there that 

are going to be problematic for the food chain in our oceans and 

our fisheries? These things are real at this moment, and they confront us with evidence that must not be ignored. 

Certainly, this is in the context of a debate at this moment about 

specific measures that we might take to limit carbon dioxide, including that from coal fire to power plants. The cost of ignoring climate change will continue to increase. The costs are real; the costs 

are tangible; they will affect jobs, and they affect our rural resources. With this challenge in mind, I really appreciate the testimony before this committee today. Members of the committee will 

have 2 weeks from today to submit additional written questions to 

the witnesses, and I would certainly ask if you receive such questions that you respond, and we will make sure the answers are circulated. 

With that, the meeting is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:08 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:] 
256 
257 
258 
259 
260 
261 
262 
263 
264 
265 
266 
267 

Æ