U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

73–572PDF 2012

S. HRG. 110–1176 

AN EXAMINATION OF THE IMPACTS OF GLOBAL 

WARMING ON THE CHESAPEAKE BAY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

SEPTEMBER 26, 2007 

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

( 

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

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming1

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 

BETTINA POIRIER, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

ANDREW WHEELER, Minority Staff Director 

1Note: During the 110th Congress, Senator Craig Thomas, of Wyoming, 

passed away on June 4, 2007. Senator John Barrasso, of Wyoming, joined 

the committee on July 10, 2007. 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

SEPTEMBER 26, 2007 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California ....................... 1 

Warner, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the Commonwealth of Virginia ........... 1 

Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma ................... 4 

Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland .............. 6 

WITNESSES 

Mikulski, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland .................. 11 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 12 

Webb, Hon. James, U.S. Senator from the Commonwealth of Virginia ............ 14 

Gilchrest, Hon. Wayne T., U.S. Representative from the State of Maryland ... 15 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 17 

Kaine, Hon. Timothy M., Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia ............... 19 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 21 

O’Malley, Hon. Martin, Governor of the State of Maryland ................................ 23 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 24 

Baker, William C., president, Chesapeake Bay Foundation ................................ 34 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 35 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Cardin .......................................................................................... 38 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 39 

Pyke, Christopher R., member, Chesapeake Bay Program’s Scientific and 

Technical Advisory Committee; fellow, Virginia Institute of Marine 

Science’s Center of Coastal Resources Management ......................................... 40 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 42 

Response to an additional question from Senator Cardin ............................ 45 

Boesch, Donald F., president, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science ...................................................................................................... 46 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 48 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Cardin ............................... 54 

Avery, Dennis T., senior fellow, Hudson Institute; director, Center for Global 

Food Issues ........................................................................................................... 57 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 59 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe ............................... 63 

Schnare, David W., senior fellow for Energy and the Environment, Thomas 

Jefferson Institute for Public Policy ................................................................... 64 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 65 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe ............................... 72 

Supplemental to prepared statement ............................................................. 151 

Edmund, Richard, pastor, United Methodist Churches of Smith Island, MD .... 73 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 75 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Cardin ............................... 76 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

Statement, Chesapeake Bay Commission, Climate Change and Chesapeake 

Bay: A Summary of Management Issues ........................................................... 146 
Page

IV 

Reports: 

The Chesapeake Bay and Global Warming, A Paradise Lost for Hunters, 

Anglers, and Outdoor Enthusiasts .............................................................. 88 

Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Saving a National Treasure, Climate 

Change and the Chesapeake Bay: Challenges, Impacts, and the Multiple Benefits of Agricultural Conservation Work ...................................... 128 

Article, BBC News, Greenland Ice Swells Ocean Rise ......................................... 107 

Paper, The Incredible Economics of Geoengineering, Scott Barrett, Johns 

Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies, March 18, 

2007 ....................................................................................................................... 109

Chart, Spring SST Estimates at Chesapeake Bay for 2000 Years ...................... 150 
(1) 

AN EXAMINATION OF THE IMPACTS OF 

GLOBAL WARMING ON THE CHESAPEAKE BAY 

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2007 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, Washington, DC. 

The full committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:34 a.m. in room 

406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Barbara Boxer (chairman of the full committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Boxer, Inhofe, Cardin, Warner, Whitehouse. 

Also present, Senators Mikulski and Webb. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator BOXER. We call the Committee to order. We welcome our 

honored guests. I know that Senator Warner has to go down to the 

Floor and work on the defense bill. He is going to come back as 

soon as he possibly can, but in deference to his schedule, I would 

ask if he would like to make his remarks before Senator Inhofe and 

I do. 

Senator WARNER. I thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. Certainly. 

Senator WARNER. Then I shall return to this hearing quite 

promptly. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN WARNER, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

Senator WARNER. I am privileged this morning, together with my 

colleague Senator Webb, to introduce our distinguished Governor, 

Governor Kaine, who I have worked with now these several years. 

It has been my privilege in the 29 years I have been in this institution to work with 10 Virginia Governors. I would say that this one 

is fast achieving the role of being at the top of his class. He has 

a heartfelt concern about the issues surrounding global climate 

changes, the mysteries and what is known in this area. He is proceeding to lead our State to take an important position, along with 

other States I hope, as we begin to go into the world of the unknowns and try and do what we can at this point in America’s history to hopefully join other nations to achieve a measure of global 

warming recognition and action. 

Under your leadership, as you know, Senator Lieberman and I 

have a bill that will soon come before this Committee. But on this 

subject, I would like to first mention that it has been my privilege 

to work on the issues of the Chesapeake Bay for many years. I 
2 

harken back to two great Senators, Senator Matthias and Senator 

Paul Sarbanes and I and others who initiated the earliest legislation with regard to the Chesapeake Bay. We went in there with the 

best of intentions, and laid a foundation legislatively. I think collectively the several States that border the Bay have begun to pull 

their fair share of the load and responsibility, together with the 

Federal Government, but it has to be a joint project. 

This magnificent bay is absolutely essential to our ecosystem, 

and also we must be concerned about a part of the real estate of 

our great commonwealth, Virginia, which borders the Bay and 

could be subjected, the Tidewater region, to severe damage if in the 

future years there is a significant rise in the water levels worldwide. I believe our territory—and the Governor will go into details 

on this—is one of the lowest of any major city throughout certainly 

the United States. 

So we are anxious to hear from Governor Kaine when his time 

comes, and thank you, Madam Chairman and the Ranking Member, for allowing me to make a few remarks. I will return as quickly as I can. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Warner follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN WARNER, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

Good Morning. I am pleased to welcome today’s witnesses, and was pleased to 

welcome my distinguished colleagues from the Chesapeake Bay region, Senators 

Webb and Mikulski, Congressman Gilchrest, Governor Kaine, and Governor 

O’Malley. Your presence here today speaks to the serious nature of the issue today’s 

hearing will examine. 

Together over the years, the Congressional delegations from Virginia and Maryland have played a pivotal role in efforts to promote restoration of the Chesapeake 

Bay. The state governments have enacted strong restoration policies as well. I fear 

that all this good work, just a drop in the bucket of what it will take to ‘‘Save the 

Bay,’’ is racing an impossible race against increasing global temperatures and sea 

level rise. 

The Chesapeake Bay is a national treasure that sits on the front lines of climate 

change. The problems that already plague the Bay will be exacerbated if Congress 

does not fulfill its responsibility and enact a measure to reduce greenhouse gas 

emissions. It is widely known by now that I have entered into a partnership with 

my friend and colleague, Senator Lieberman, to craft a climate change bill. We hope 

to have a bill for introduction in the early weeks of October. 

Madam Chairman, I am deeply troubled by the impacts climate change is having 

in my own back yard. It is an environmental issues as well as an economic issue. 

The Chesapeake Bay is one of the most significant estuary systems in the United 

States, but it is greatly changed from the days when blue crabs and oysters were 

abundant. I fear not only that family traditions will be lost, but that an economic 

driver for the Eastern Seaboard is in jeopardy. 

I look forward to hearing today’s witnesses examine not only the impacts climate 

change is having on the Bay, but possible solutions as well. 

Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator Warner. Thank you very, 

very much. 

This is a very important day for me as Chairman of this Committee, and I know for Senator Cardin who is one of our newest 

and a wonderful member of this Committee, he and Senator Mikulski, Senator Webb and others have been asking me please to take 

a look in our own backyard at the impacts that global warming is 

having already. 

This Committee, many members went to Greenland. We saw 

what is happening there with the ice melt. As a matter of fact, Sen-
3 

ator Mikulski, who sits on a key subcommittee on Appropriations, 

joined us in that trip. That is why her presence here today is so 

valuable because we are kind of marrying what we learned in 

Greenland in looking at the lessons in our own backyard. But they 

have pressed us to do this hearing. Senator Warner asked us to do 

it at a time when he could be here. Now, look what has happened 

with the defense bill, so I am sure he is going to come back. It is 

a good day for us. 

I want to talk about a little bit before our panel some of the impacts that are close to us here in D.C., because you really don’t 

have to travel as far as Greenland to see the impacts of global 

warming, when you could see them a few miles at the Chesapeake. 

The Chesapeake Bay is already showing the effects of global warming, including sea level rise, warmer water, erosion of the shoreline, loss of wetlands that protect us from strong storms and provide habitat for our wildlife. 

Testimony we will hear from leading scientists today, and a variety of published studies, say that warmer air and water in the region will change the Bay ecosystem, contribute to worsening dead 

zones, and harmful algae blooms, and encourage the spread of marine diseases and invasive species. 

I ask unanimous consent that a report by the National Wildlife 

Federation being released today, entitled ‘‘The Chesapeake Bay 

and Global Warming: A Paradise Lost for Hunters, Anglers and 

Outdoor Enthusiasts?’’—that is the title of it—be entered into the 

record. 

[The referenced document follows on page 88.] 

Senator BOXER. This report concludes that warming will harm 

fish, oyster, clam and crab populations, as well as the breeding 

grounds and migration patterns for waterfowl. Fewer birds are expected to make their way to the Chesapeake Bay. This will also 

disrupt the ability of watermen, hunters and anglers to use and 

enjoy the Bay. 

These kinds of impacts are not limited to the Chesapeake Bay. 

We are beginning to see some of them in my own home State of 

California. But there is good news. The good news is that we can 

do something about this, and we will all be better off for it. The 

solutions to global warming are good for our economy, good for our 

security, and good for our planet. 

Yesterday, with strong leadership from Senator Sanders, we held 

a hearing examining green jobs created by global warming initiatives. Witnesses told us that through addressing global warming, 

we can create potentially millions of new green collar jobs. We 

heard from very successful businessmen. 

We can address global warming, while expanding our economy, 

improving our energy independence, and enhancing our national 

security. So those are the reasons why I approach this issue with 

hope and not fear. I believe we can rise to the challenge. The really 

great news is this Committee is ready to do that under the leadership of my subcommittee Chair Lieberman and Ranking Member 

of his Subcommittee Warner. We expect to have a very good bill 

very soon before this Committee. 

So we will rise to the challenge. I am determined that we can 

and will solve global warming, while strengthening our economy, 
4 

creating new green jobs, and saving all of our backyards, including 

our national treasures, and in that list, certainly the Chesapeake 

Bay. 

So with that, I will turn to my Ranking Member, Senator Inhofe. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

I appreciate the comments made by Senator Warner. I hope that 

he does bring out a bill, the Warner-Lieberman bill or whatever 

they want to call it, because this is the 14th hearing that we have 

had on global warming. It is time that we go ahead and get some 

action. So I hope that is the case. 

I would like to give the other side of this, that due to an abundance of new peer-reviewed studies, analyses and data error discoveries in the last several months, this year has been a dramatic one 

for global warming revelations. There has been a scandal at the 

U.S. Temperature Data Network, where thermometers have been 

intentionally placed near heat-generating equipment and hot asphalt. Further, the Antarctic ice has grown to record levels since 

satellite monitoring began in the 1970s. And NASA temperatures 

data reevaluation have made 1934, not 1998, the hottest year on 

record. 

Now, most interestingly, and the Chairman mentioned the trip 

to Greenland, Greenland has cooled since the 1940s. According to 

multiple peer-reviewed studies, current temperatures in Greenland 

have not even reached the temperatures from the 1930s and 1940s. 

It is important to note that 80 percent of the manmade CO2 came 

after these high temperatures were reached in Greenland. We have 

seen global average temperatures flatline since 1998, and the 

Southern Hemisphere—I don’t think anyone disagrees—has been 

cooling in recent years. 

Many of my colleagues today will undoubtedly say that the 

science advocating manmade global warming is settled. In fact, just 

last month a comprehensive survey of peer-reviewed scientific literature from 2004 to 2007 revealed—and this is very significant— 

‘‘less than half of all published scientists endorse global warming 

theory.’’ This is a quote out of the report. The survey used the same 

search term as was used in the survey that was cited by Al Gore 

in his movie as proof of consensus, the identical search term that 

Al Gore used. The study revealed that 528 total papers on climate 

change, out of those only seven percent gave explicit endorsement 

of the consensus. The figure rose to 45 percent if one includes implicit endorsement over the acceptance of the consensus without explicit statements. 

While only six percent reject the consensus outright, the largest 

category, 48 percent, is neutral papers refusing to either accept or 

reject the hypothesis. This led the science publication Daily Tech 

to conclude in August, just last month in 2007, ‘‘this is no consensus.’’ Let me repeat. Just last month, a comprehensive survey 

of peer-reviewed scientific literature from 2004 to 2007 said less 

than half of all published scientists endorse global warming theory. 

This is a huge change from 5 years ago and 10 years ago, but 

science does improve as time goes by. 
5 

With regard to the Bay, its sea levels have been rising for thousands of years. The Bay itself is a product of a rising sea level. The 

Bay is at best 10,000 years old, and recognizable to us in its current form only in the last 5,000 years. Further, according to the 

U.S. Geological Survey, the Bay has risen about 6 inches per century over the last 6,000 years. According to the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, the sea level rise is due to naturally 

occurring regional land subsidence. The land is subsiding at a rate 

of 1.33 millimeters per year. 

In its report on global warming, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation 

noted that much of the area is actually sinking due to the geological processes that began during the last ice age. The Bay and its 

sea life have adjusted to its constant rise in sea level and will continue to adjust, and if the pollution issues can be brought under 

control, it will continue to flourish. 

I think this hearing should not have been about the impact of 

global warming on the Bay, but rather propose that this hearing 

should have been on the Bay’s health, the pollution sources, the 

local economy, and the water quality. In 2000, Virginia, Maryland, 

Pennsylvania and the District of Columbia signed the Chesapeake 

2000 Agreement, whereby they committed to reducing loadings sufficient to remove the Chesapeake and its tributaries from EPA’s 

list of impaired waters by 2010. 

In 1985, 358 million pounds of nitrogen were delivered to the 

Bay’s tidal waters. By 2005, nitrogen loadings into the tidal waters 

were down to 286 million pounds. However, as noted in last year’s 

Inspector General report, the average rate of decrease in nitrogen 

loadings is about 3.4 million pounds annually. In order to meet the 

2000 Agreement’s goal of removing the Bay from EPA’s impaired 

water list, nutrient loadings must be reduced by 16 million pounds 

annually. According to the 2006 Chesapeake Bay 2006 Health and 

Restoration Assessment, the signatories have met fewer than 50 

percent of their restoration goals. We should examine those goals. 

I will submit the rest for the record, because what I am saying, 

Madam Chairman, is that there are problems with the Bay that 

need to be addressed, pollution problems, and I think perhaps we 

could do that, and maybe another hearing would be more appropriate. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:] 

STATEMENT OF JAMES M. INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Today’s hearing is on the impact global warming is having on the Chesapeake 

Bay. It is also this Committee’s 14th hearing on global warming. It was my hope 

that we would begin having hearings and discussions on actual bill language so that 

Members can begin to understand the intricate details of how many of the ideas 

mentioned today would work in reality. Due to an abundance of new peer-reviewed 

studies, analyses, and data error discoveries in the last several months, this year 

has been a dramatic one for global warming revelations. There has been a ‘‘scandal’’ 

of U.S. temperature data network where thermometers have been erroneously 

placed near heat generating equipment and hot asphalt. Further, Antarctic ice has 

grown to record levels since satellite monitoring began in the 1970’s and NASA temperature data re-evaluations have made 1934—not 1998—the hottest year on record 

in the United States. 

Most interesting, Greenland has cooled since the 1940’s. According to multiple 

peer-reviewed studies, current temperatures in Greenland have not even reached 

the temperatures from the 1930s and 1940s. It is important to note that 80% of 

man-made CO2 came after these high temperatures were reached in Greenland. We 
6 

have seen global average temperatures flat line since 1998 and the Southern Hemisphere cool in recent years. 

Many of my colleagues today will undoubtedly say the science advocating manmade global warming is settled. In fact, just last month, a comprehensive survey 

of peer-reviewed scientific literature from 2004–2007 revealed ‘‘Less than half of all 

published scientists endorse global warming theory.’’ The survey used the same 

search term as that used in a survey cited by Al Gore in his movie as proof of the 

consensus. 

The study revealed that of 528 total papers on climate change, only 7% gave an 

explicit endorsement of the consensus. The figure rose to 45 percent if one includes 

implicit endorsement, or the acceptance of the consensus without an explicit statement. While only 6% reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) is 

neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This lead the 

science publication Daily Tech to conclude in August 2007 ‘‘This is no ‘consensus.’ ’’ 

Let me repeat, just last month, a comprehensive survey of peer-reviewed scientific 

literature from 2004–2007 revealed ‘‘Less than half of all published scientists endorse global warming theory.’’ 

With regard to the Bay, its sea levels have been rising for thousands of years. 

The Bay itself is the product of rising sea level. The Bay is at best 10,000 years 

old and recognizable to us in its current form only in the last 5,000 years. Further, 

according to the U.S. Geological Survey, the Bay has risen about 6 inches per century over the last 6,000 years. According to the Maryland Department of Natural 

Resources, the sea level rise is due to naturally occurring regional land subsidence. 

The land is subsiding at a rate of 1.33 millimeters per year. In its report on global 

warming, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation noted that ‘‘much of the area is actually 

sinking due to geological processes that began during the last ice age.’’ The Bay and 

its sea life have adjusted to its constant rise in sea level and it will continue to adjust and if the pollution issues can be brought under control, it will continue to 

flourish. 

This hearing should not have been about the impact of global warming on the Bay 

but rather I would propose that this hearing should have been on the Bay’s health, 

the pollution sources, the local economy and the water quality. In 2000, Virginia, 

Maryland, Pennsylvania and the District of Columbia signed the Chesapeake 2000 

Agreement whereby they committed to reducing loadings sufficient to remove the 

Chesapeake and its tributaries from EPA’s list of impaired waters by 2010. 

In 1985, 358 million pounds of nitrogen were delivered to the Bay’s tidal waters. 

By 2005, nitrogen loadings into the tidal waters were down to 286 million pounds. 

However, as noted in last year’s Inspector General report, the average rate of decrease in nitrogen loadings is about 3.4 million pounds annually. In order to meet 

the 2000 Agreement’s goal of removing the Bay from EPA’s impaired waters list, 

nutrient loadings must be reduced by 16 million pounds annually. According to the 

2006 Chesapeake Bay 2006 Health and Restoration Assessment, the signatories 

have met fewer than 50% of their restoration goals. We should examine why those 

goals have not been met, whether the goals were realistic, whether the resources 

exist to meet them and where best to devote limited federal dollars in the effort. 

According to the Congressional Research Service, the federal government spent $58 

million in 2006 directly on Chesapeake Bay programs and projects. This does not 

include any funding received through the two state revolving loan funds or the 

USDA conservation programs. We should be discussing whether that money was 

well spent or should be focused elsewhere. 

I think today is a lost opportunity. While much of the testimony is focused on 

global warming, I remain hopeful we will be able to learn about local solutions to 

the problem of nutrient and sediment loadings. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much, Senator. I think Senator 

Cardin will talk about how we are doing that in the WRDA bill 

that you were so helpful on. 

Senator Cardin. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND 

Senator CARDIN. Well, Madam Chair, thank you very much. 

I have the deepest respect for my colleague, Senator Inhofe. The 

two of us have been working together for many, many years and 

I respect his views. I must tell you I agree that science does im-
7 

prove as time goes on, and we know a lot more today than we knew 

a decade ago. We now know a lot more about the dangers of global 

warming. 

I regret that you weren’t on our trip to Greenland, because you 

would have seen first-hand the impact of the warming climate in 

Greenland, the ice loss which is dramatic and occurring literally as 

we see from year to year. It is a dramatic indication of the risks 

that we face as a world because of global warming. 

I do want to acknowledge that global warming is a most serious 

threat to the Chesapeake Bay, but it is not the only threat. The 

nitrogen levels are a major concern. I want to thank Senator 

Inhofe, as I did on the floor of the U.S. Senate, and Senator Boxer, 

for their extraordinary leadership to get the water bill passed, the 

first reauthorization in 7 years. It has a major emphasis on the 

Chesapeake Bay and on the issues that Senator Inhofe mentioned 

on cleaning up the Bay, including dealing with wastewater treatment and the traditional programs that the Federal Government 

has been a partner with our States and local governments and private sector, in dealing with the pollution problems of the Chesapeake Bay. 

There is no one answer to the Chesapeake Bay, but global warming is a serious problem and one that we can deal with. I think 

that is very much indicated by the distinguished group of witnesses 

that we have with us today, starting with the senior Senator from 

Maryland, Senator Mikulski, who has been a tireless fighter on behalf of the Chesapeake Bay, and understands the importance it has 

not only to the economy of our region, but what makes this region 

so unique, and the fact that this is a national model on how communities can work together with government to improve the quality of a very difficult, but important, body of water. So Senator Mikulski, I thank you for your leadership on these issues. 

It is also nice to have Senator Webb and Congressman Gilchrest 

with us. Senator Webb and I were elected to the U.S. Senate this 

year and he has taken on the challenge of the Chesapeake Bay. I 

thank you very much for your leadership. 

Congressman Gilchrest represents the entire Eastern Shore of 

Maryland and has been an outspoken advocate of sensible ways to 

improve our environment and maintain a way of life that is so 

unique to the people of the Eastern Shore. I thank you for your 

leadership. 

I particularly appreciate your Governors being here today—Governor O’Malley and Governor Kaine. Both are leaders on the 

Chesapeake Bay issues. Governor O’Malley has been Governor just 

for a few months and he has already shown his dynamic leadership 

to the people of Maryland. He chairs the Chesapeake Executive 

Council. It has initiated the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative in 

our State, and we thank you for that. Governor Kaine has taken 

on the leadership of Virginia as an active partner on our Chesapeake Bay restorations. 

I also want to acknowledge the work of Senator Warner. I am 

glad that Senator Warner mentioned Senator Matthias and Senator Sarbanes. All have been real champions of the Chesapeake 

Bay. We will hear later from some outstanding experts. Don Boesch 

is one of the world’s leading scientists on coastal systems. Pastor 
8 

Rick Edmund, who will tell us first-hand the problems of Smith Island and the erosion there, and the sea level change, the effect that 

it is having. He is one of our leaders in the faith community. Will 

Baker is the longtime president of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, 190,000 members that are committed to restoring the Chesapeake Bay. 

Just very quickly, according to Maryland Emergency Management, Maryland is the third most vulnerable State to flooding. AllState Insurance has announced that it will no longer underwrite 

new homeowners’ policies in much of Maryland because of rising 

sea levels and the increasing rate of severe storms which scientists 

tell us are associated with global warming. There you see what has 

happened to our State, the vulnerability to flooding in Maryland. 

About one third of Blackwater Wildlife Refuge has been lost in 

the past 70 years, and Smith Island has lost 30 percent of its land 

to rising sea levels since 1850. Madam Chair, it is no exaggeration 

to say that global warming presents a grave long-term risk to the 

restoration of the Chesapeake Bay. 

We salute the strong actions already being undertaken by the 

States of Maryland and Virginia, but it is time for national leadership on global warming. I look forward to hearing from our distinguished witnesses today, and this Committee taking forceful action 

on climate change. It is important for the Chesapeake Bay. It is 

important for our Country. It is important for the globe in which 

we live. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Cardin follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN CARDIN, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE

STATE OF MARYLAND

The Chesapeake Bay is America’s largest estuary and a natural resource of global 

significance. The United States Congress has called it ‘‘a national treasure.’’ But 

today the Chesapeake Bay faces perhaps a serious challenge. 

Global warming presents a present and growing threat to public safety, to key 

Bay species such as blue crabs and rockfish, and to the fragile lands that surround 

the Chesapeake. 

According to the Maryland Emergency Management Agency (MEMA), Maryland 

is the third most vulnerable state to flooding. 

Allstate insurance has announced that it will not longer underwrite new homeowners policies in much of Maryland because of rising sea levels and the increasing 

rate of severe storms, which scientists associate with global warming. 

In a report being released today, the National Fish and Wildlife Federation warns 

that we are likely to lose all of the winter flounder and soft-shelled clams in the 

Bay because water temperatures will simply be too hot for them to survive. 

About one-third of Blackwater Wildlife Refuge has been lost in the past 70 years 

and Smith Island has lost 30% of its land to rising sea levels since 1850. 

It is no exaggeration to say that global warming presents a very grave long-term 

threat to the restoration of the Chesapeake Bay. 

We salute the strong actions already being undertaken by our states of Maryland 

and Virginia. But the time for national leadership on global warming is now. I look 

forward to hearing from our distinguished witnesses today and to this Committee 

taking forceful action on climate change in the near future. 

As the experience of the Chesapeake Bay makes clear, we can’t afford to wait any 

longer. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much. 

I know that Senator Inhofe is going to a meeting where he is trying to help us get that WRDA bill—— 

Senator INHOFE. At the White House. That is right. 

Senator BOXER [continuing]. Get that WRDA bill signed into law. 

So Senator, you wanted to make a comment? 
9 

Senator INHOFE. I did want to make one comment. There is no 

one I love more than Senator Mikulski. We are very, very close. We 

actually have been together on a lot of our Thursday afternoon 

meetings. But I have to object to have the Senator sit at the dais, 

because we have never done that in the history of this Committee. 

I know this came up a couple of times when I was Chairman of the 

Committee, and I hope you understand that. 

Senator MIKULSKI. Madam Chair, may I respond? 

Senator BOXER. Yes. 

Senator MIKULSKI. Madam Chair, you will hear in my testimony 

that the subcommittee that I have the proud honor to Chair, Commerce, Justice and Science, funds 85 percent of the science that is 

done on global warming. I ask to sit at the dais in two capacities. 

Number one as the Senator from Maryland, because this is a hearing, and I would of course be happy to be joined by my colleague. 

I am delighted that our colleague from the House, Congressman 

Gilchrest is here. We do function as Team Maryland on the issues 

related to the State. 

The second reason that I wanted to sit at the dais, though, is 

that I do fund 85 percent of the science that this Committee relies 

upon, all that information that Senator Cardin has conveyed up 

there and that Senator Inhofe conveys comes from our committee. 

I might add, the committee is the Mikulski–Shelby Committee. We 

really do function on a keen bipartisan basis. 

I will yield to the Senator’s objection, but I will ask as a courtesy 

since 85 percent of what we fund and you rely on, I will assume 

my seat behind you, as I am behind you 100 percent, and I will 

function as a staff member to the Committee. 

Senator INHOFE. Let me respond. First of all, if the Chairman 

would agree, this would be a one time only event, since it hasn’t 

happened before. I would have no objection. I would just make the 

exception for this meeting. Would you agree? 

Senator BOXER. Senator, I am not going to agree to that. I am 

the Chairman of this Committee. I have spoken with you. You 

knew this was coming. I asked if Senator Mikulski could join us. 

You said that it is not allowed. I went back to the Parliamentarian. 

There is absolutely no rule against this, and many committees do 

this. I can’t tell you from the day one whether this Committee has 

ever done it, and I don’t think you can either. 

Indeed, it is permissible. It seems to me that we may not agree 

on this issue. Lord knows, we don’t. We agree on others. But we 

should have a sense of comity here. This is a colleague who would 

bend over backwards for you if you ever asked her for anything. I 

am going to ask unanimous consent that we allow Senator Mikulski to join us today. 

Senator INHOFE. I object. Let me reserve the right to object. 

What you say is partially right, but it is unprecedented in this 

Committee. There is not a time, and we have done some research 

to see if that has ever happened before. It hasn’t happened before. 

We tried it when I was Chairman of the Committee. It was objected to. But I am willing to make the exception for you, Senator 

Mikulski, and I hope that you will be seated up here and will accept the invitation. 
10 

Senator MIKULSKI. Madam Chair, if I might, as again a personal 

privilege. We need to focus on the issue of global warming and the 

impact on the Bay. We have two outstanding Governors here. I 

want the focus of the hearing to be on the Chesapeake Bay and 

global warming, and not on myself. 

I yield to the ruling of the Chair. 

Senator BOXER. Well, the ruling of the Chair, if I had the chance 

to rule, would be that you would be joining us. We have had objection, and I just might say, let’s just—— 

Senator INHOFE. I am trying to—— 

Senator BOXER. I understand you are trying to move on, and I 

appreciate it, but I think it is important to take a moment here, 

and I will do that. This is an outrage. This is my friend. 

Senator INHOFE. It is an outrage to invite—— 

Senator BOXER. If I might conclude, please. It is an outrage to 

object to a sincere colleague who wants to work with us on a bipartisan basis that is so close to her heart. I am offended. It doesn’t 

diminish my wanting to work with you in the future. I mean, Senator Inhofe was going to go to the floor and object to the committee’s meeting today if this happened. And he has to leave us and 

I would not do something behind his back, so that is why we are 

having—— 

Senator INHOFE. And that is why I am inviting Senator Mikulski 

to sit up here on the dais and participate. We will make an exception if you would agree that this is an exception we are making for 

Senator Mikulski. 

Senator CARDIN. Will the Senator yield? 

Senator INHOFE. I don’t see a problem with that. 

Senator CARDIN. Would the Senator yield for a moment? 

Senator INHOFE. Yes. 

Senator CARDIN. I appreciate your concern that we stick to the 

rules of the House, but we have a problem in getting Senators to 

attend hearings. It seems to me that it is helpful if we could have 

the benefit of another Senator in questioning the really distinguished panel that we have here. I would just urge you—I understand that you have the right to object and I understand your concern. I agree with Senator Mikulski, today’s hearing is so important, just so important, the subject that we are dealing with. It is 

not about one Senator. It is about the issue of the Chesapeake Bay 

and the relationship of global warming and the relationship to the 

other issues that you raised. I just think it would be so helpful for 

this Committee to have the expertise of Senator Mikulski. 

Senator INHOFE. And I agree, Senator Cardin. I agree with everything you just said. So why don’t you sit up here and we will 

make that exception for today. I would be delighted to do it. 

Senator BOXER. Okay, we will make the exception today, and I 

am not stating that this will be the only time I will ask for that, 

but please join us. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you. 

Senator MIKULSKI. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Mikulski. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator MIKULSKI. I also thank you, then, for the extension of 

that courtesy. 
11 

Senator BOXER. All right. 

Now, I think we are ready to get started now. 

Senator MIKULSKI. Who kicks it off? 

Senator BOXER. Senator Mikulski, with that tremendous introduction, we welcome you. All of us do. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. We urge you to begin. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA MIKULSKI, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND 

Senator MIKULSKI. It is more than the ice caps that face a meltdown, Madam Chair. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator MIKULSKI. First of all, I want to thank you for holding 

this hearing as one of your hearings on the impact of global warming on our Country and on the world. I want to thank the members 

of the EPW Committee, and certainly my colleague, Senator 

Cardin, and a special comment to Senator Warner, who has been 

a long-time champion. He is a defender of the United States of 

America, and also of this planet itself. He has done it as a 

warfighter and he now continues to do it in protecting the Chesapeake Bay and being concerned about these environmental issues. 

As you can see, we are here at this table on a bipartisan basis. 

We are so pleased that you are focusing on the Bay, because too 

often the thoughts about global warming are about polar bears in 

Antarctica, and it seems very removed from the everyday life of 

what American citizens face. 

What we are so excited about that you are focusing on is regional 

impact, the impact of global warming will have a stunning affect 

on how we live in our own Country, and could even create an international series of security crises. 

Madam Chair, you visited our State. You know that the Bay is 

not only a great estuary, but it is part of the soul and culture and 

economy of our great State of Maryland and Delaware. What we 

know is that if anything happens to the Bay, Maryland as we know 

it will come to an end. You will hear from our distinguished Governor and Governor Kaine. You will hear from people who have 

worked on the Bay as scientists and watermen that will be able to 

tell you about it. Because if the Bay goes, so will Maryland and so 

will Virginia, so will our way of life, so will our economy. 

There will be no inner harbor. There will be no agriculture. 

Good-bye to crabs. Good-bye to oysters, watermen, farmers. So it is 

the little people with dirt under their fingernails. It is the people 

who are inventing dot.com ideas in our digital harbor. All of that 

will be wiped out if the sea levels and temperatures rise. 

Now, we believe that whatever decisions that the Committee 

makes should be made with sound science. As you know, I stand 

for ungagged, unfettered science to tell us what we need to do. In 

our outstanding trip to Greenland, as you know, it was the triumph 

of the geek. They told us what we needed to know scientifically. 

Madam Chair, I won’t repeat everything I stated earlier, but our 

committee, Commerce, Justice and Science, Senator Shelby and I 

fund 85 percent of all of the climate change science, including for 

NASA, NOAA and the National Science Foundation. Remember, 
12 

our own advisor for our Greenland trip told us he could do his work 

because of the National Science Foundation. You remember our European friend said we were the indispensable Nation on climate 

change research because of what NASA does. 

I won’t go into this Committee here about what we do, but we 

have a coordinated effort in our subcommittee, working on a bipartisan basis with Senator Shelby to continue taking a look at what 

is happening and what we can do with best practices that are affordable, from satellite research to working with people on the 

ground. 

You will hear from my colleagues about other things that we 

have done to protect the Bay, from everything from trying to deal 

with water and sewer runoff, to research on oysters and crabs, and 

the EPA Bay Program. But all solutions are local, and I want to 

very much today bring to the table someone who I believe is an 

outstanding leader on the Chesapeake Bay and the environmental 

issues. 

I want to introduce Governor Martin O’Malley, who has been a 

great partner in saving the Bay. Governor O’Malley is a true innovator, taking what he did as Mayor of Baltimore with his CitiStat 

program, in other words, back to data. We want to be data-driven, 

science-driven, policy-driven that links outcomes with cost. He created something called BayStat, which is going to establish an accountability process to measure and evaluate restoration efforts up 

and down the Bay. 

He created the Maryland Commission on Climate Change, and 

he is going to tell you about it. He is not only a leader in our State, 

but in this Country. I am pleased to introduce him and following 

will be a wonderful panel of people from watermen to scientists to 

advocates on the Bay. 

I thank you for holding this hearing. I thank you for defending 

the Bay, and I thank you for defending me. 

[Laughter.] 

[The prepared statement of Senator Mikulski follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA MIKULSKI, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE

STATE OF MARYLAND

Thank you Chairwoman Boxer, for holding this hearing today on the impact of 

global warming on the Chesapeake Bay. Thank you also to the members of the EPW 

Committee, including Senator Ben Cardin, my great partner in the Senate and a 

champion for the Bay, and Senator John Warner, who I’ve worked with for many 

years on the Bay and other issues important to Maryland and Virginia. 

I’m excited to be here today because global warming is not just about polar 

bears—it’s about the future of the planet itself It is an inconvenient truth. We need 

to look at this problem locally to see the real consequences. 

The coastal senators are already seeing and feeling this problem. Our sea levels 

are rising, our wetlands are disappearing and our islands are underwater. We’re 

looking at the possibility that our agriculture will be wiped out and there won’t be 

a Baltimore Harbor. 

In Maryland, the Bay Is our economy, our culture, our soul. Being a waterman 

is not just a job; it’s a way of life. At the same time, we know that Maryland has 

a turbo economy and we need wise practices to balance the demands on our environment and our economy. 

It is my proud job, as the Chairwoman of the Commerce Justice Science (CJS) 

Appropriations Subcommittee, to fund 85 percent of climate change science. And I 

am happy to work with you, the authorizers, to make sure we have sound science 

that is ungagged, unbought and unbossed—to let science speak for itself. 

We are here today to discuss how we should fix this problem. I sat down with 

my Environmental Advisory Board and asked them, ‘What is the real impact of 
13 

global warming on the Bay? What have we done to fix it? What more can we do?’ 

They gave me valuable information and I greatly appreciate all their help. Based 

on their feedback, we decided to hold this hearing to open a dialogue between government officials, scientists and local Bay residents so we can discuss problems currently facing the Bay and what our next steps should be. 

Through three presidents, I’ve been fighting to restore the health of the Bay. 

Every year, I fight for $20 million for the Chesapeake Bay Program, bringing together federal, state and local government, and community groups to create solutions for Bay clean up to restore water quality, habitats and fisheries. I’ve been 

helping scientists and researchers find the best ways to restore oysters and crabs 

in the Bay, fighting for almost $13 million for oyster reseeding since 2001 and more 

than $20 million to build new oyster reefs since 1995. This is important because oysters help filter pollutants out of the Bay and restoring oysters also helps maintain 

jobs and opportunities for our waterman. Crabs are also a vital part of the Bay’s 

ecosystem and support jobs in a struggling region of my state, so I’ve been helping 

scientists find new methods of breeding and releasing crabs, providing nearly $12 

million since 2001. 

Our local communities who can’t afford to improve water quality also need help. 

That’s why I’ve been fighting for increased funding for water and sewer infrastructure for Maryland, which received more than $21 million in 2006. 

I am Chairwoman of the Commerce Justice and Science (CJS) Appropriations 

Subcommittee. My CJS bill informs policymakers’ decisions on what to do about 

global warming. In fact, 85 percent of climate change science is funded in CJS with 

almost $1.6 billion per year. Without the science that is funded in the CJS bill, policymakers on the Environment and Public Works Committee would not have the important benefit of this sound science to base regulatory and policy decisions. 

The CJS bill funds NASA’s [National Aeronautics and Space Administration] 

earth science programs at $1.1 billion. This supports the important research missions that study chemicals and aerosols in the atmosphere, the earth’s energy budget and links between oceans and climate. NOAA’s [National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration] weather and satellite programs, which provide short and 

long term observations and predictions of our weather and climate, are funded at 

$300 million per year. NSF’s [National Science Foundation] research is funded at 

$200 million per year, and supports competitive, peer-reviewed, basic ‘ground truth’ 

research by university scientists. 

I stand ready to work with the authorizers and I am happy you’re having this 

hearing today. There may be international agreements and national bills, but this 

is ultimately a local issue. That is why its so important to hear from the state and 

local officials. I am proud to introduce Governor Martin O’Malley, who has been a 

great partner with me in saving the Bay. Governor O’Malley is a true innovator, 

taking what he did when he was mayor of Baltimore—City Stat, a program he pioneered to make government more efficient—and creating Bay Stat, which establishes a process of accountability for measuring and evaluating efforts to restore the 

Bay. He also created the Maryland Commission on Climate Change, which will perform an assessment of climate change impacts, calculate Maryland’s carbon footprint and develop a strategy to reduce greenhouse gases. Governor O’Malley is a 

leader not just in our state of Maryland, but in this country. He will tell the Committee about his efforts to save the Bay and how we can all work together. 

I thank the Chairwoman for this opportunity to open this hearing and introduce 

Governor O’Malley. I look forward to hearing all of the testimony from the distinguished panelists and coming up with real solutions to these problems. We need to 

make an action plan on how to make the Bay healthier and how state and federal 

officials can work together with our partners in the community. The Chesapeake 

Bay is a national treasure and Maryland’s greatest natural resource, but the Bay 

is in trouble and we need to do everything we can to save it. I will always fight 

to protect the Bay and the jobs and livelihoods that depend on it. Thank you again 

for this opportunity, now I turn the microphone over to the Governor of Maryland. 

Senator BOXER. Senator, would you do us the honor of joining us, 

and please take your seat next to Senator Cardin. I would really 

appreciate it. 

Senator Webb, we welcome you. We are so happy. This new class, 

between all of you, including this wonderful new member sitting 

right here, you have just added immeasurably to the Senate and 

we welcome you to this issue and this battle. 
14 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES WEBB, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

Senator WEBB. Thank you very much, Chairman Boxer, and Senator Cardin. Let me join in also defending Senator Mikulski here. 

I think what Senator Cardin said is absolutely true to the process. 

There are times when we have four committee hearings scheduled 

at the same time up here. When you have a sitting Senator with 

the seniority and the knowledge and the tenacity of Senator Mikulski wanting to come up and participate on an issue, we all should 

be happy about that. 

My purpose in coming today really is to give a brief introduction 

to my good friend, Governor Kaine. Before I do that, though, I 

would like to thank you for holding this hearing and for all of your 

leadership on these issues. The Chesapeake Bay is a cherished resource not only for the residents of Virginia and Maryland, but for 

the Nation as a whole. It is a national treasure, and your recognition of that fact is sincerely appreciated. 

Members of the Bay Congressional delegation have a history of 

working together and with committees of jurisdiction on efforts to 

protect the Bay. As such, I would also like to take this opportunity 

to thank you for your Committee’s work on the recently passed 

water resources bill, which contains several provisions for improving the Bay. 

As I said, my real purpose is to introduce our 70th Governor of 

Virginia and my good friend, Tim Kaine. Years ago when I was a 

plebe at the Naval Academy, they made us memorize a page about 

how people were supposed to live their lives. I was thinking about 

Tim Kaine and this phrase this morning when I was figuring out 

what I would come to say about him. 

Just two brief passages from that long page. Tim Kaine is someone whose conduct proceeds from goodwill and an acute sense of 

propriety, and whose self control is equal to all emergencies. He is 

someone who speaks with frankness, but also with sincerity and 

sympathy, whose deed follows his word, which is what you come to 

learn in government is so vital to the workings of government; who 

thinks of the rights and feelings of others; an individual with whom 

honor is sacred and virtue safe. 

He also has provided leadership, following on the leadership of 

his predecessor, Governor Mark Warner, that has caused the Commonwealth to invest hundreds of millions of dollar in improving the 

water quality of the Chesapeake Bay. These are significant levels 

of investment, not only by the State, but also by local governments 

and communities in the Bay watershed. 

Climate change is also an important topic, and the Commonwealth and your Committee have been taking steps to address it. 

This spring, Governor Kaine issued an executive order that requires State agencies to reduce the amount of energy they consume, to use green building practices, and also encourages procurement of more fuel-efficient vehicles for the State fleet. 

Most recently, Governor Kaine released a comprehensive energy 

plan for Virginia. The plan is widely praised for its broad approach 

to address energy production and consumption, and calls for dramatic improvements in increasing energy efficiency and conserva-
15 

tion. It also calls for reductions to greenhouse gases to 2000 levels 

by the year 2025. 

Finally, Governor Kaine has made a serious commitment to protecting the natural resources of the Commonwealth for future generations. He has staked out an ambitious goal of preserving 

400,000 acres of land during his time in office. Only a year and a 

half later, he has much to be proud of. Through his leadership and 

tenacity, when he is not fishing or taking out his canoe, Governor 

Kaine is known to pitch land conservation easements to 

unsuspecting landowners. Virginia has already preserved 164,000 

acres. This figure is nearly double the previous year’s total. 

The benefits of his efforts to conserve land will not only benefit 

the Chesapeake Bay, but will also improve air and water quality. 

These goals will, in turn, have a positive affect on the public health 

and preserve the Virginia countryside for sportsmen, anglers, farmers and tourists alike in the years to come. 

I thank the Committee for their attention on this topic, and I 

thank you for inviting our Governor to speak to you about Virginia’s successes. 

Senator BOXER. Senator Webb, thank you. 

Congressman Gilchrest, welcome to our Committee. Sorry we had 

to do a little bit of unusual argument. 

STATEMENT OF HON. WAYNE T. GILCHREST, U.S. 

REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND 

Mr. GILCHREST. We don’t have those arguments on the House 

side. 

Senator BOXER. I know. I am sure you are just in shock. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. GILCHREST. I was stunned. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARDIN. I do long for the Rules Committee sometimes, 

now that we are in the majority. It would make life a little bit easier. 

Mr. GILCHREST. Thank you, Ben. 

I do want to say that we in Maryland, especially on the Eastern 

Shore, which is sometimes referred to as the 51st State or DelMarVa, but we often refer to the gentlelady from Baltimore as 

‘‘Schwarzkopf in earrings,’’ which we say very affectionately. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. GILCHREST. We all were witnesses here today to show the 

good faith and the tenacity and the intellect of Senator Mikulski. 

I am proud to have served with you for so many years and will continue to do so. 

Senator Webb and I share some common history in Vietnam, as 

old Marines. I bring that up for two reasons. One, we just exchanged some war stories briefly before we testified. But the other 

thing we basically concluded was that we were in Vietnam very 

often fighting by ourselves with just a few other Marines in a very 

hostile environment for days or sometimes weeks at a time. We 

had to be competent. We had to figure things out. 

So we got into that frame of reference of understanding that if 

we were to have integrity with our fellow soldiers, we needed to 
16 

know how to do things, do them right, gain the information that 

was important at the time, and be competent. 

So that, as Senator Webb has said what he learned in the Naval 

Academy, and what I learned lo those many years ago, was that 

when you look at an issue, you look at that issue through the eyes 

of someone who is basing their judgment on the philosophy of integrity. 

So what I would like to do today is to give you some of my views 

on global warming and the Chesapeake Bay, not through the political process, not through some distorted ideological point of view, 

but from an objective analysis of someone who has seen these 

things happen. I want to make this place a heck of a lot better 

than we have received it, so that our children and grandchildren 

and the posterity of America will be proud of this generation. 

I also want to thank Governor O’Malley and Governor Kaine for 

coming here today to say a few words. We know that the environment in the Chesapeake Bay is in trouble for a myriad of reasons, 

whether it is over-development, chemical contaminants, reduced 

groundwater capacity for a lot of different reasons, a depletion of 

the fisheries, especially menhaden and oysters, the significant most 

important aspect of restoring the Chesapeake Bay because of their 

filtering of the water. Menhaden are vegetarians. They don’t eat 

other fish. They eat the algae that causes depletion of oxygen. 

But let’s take a look at global warming and the Chesapeake Bay. 

Before 1900, we know that there has been subsidence, but we also 

know that there has been sea level rise, certainly for the last 

10,000 years. The sea level rose in Chesapeake Bay three feet 

every 1,000 years. In the last 100 years, it has risen a foot and a 

half. Something is going on. We used to have 500 more islands in 

the Chesapeake Bay. 

Most of them are gone. You won’t see them on any maps or 

charts. Poplar Island, for example, used to be 1,500 acres. It got 

down to less than 5 acres until we started this restoration process. 

Holland Island had 350 residents, 5 miles long, a mile and a half 

wide. Now, it is down to 100 acres. Where did Holland Island go? 

Barron Island was 582 acres. Today, it is 120 acres. There are 

countless numbers of natural observations that anybody can take 

that you know sea level is rising. Blackwater Refuge loses 120 

acres of grassland a year. That is due to increasing sea level rise. 

What will a warmer temperature do? Warmer temperatures deplete the oxygen, stress marine life, fewer bay grasses, more acidic 

water, and significant ecological change. That is what warmer temperatures will do. 

How about stream flow? It will be much more variable. We will 

have longer dry periods, increased storm intensity, and increased 

discharge of nutrients and sediments. That is what global warming 

is doing. 

What is its impact on people? Less water during dry spells and 

on the Eastern Shore, for example, in most coastal areas in Maryland, there is no fresh water. It is all groundwater. Less recharge 

to groundwater, as a result of these variable dry periods. Coastal 

homeowners are way more vulnerable to storm and coastal flooding. The aquifer system that much of our population depends on 
17 

may not be able to meet future demand. Declining groundwater 

levels are already evident and problems around the Country. 

Now, our district, the State of Maryland especially, has done significant work to try to ameliorate or resolve these issues through 

green buildings, through better smart growth for our homes, for 

understanding the nature of sea level rise, understanding the nature of groundwater problems, understanding the nature of a whole 

host of human activity that is not compatible with nature’s design. 

So we are moving in that direction. 

What needs to happen, though, Maryland can’t do it alone. I will 

conclude with this. As a national policy, and we hope that the 

House and the Senate can work together in this national policy, 

like Senator Warner said earlier, to reduce greenhouse gases by 80 

percent below present levels, or maybe even more, by the year 

2050; by a national policy, perhaps cap and trade, dealing with a 

reduction of greenhouse gases. 

Madam Chairman and other members, especially my good friend 

Ben and Ms. Mikulski, thank you so much for the opportunity to 

testify this morning. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gilchrest follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. WAYNE T. GILCHREST, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM

THE STATE OF MARYLAND

Thank you, Madam Chair, Ranking Member Inhofe, and distinguished Committee 

Members for this opportunity to testify before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works on the nexus of two policy issues that are of paramount 

importance to me and to my district—Maryland’s 1st Congressional District. We 

hold the Chesapeake Bay and our rural and coastal communities in great esteem. 

For more than 20 years, local policy leaders and citizen groups have worked against 

great odds to restore the Chesapeake Bay in a national model of scientific achievement, collaborative effort, and passion. We are now grappling with new challenges, 

including greater projected growth, the management of biefuel production and its 

impacts on water quality, and climate change. Affecting every driver of the Bay’s 

overall health, climate change is an additional challenge to an already stressed ecosystem. 

Consisting of the entire Delmarva Peninsula within Maryland and portions of 

western counties that surround the Chesapeake Bay, Maryland’s 1st Congressional 

District relies heavily on the health of the Bay as its economic engine—for abundant 

seafood, recreation, transportation of commercial goods, tourism, and a growing real 

estate market. Much of my district is geographically divided from the rest of the 

nation by the Bay, so the Bay and coastal waters are of even greater importance 

to the people living and working in the beautiful, bountiful area known as Maryland’s Eastern Shore. 

My district includes the largest share of Chesapeake Bay shoreline in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, and my constituents will directly experience the impacts of 

climate change, including coastal flooding, shoreline erosion, and infrastructure 

damage from severe coastal storms. The Delmarva Peninsula, upon which much of 

my district rests, is basically a sand bar formed by the confluence of the Susquehanna River delta and the Atlantic Ocean. As a geological feature of water flow, and 

with its greatest elevation at 100 feet above sea level, the Peninsula is extremely 

vulnerable to severe weather, flooding, and sea level rise. 

As vulnerable as it is to climate change impacts, the Chesapeake Bay and its 

64,000 square mile watershed are in a uniquely powerful position, geographically, 

functionally, and culturally to contribute to reducing and sequestering greenhouse 

gas emissions. With the highest land to water ratio of any estuary in the world, the 

watershed and its commitment to restoring the Bay through best management practices, can greatly contribute to the national and even global effort to reduce greenhouse gases. For instance, when we are stuck in traffic in the Washington Metropolitan Area, we are spending just a little bit less time on that than our friends 

in the New York Metropolitan Area, because of patterns of land use and development. The Urban Land Institute reported recently on the contribution of sprawl to 

greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles. Better informed and coordinated land use 
18 

Planning, new state commitments to control vehicle emissions, and green buildings 

can solve this problem. We can plan ahead—the Institute predicts that two-thirds 

of the residences and office buildings needed by 2050 have yet to be built. 

The Chesapeake Bay’s restoration goals, like planting forest buffers and preserving open space, could help sequester carbon. State and local government and citizen action to increase energy efficiency in buildings and transportation are also 

helping the cause Counties in my district, like Worcester County along the Atlantic 

Coast, are not only striving to become energy independent but are also actually 

planning new communities so that fewer residents and less infrastructure are vulnerable to flooding. As these local actions are taken to both restore the Chesapeake 

Bay and address and adapt communities to climate change, the core of the climate 

change problem is the need for a national policy to significantly reduce greenhouse 

gas emissions. 

I come before the Committee today, not only as Maryland’s 1st Congressional District Representative, but also the co-chair and co-founder of the Congressional Climate Change Caucus, to urge you to work closely with your colleagues in the House 

to craft and pass legislation dining this Congress that will meaningfully reduce 

greenhouse gas emissions to 60 percent to 80 percent below current levels by 2050. 

The survival of communities in our watershed and the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem 

depends on it. 

This legislation should have broad-based support from environmental and business stakeholders alike. It should not only reduce greenhouse gases, but also help 

the U.S. economy to grow and to keep the U.S. at the lead of international development of new energy technologies. I cannot stress enough that the policy we ultimately create and pass must be acceptable to utility ratepayers and consumers— 

it must not significantly reduce their quality of life. 

Therefore I urge the Committee, in crafting its legislation, to focus on the first 

ten to twenty years of the policy’s implementation. We must get it right in this time 

frame because this is when consumers will judge their tolerance for it. It is also during this time that we must invest the capitol and take the necessary risks to develop 

new energy technology and delivery systems in order to achieve our climate change 

goals. If the investment we make during this time is not sufficient nor targeted 

enough, new technology may be insufficient to achieve the downward trajectory of 

emissions we need over the next 40 years. 

I believe a ‘tipping point’ will occur in this policy debate, after which both the impacts of global warming will be irreversible, even over generations, and our economic opportunity to address the problem will be unrecoverable. I believe this tipping point may occur sooner rather than later. However, the opportunity for climate 

change policy to generate a stronger U.S. energy economy and a better global environment during those years is tremendous. 

Madam Chair, I want to congratulate you and express my profound appreciation 

for your leadership on climate change. Your persistent work on this issue has helped 

bring Congress to its own ‘tipping point’—the point past which Members can coalesce around a solid piece of legislation that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions 

and grow the U.S. economy. 

The people dedicated to the Chesapeake Bay are enthusiastic, well-informed, and 

eager to restore the functioning ecosystem of the Bay, including humans as a productive part of the landscape. They have kept the Bay’s status in equilibrium, in 

spite of the millions of people who have moved to this lovely place since the early 

1980s. I admire their fierce determination and hope you will join me in supporting 

Chesapeake Bay restoration—as far as we can take it—2010 and beyond. 

Thank you again, Madam Chair, and I look forward to continuing our work together. 

Senator BOXER. Congressman, I just want to thank you so very 

much. It is music to my ears to hear your testimony, and all of the 

witnesses. 

Now it is with great honor I ask Senator Mikulski to please join 

us next to Senator Cardin. 

I ask the next panel, two most distinguished Governors, Hon. 

Tim Kaine, Hon. Martin O’Malley, respectively Governors of Virginia and Maryland, to join us. We are very, very pleased that you 

have done so. 

Are we going to change the—he needs to get by, please. Thank 

you. One moment. 
19 

Governors, you can decide who would like to go first, because 

whatever you decide is fine. 

STATEMENT OF HON. TIMOTHY M. KAINE, GOVERNOR OF THE 

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA 

Governor KAINE. Thank you, Madam Chair, and to members of 

the Committee, it is a real treat to be with you today on an important topic. 

I especially am happy to be here with my senior Senator, Senator 

Warner. I also appreciate being here with Governor O’Malley because Maryland and the other States—Pennsylvania, the District— 

have shown great leadership and we are happy to talk about this 

critical issue. 

I have been Governor for 20 months. In the 20 months that I 

have been Governor, we have been able to find $700 million to invest in Chesapeake Bay cleanup, primarily through helping municipalities upgrade sewage treatment. This is by a factor of 10 more 

than we have done in any previous period of years, but we don’t 

want to see that work that we are starting to do in earnest be jeopardized by what we are seeing in the area of climate change. That 

is why I am so happy to be here. 

The testimony that I filed, the written testimony, summarizes 

the effects of climate change that we would see in Virginia to the 

Chesapeake Bay that would cause us grave, grave concern. First, 

as has been commented upon already, there are a number of dead 

zones in the Bay that grow. Those dead zones grow with pollution 

and runoff into the Bay. The work that we are doing in all States 

to improve sewage treatment practices will help, but as weather 

events cause more severe storms, that will create additional polluted runoff into the Bay and the chances are significant that that 

runoff caused by climate change will dramatically increase the 

prevalence of dead zones. 

As sea levels rise, and there has already been good science about 

the rising sea levels and predictions that there would be some significant additional rise by 2030. You also see salt water intruding 

further inland. That salt water intruding further inland in Virginia 

has a dramatic potential effect upon species, both plant and animal 

species, as the ecosystem changes with salt water intrusion. 

We have a significant problem in Virginia and Maryland along 

the Bay with shoreline erosion over the years, caused by rising sea 

levels, development, et cetera. Climate change in pushing sea levels 

further will hasten that erosion and sediment is one of the pollutants that can cause significant problems in the Chesapeake Bay. 

We are seeing a loss of wetlands. I am interested in the testimony from the folks from Smith Island today. Tangier Island in the 

Bay has seen significant loss of wetlands as a result of rising sea 

levels. Because of the way the Bay has often been fortified to protect from storms, once these wetlands go, there is really no way 

easy to replicate them. And so wetlands and their effect on storm 

control, their effect on biodiversity are critical to the health of the 

Bay. Rising sea levels jeopardize them. 

Agriculture and forestry is the number one industry in Virginia. 

It is the largest industry. Obviously, climate change that affects 

temperatures, that affects rainfall has a dramatic effect on these 
20 

industries, which are very prevalent in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. We see temperature change having a dramatic effect on corn 

yields, on the cost and challenge of raising livestock. Temperature 

change effects pests and diseases in forests that can jeopardize forests and it can also spread to agriculture. So these climate change 

effects, particularly on temperatures, pose a threat to the number 

one industry in Virginia, ag and forestry. 

Finally, the effect on people. The Hampton Roads area of Virginia is our second most populated region. It is 1.7 million people. 

It is thought to be in the analysis that has been done, the second 

most vulnerable population, urban population, to the effects of sea 

rises, next to New Orleans. It is not just 1.7 million people. Hampton Roads is also the center of naval power for our Nation. Military 

installations in all branches in Hampton Roads are jeopardized in 

the area. 

The storm vulnerability of that region is already something that 

is critical. Making decisions about evacuating populations in the 

event of storms is already a very, very difficult thing. As climate 

change affects storm frequency and the magnitude of storms, that 

becomes a significant additional problem. 

In addition, in the Hampton Roads area we have significant uses 

of groundwater and the salt water intrusion effect that I mentioned 

earlier threatens the groundwater relied upon by a huge percentage of Virginia’s population. 

So the effects of climate change are huge—agriculture and forestry, industry, tourism, biodiversity, effects upon people. And the 

Chesapeake Bay is a treasure that all Virginians cherish, and we 

don’t want to see the Bay harmed either by pollution that we can 

control or manmade climate change that we can affect. 

Virginia is taking action on climate change. I issued Executive 

Order 48 shortly into my time as Governor to dramatically push 

State agencies to reduce energy usage and take steps so that we 

can begin to address some of the causes of climate change and 

greenhouse gas emissions. Virginia has joined along with other 

States the Climate Registry, so that we all can establish standard 

protocols for measuring the effects of different industry sectors on 

climate change. Measurement and data has to be the beginning 

point for deciding what are the right practices for curbing those effects. 

Finally, recently we enacted a statewide energy plan for all sectors—consumer, commercial and governmental—to reduce per capita consumption of energy, to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and 

to establish a Commission on Climate Change. 

I feel good about what we have done in Virginia, but I have to 

say I think what we do is a poor substitute for what the Federal 

Government should do, because climate change knows no boundaries, certainly not State boundaries and not national boundaries 

either. Well-meaning Governors and legislators are tackling this all 

over the Country, and yet we will do our very best in our own jurisdictions, but necessarily if it is a State by State effort, there will 

be gaps. There will be overlaps. There will be redundancies. And 

there will not be the kind of comprehensive approach that this subject needs. 
21 

I am extremely pleased with the effort that this Committee is 

making, and Senator Warner with your comment about the bill you 

are working on with Senator Lieberman to bring forward a comprehensive and aggressive national policy on climate change. 

If I could close just with a quick story. In Virginia right now, we 

are in the midst of Jamestown mania. It is the 400th anniversary 

of the founding of English-speaking civilization in this hemisphere 

on Jamestown Island in May 1607. For years, the original fort at 

Jamestown Island was thought to be lost. It was thought to be lost 

because it had washed into the James River right next to Jamestown Island. 

An enterprising archaeologist in the early 1990s named Bill 

Kelso examined the island, and he thought that the conventional 

wisdom was wrong, and that the fort was still there, and began an 

excavation that has produced evidence that he was correct. The 

original Jamestown Island fort and palisades and graves and evidence of our earliest settlers of democracy and founders of this Nation is now available, and is now available for all to see. We have 

shown it off to the world, and it is 30 yards from the James River 

today. 

It would be amazing, after having thought it lost for centuries, 

to have found it and reclaimed it, only to have it jeopardized by climate change that we have the capacity to affect. And so I encourage the great efforts of this Committee and look forward to being 

an ally for you as you go forward toward addressing reasonable and 

aggressive national policy. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Governor Kaine follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. TIMOTHY M. KAINE, GOVERNOR FROM THE

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

Chairman Boxer and members of the Committee, thank you for inviting me to be 

here today. The Chesapeake Bay is one of our Commonwealth’s most important natural assets, and it has contributed immeasurably to our cultural heritage. 

As you know, the Bay is already a stressed system, and the federal government, 

the Commonwealth of Virginia, the District of Columbia, the State of Maryland and 

the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania have all made significant investments in restoring the Chesapeake Bay. 

In my first year in office, I signed into law a $200 million cash investment in sewage treatment plant upgrades in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. In my second year 

in office, I signed into law provisions for $250 million worth of bonds to support sewage treatment plant improvements. And just a couple of months ago, an additional 

round of bonds was issued totaling more than $240 million to assist Virginia localities in the Bay watershed who seek to install advanced technologies to their sewage 

treatment plants. I believe this nearly $700 million total investment in less than 

two years speaks volumes—Virginia is very serious about improving the health of 

Chesapeake Bay. 

I am very much concerned that climate change could jeopardize the progress we’re 

making in restoring the Bay. For example, scientists agree that additional temperature changes in the atmosphere and oceans will increase the frequency of extreme 

weather events that will exacerbate polluted run-off into the Chesapeake Bay, causing the dead-zones in the Bay to grow. This additional pollution, combined with 

warmer surface water temperatures, will increase environmental stress and disease 

for key species, such as oysters and striped bass, as well as the loss of important 

aquatic plants, such as eelgrass. We should also be concerned about effects on the 

Bay’s commercial and recreational fisheries, threatened and endangered species, 

and breeding ground and migration for waterfowl. 

If climate change goes unchecked, the damage will not be limited to the Chesapeake Bay itself. As sea level rises, salt water will intrude further upstream into 
22 

current freshwater systems—altering the distributional ranges of key animal and 

plant species throughout the entire watershed. 

Sea level rise and storms will also affect the Bay’s physical characteristics, likely 

resulting in increased shoreline erosion. The Bay and rivers already suffer from the 

effects of sediment pollution—increased shoreline erosion will only make it worse. 

Rising sea levels would inundate coastal marshes and other important fish and waterfowl habitats and make coastal property more vulnerable to storms. In fact, some 

estimates show that up to 80% of Virginia’s tidal wetlands could be lost by the end 

of the century. And because many of our shorelines are armored for erosion control, 

tidal wetlands will have no place to migrate landward in the face of sea level rise. 

Our wetlands will become fragmented, lose species diversity, and will no longer be 

able to serve their ecological function. 

Climate change will also affect the Bay watershed’s forests, where prospects for 

insect and pest outbreaks will increased, which also pose a threat to agriculture. As 

temperatures go up, there will also be reductions in crop yields. For example, corn 

yields begin to suffer as temperature exceeds 90 °F, and corn crop damage can be 

severe at 100 °F. Increased frequency of both droughts and severe rainstorms can 

also destabilize annual crop yields. Because livestock are temperature sensitive, 

there are likely to be increased labor and maintenance costs to the farmer. 

Now, let me talk about impacts on the places where we live and work in the 

Chesapeake Bay Watershed. The Virginia Institute of Marine Science estimates that 

sea level will rise between 4 and 12 inches by 2030. The Hampton Roads region of 

Virginia is the largest population center that is at the greatest risk from sea level 

rise outside of New Orleans. I mentioned frequent and severe coastal storms and 

flooding as an effect of climate change. The effects of these severe storms will be 

multiplied by rising sea levels, increasing risk to life and property. We also have 

to be concerned about salt water intrusion into groundwater supplies. 

To be sure, we can adapt to a few of the impacts of climate change, but others 

will be devastating. It’s difficult to predict how the impacts will affect one another, 

or what the endpoints of these impacts will be. We need additional research at a 

watershed level so that we can better prepare for the changes that are coming and 

take prudent steps to reverse the trends in greenhouse gas emissions we are now 

seeing. 

Madame Chair, I state none of these facts to be alarming. I state them to show 

what is at stake if we don’t face the challenges of climate change head on. I wish 

I could say that these impacts are only speculative, but they aren’t. In Virginia, 

where we rely so heavily on the health of our natural resources for their economic, 

social, and historical value, we simply can’t afford to postpone action any longer. 

That’s why my Administration is taking action. In April, I issued Executive Order 

48, which requires state agencies to reduce the annual cost of non-renewable energy 

purchases by at least 20 percent of fiscal year 2006 expenditures by fiscal year 2010. 

And, in May, I announced that Virginia was joining the Climate Registry, which 

provides a forum for states to work together develop a common accounting system 

to track greenhouse gas emissions. 

I also recently released a comprehensive Energy Plan for Virginia, which covers 

all aspects of energy production and consumption and calls for the state to dramatically increase its efforts in energy efficiency and conservation. The Plan identifies 

four overall goals, including reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent by 

2025, bringing emissions back to 2000 levels. Soon, I will announce the appointment 

of a Commission on Climate Change to prepare a Climate Change Action Plan to 

implement these recommendations. The Commission also will gather information on 

the expected effects of climate change on the state and identify actions that Virginia 

needs to take to prepare for the consequences of climate change that cannot be 

avoided. The Energy Plan also recommends that Virginia impose mandatory reporting requirements on emitters of greenhouse gases, and I will work with the legislature to implement this recommendation. 

While these are important steps that we are taking at the state level, action on 

climate change must occur at the federal level. Many states are developing climate 

action strategies, but that does not forestall the need for congress to take action. 

Both the causes of, and solutions to, climate change transcend state and local 

boundaries. 

Virginia stands ready to participate in the development of legislation that will reduce emissions of greenhouse gases nationwide. I support legislation that includes 

a cap-and-trade program for emissions of all greenhouse gases, imposes economywide controls, rather than singling out a particular sector, and accounts for state 

efforts to standardize methodologies to record and measure green house gas emissions through the Climate Registry. 
23 

I know that there are many ideas being discussed in your committee right now, 

and I thank Senator Warner for being a leader in this effort. My message to you 

is that each day that legislative action is delayed will have negative consequences 

for the Chesapeake Bay. I urge you to pass legislation that addresses climate 

change in a comprehensive way, as quickly as possible. 

Once again, thank you for the invitation to be here today. I am happy to answer 

any questions that you may have. 

Senator BOXER. Governor, thank you so much. I thought your 

ending was very appropriate because there was recently an article 

that said a lot of our treasures will be gone if we don’t act. 

Hon. Martin O’Malley, welcome, sir, Governor. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARTIN O’MALLEY, GOVERNOR OF THE 

STATE OF MARYLAND 

Governor O’MALLEY. Madam Chair, thank you very much. Thank 

you very much, Madam Chair, Senator Warner, Senator Cardin, 

Senator Mikulski. It is a distinct honor and a privilege to be here 

with you today discussing this probably most critical of all moral 

challenges that face us as a people. It is also a great honor to be 

able to serve with someone of Governor Kaine’s commitment and 

passion for the protection of our natural environment, and the tremendous asset and treasure that is the Chesapeake Bay. 

That was a wonderful story about the settlers of Jamestown and 

our rediscovery of the fact that the place that they inhabited the 

first year is still there. It is within our grasp. There is so much history up and down the banks of the Chesapeake Bay, and I think 

one of the common traits that all of the settlers at Jamestown had, 

as did all of the people who settled in Maryland and on the Chesapeake Bay, is something that we still have, and that is a future 

preference, a preference for a better, safer and healthier future. 

Certainly, as we look at this issue of climate change and rising 

sea levels, that is really going to put that great American in Maryland and Virginia idea to the test. Do we have the ability and the 

will and the courage to do what needs to be done in order to honor 

not only the inheritance and the hard work that we have received 

from others, but also to keep faith with posterity. 

I wanted to, rather than recapping so many of the threats, I 

wanted to cut right to some of the things that we are doing as a 

State. Governor Kaine certainly, and Senator Mikulski and others 

outlined the threat of rising sea levels, the islands that are no 

longer visible; thousands and thousands of miles of coastline, and 

insurance companies no longer willing to write insurance for those 

risks. 

I wanted to talk to you about the idea that we have found is 

helpful as we come together with human will and human action to 

apply to this problem. And that is a shared vision of sustainability, 

sustainability of the land we use, the water we use, the air, because of the energy we consume, the air that we use. In Maryland, 

as Senator Mikulski mentioned, we have implemented a new program called BayStat, where we pulled the Department of Agriculture at the State, and the Department of Environment, and scientific minds and academics and practitioners around the table 

every 2 to 3 weeks, looking at a common map of our interactions, 

of the synergies, and the things that we do together to implement 
24 

those things which we know will make a difference towards meeting the goals we have for a cleaner and healthier bay. 

But when it comes to the air we consume, which is absolutely affected by the energy we consume, in Maryland we are implementing an ambitious, but achievable vision that we produced in 

collaboration with other neighboring States, to reduce greenhouse 

gas emissions. Together, we established the Regional Greenhouse 

Gas Initiative, a working partnership between 11 States to reduce 

greenhouse gas emissions from the power plant sector. Together, 

we fought for and we passed the California clean car standards, 

which will require cleaner, more fuel-efficient cars in our State by 

2011. Together, we created the Commission on Climate Change 

this year, charging their professional membership to prepare Maryland’s plan of action. Together, we set a goal to reduce our per capita electricity consumption by 15 percent by 2015. 

Together, we are diversifying our energy portfolio with clean renewables like solar, wind, biodiesel, and biomass. We have started 

by adopting one of the most aggressive laws in the Nation requiring two percent of Maryland’s electricity, or approximately 1,500 

megawatts, to come from solar by 2022. 

With the help of Senator Mikulski and Senator Cardin, we are 

going to continue to lead, and we intend to have the first longrange plan to address the coastal changes caused by climate 

change. 

Why do we do this? For two very important reasons: No. 1, is necessity; and No. 2, is what I began with, that future preference, 

that obligation that we have to come together across manmade borders because of the nature of this challenge which recognizes no 

borders. It calls upon all of us to come together for ourselves and 

for our posterity. 

Other States are also stepping up to the plate. Currently, 26 

States have taken concrete action on climate change. Over 20 

States have set substantial greenhouse gas reduction targets. 

Using State efforts as a model, there are many programs that can 

radically reduce greenhouse gas emissions at a reasonable cost. 

But as Governor Kaine said, we cannot go it alone. We need the 

partnership of our Federal Government. There is a long, proud history of Federal leadership on environmental and conservation 

issues, from the days of Theodore Roosevelt in the very first national parks, to the Clean Air Act. We need our Federal Government. Together, we can develop national programs that tackle 

greenhouse gas emissions. We can transform our Nation from a 

carbon-based economy to a green, sustainable economy. 

The time to act is past. The time to catch up is now. And we 

greatly appreciate the leadership of this Committee and our Congress in helping us protect the most important asset that we inherited from our parents, and that is the health of our natural environment in this great Country. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Governor O’Malley follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. MARTIN O’MALLEY, GOVERNOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND

Madame Chair, Ranking Member Inhofe, and distinguished Members of the Committee, it is my distinct honor and privilege to testify before you today about a global issue that has become a very real local issue today for the citizens of the great 
25 

State of Maryland. I would also like to give special thanks to Senators Barbara Mikulski and Ben Cardin, from my home state, for their extraordinary leadership and 

help in bringing about this opportunity. 

In Maryland, we have over 4,000 miles of coastline—4,000 miles—this is more 

coastline than the State of California. Maryland is in a very precarious position 

when it comes to the impacts of climate change. Our region is ranked third in the 

nation terms of our vulnerability to sea level rise. We are third, behind only Louisiana and South. In Maryland, climate change and sea level rise are at our doorstep. 

While we are fortunate enough to hug the Chesapeake Bay, a fragile estuary, it 

also means for us that the impacts of climate change have already been detected. 

Historic tide-gauge records show that sea levels have risen one-foot within Maryland’s coastal waters over the last century. Due, in part to naturally occurring regional land subsidence, the Chesapeake 

Bay region is currently experiencing sea level rise at a rate nearly double the 

world-wide average. 

There is now near universal scientific consensus that the world climate is changing. Scientists estimate that temperature will rise between 1.98–11.52 °F and that 

our sea level will rise as much as 7 to 23 inches over the next century. If left unchecked, these estimates will translate into devastating impacts for Maryland’s citizens, its property, its bountiful natural resources, and the investments of its taxpayers. 

Thirteen charted islands and large expanses of tidal wetlands within the Chesapeake Bay have already disappeared. Each year, the State loses approximately 580 

acres of land to shore erosion. 

Current scientific research indicates that the rate of sea level rise is starting to 

accelerate in Maryland waters. The result of such a rise will be a dramatic intensification of the impacts from coastal flood events; increased shore erosion; the intrusion of salt-water into our freshwater aquifers—any of which are used for potable 

water supply; and submergence of tidal wetlands, low-lying lands and even the 

Chesapeake’s last inhabited island community, Smith Island. 

In Maryland, we do not have time to wait. Nor would I suggest, does the country 

have time to wait. Climate change is perhaps one of the most daunting challenges 

facing Maryland. The time is upon us to take action to begin shaping our own future 

in the face of this threat. Decisions we make today will influence Maryland’s health 

and vitality long into the future. 

We now know with certainty that human activities—including coastal development, the burning of fossil fuels and increasing greenhouse gas emissions—are contributing to both the causes and consequences of climate change. In Maryland, as 

a State, we are implementing aggressive initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emissions: 

• We are a full fledged member of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative—a voluntary collaboration of 11 states to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the power 

plant sector. 

• We have adopted the California Clean Cars standards which will require cleaner and more fuel efficient cars in our state by 2011. 

We have established a Commission on Climate Change and have charged this 

Commission to recommend Greenhouse Gas Reduction Goals and to prepare Maryland’s Plan of Action. 

• We established a goal to reduce our per capita electricity consumption by 15 

percent by 2015. 

• We are diversifying our energy portfolio with clean renewables like solar, wind 

and bio-diesel and bio-mass, and have recently adopted one of the most aggressive 

laws in the nation to require two percent of Maryland’s electricity, or approximately 

1,500 megawatts of power, to come from solar energy by 2022. 

Maryland will continue to be a leader. We intend to be the first state in the nation 

to develop a long range strategy to plan for and adapt to the changes we will face 

along our coast caused by climate change. Many have asked why a small state like 

Maryland would take these actions. The answer is, first, because we have an immediate problem. Second, Honorable members of the Committee, it is the right thing 

to do. We know that the best way to address this issue is with global action. The 

next best—is acting country-by-country, as over 160 of our fellow nations have done. 

The next best option is to take action state by state. 

Maryland will continue to be a leader. With the help of Senators Mikulski and 

Cardin, we will continue to do what is right for our state. Third best, however, is 

simply not good enough. We need our federal government to act. State-by-state reductions simply don’t make sense for this global problem and the time is now for 

federal action on climate change issues. 
26 

We have a long history with environmental challenges in this country. Many challenges are local and are appropriately dealt with at the state level. But on national 

issues, we seem to go one of two ways. The federal government enacts laws, develop 

standards, and the states follow and implement. Or, when the federal government 

fails to lead, states have no choice but to step up and act This appears to be one 

of those occasions. 

Currently, 26 states have initiated actions related to climate change. Over 20 

states have set substantial greenhouse gas reduction targets. Using the state efforts 

as a model, there are many programs that can radically reduce greenhouse gas 

emissions at a reasonable cost. The time has come to develop national programs 

that effectively reduce greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel burning power 

plants, from our automobiles, and a multitude of other sources. 

We must transition from a carbon-based economy to a green, sustainable economy—an economy that does not prolifically emit greenhouse gases into the atmosphere as a byproduct of progress. Economic progress at the cost of environmental 

sustainability is not progress at all. 

Furthermore, we must proactively plan for the consequences of climate change by 

amending coastal zone management plans, integrating the consequences of climate 

change into federal programs for flood and shoreline management. Federal agencies 

should be coordinating to ensure that we adapt to climate change as a nation. 

When given a choice between progress and regression, the people of Maryland always choose progress. We have an unshakeable belief in what Carroll Quigley, a 

historian at Georgetown, called ‘‘future preference’’—the idea that ‘‘tomorrow can be 

better than today and that each of us has a personal and moral responsibility to 

make it so.’’ Why is sustainability so important? Because, as the old Native American proverb goes, ‘‘we do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors; we borrow it 

from our children.’’ 

Why we are so concerned about energy efficiency and placing an emphasis on 

‘‘green?’’ Because, in the words of Maryland’s Own. columnist Thomas Friedman: 

‘‘the people who will be harmed the most by the climate-energy crisis haven’t been 

born yet.’’ 

Public service is about making decisions, many for which the consequences will 

be felt long after we’re gone, many for which we may not be around to enjoy the 

benefits. In the short time we have in these jobs, jobs, and on this earth for that 

matter, let’s resolve to put aside the impulse for instant gratification . . . and instead, embrace a compact with the grandchildren who are yet to be born. 

In the finest American tradition, let’s prefer their future over our present . . . forsaking patchwork quick-fixes for enduring solutions. Let’s do for them what the 

Greatest Generation and our forefathers did unflinchingly for us—relinquish the 

comforts of today in the name of a better tomorrow. 

Climate change is one of the most pressing challenges facing our generation 

today—we must, and we can, collectively find a way ultimately to address the problem to achieve sustainability, as a State and as a Nation. 

Thank you very much for your time in considering my testimony today. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much, Governors. We will each 

have five minutes for questions, if you don’t mind. Can you stay a 

little bit longer? OK. 

I wanted to pick up, Governor Kaine, when you talked about the 

fact that you had military assets along the coast and coastal areas, 

because I find it so interesting that Senator Warner, teaming up 

with Senator Lieberman, is really in the lead in this entire Senate 

now. One might say, well, this is unusual; here he is, an expert on 

military matters, and here he is taking the lead. But there is a 

marriage between the two here. 

I mean, we have received warnings from our own intelligence 

people and our military people that if we don’t act on global warming, it will be the major cause of wars in the future, the major 

cause of refugee dislocations, famine, drought, which cause wars. 

So in many ways, you are bringing up the fact that the assets 

that are along the coast brought that to my mind, that this 

marrying up between the environment and our national security is 

so interesting and that Senator Warner is here at this time. It is 

to me a very moving point. 
27 

I had one question for both of you, and that is this. In order to 

effectively address global warming, we are being told by our business people very clearly that they need to have clear market signals, that what we do here is real. So that when we set our goals, 

they are real, and there are not big loopholes where people can 

drive off and say, ‘‘All right, we don’t have to do anything about 

carbon anymore or greenhouse gases.’’ 

So are you hearing similar things in your States? Because in my 

State, which, like you, California has taken a major lead on this, 

and our Governor, Governor Schwarzenegger, working with our Attorney General Jerry Brown and the legislature, has been just a 

model in terms of how they have acted here. 

So do you hear similar points being made, that we need to act 

with clarity so that the investments in new technologies will in fact 

come to fruition? If either one of you wishes to respond. 

Governor KAINE. Madam Chair, those are signals I am hearing 

from my private sector. And on a couple of sort of related points, 

first, the clarity of the signal for an investment climate is key. The 

good news is investments across the range of alternative energy 

sources and conservation that weren’t particularly powerful 5 years 

ago suddenly are hot. So there are some good market signals out 

there already to promote this. 

The other issue that I am hearing related from my private sector 

folks is the approach that needs to be taken on climate change 

should be across all industries. Don’t just focus on one or two industries. For example, in Virginia we know one of the huge challenges we have is a lot of the challenges are from transportation, 

vehicles, transportation modes that need to be upgraded. So we 

shouldn’t just focus on power plants and then sort of let transportation off the hook. It needs to be something that is truly across 

all industry sectors. That is also what I hear from our private sector folks. It needs to be comprehensive and not single folks out. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

Governor O’Malley. 

Governor O’MALLEY. We have been working cooperatively with 

our power industry in our efforts to join REGI and our own cap and 

trade. We hope to have our first auction in the summer of 2008. 

While we have been working cooperatively with them, I have to say 

that I have yet to talk with a person from the power industry that 

doesn’t believe that a national program would be far preferable, instead of a patchwork of hopscotching, one State does, one State 

doesn’t. 

The industry itself wants predictability. They want sustainability, clear market signals, as you said, Madam Chair. They also 

want a national program. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, sir. 

Senator Warner. 

Senator WARNER. Madam Chairman, I think I would like to yield 

my time to our distinguished colleague from Maryland, my good 

friend, Senator Mikulski. Oh, no, I insist. I have that right as 

Ranking that you go now. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator WARNER. Now, I stop to think. We are seated here with 

these two great Governors of our States. One hundred years ago, 
28 

they used to have wars in Chesapeake Bay between the oystermen 

and the crabmen and the rockfish. And here we are sitting peacefully talking about a common endeavor. It is very refreshing. 

Senator Mikulski, keep a watchful eye to prevent those wars reoccurring. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator WARNER. Senator, I yield to you. 

Senator BOXER. Senator, please go ahead. 

Senator MIKULSKI. Well, thank you very much, Senator Warner. 

I know you had to step out at the beginning of the hearing, but 

what I said was that you have really been a champion and a real 

warrior. You have protected this Nation, both by putting yourself 

directly in the line of fire as a warrior against those who had a 

predatory intent towards the United States of America. And now, 

along with that, you are really making sure that part of your incredible legacy is that you are protecting the very planet and the 

very bay that you love. 

We want to really work with you on your environmental legislation, but for this Senator it has been indeed a great pleasure to 

work with you on the issues related to Maryland and to Virginia. 

Having said that, I accept your gracious invitation to ask a few 

questions. 

I think we are all clear listening to our two very dynamic Governors that patchwork doesn’t work. Now, one question will be not 

only what you will need from the Federal Government in terms of 

standards, et cetera, but you each are going to have—Governor 

O’Malley already does and Governor Kaine you will—these Commissions on Climate Change. I know with the knowledge economy 

that we both have, as well as the practicality of agriculture, the 

watermen economy, et cetera, could you share with us what we can 

expect from the Governors to provide guidance to the Federal Government on what we need to do? We need to help you have a national program based on sound science that you can work with 

funding great laboratories like the Virginia Institute and our own 

University of Maryland Laboratory work. 

But what could we expect from these commissions that would 

give us guidance? 

Governor KAINE. Well, as was pointed out, Governor O’Malley 

has created a commission. I just have announced the creation of 

one, so we are putting one together. The good news, Senator, is 

that we have a deep talent pool of scientists and advocates who are 

very, very engaged in this. We know already that sort of as a State 

policy we would support a national cap and trade program. I believe that without saying what the commission’s recommendations 

would be, there is strong support for that in Virginia and I suspect 

would come out of a commission in that sense. 

In addition, we do have good research institutes. The Virginia Institute of Marine Science, and Virginia Tech does significant research on carbon capture and storage in the southwestern part of 

the State. We have a number of other research universities that do 

significant work in this area. They will be part of the commission. 

So I think one of the things that we can do as Governors and 

with these commissions is forward the research that is being done. 

It is just a matter of harvesting what is there already in terms of 
29 

strategies. I think we will have some very good recommendations 

that we can get to you from the talent pool that we have in Virginia. 

Governor O’MALLEY. I suspect that the recommendations from 

Maryland’s Climate Change Commission are probably going to 

break down in about four different parts. There will probably be 

recommendations on how we prime, encourage, move more quickly 

towards diversified portfolios in terms of the energy we use. Energy-efficient buildings—we have all become accustomed to understanding how much power plants and cars emit, but there is tremendous opportunities to reduce our carbon footprint, and I suspect they will be making recommendations on energy efficiency in 

buildings. 

Thirdly, the cap and trade, which we already mentioned, I would 

have to believe that they will come out with recommendations for 

a national program on that score. And finally, transportation—the 

way we get to and from. Another important part that I think Maryland is particularly sensitive to, maybe in advance of some other 

States and certainly parts of Tidewater Virginia experiences this as 

well, and that is the connection between land use and global warming. In other words, our population has increased by about 30 percent since the 1970s, but the land we consumed has increased by 

about 100 percent. With that comes a tremendous amount of impervious surface, a lot more lane miles traveled, and everything 

else that goes with that. 

So I suspect that Maryland’s Climate Change Commission will 

also have recommendations on what we can do and where the connection between land use and climate change is becoming more and 

more apparent. 

Senator MIKULSKI. Thank you. I note that my time is up. I would 

hope that one of the things that we could get, particularly from 

Maryland and Virginia, would be recommendations related to energy, and especially transportation. Both of our States have terrible 

transportation issues. I know Virginia has grappled with it from a 

reliable revenue stream to do this, but when we look at everything 

from the mixing bowl to our turbo car door, we all know that transportation is the number one issue with our constituents. 

But also then how can we turn this lemon into a new lemonade 

stand? Meaning, what can we do to look at our energy policy as 

well as our transportation policy that, number one, deals with global warming, helps solve transportation problems, and create markets for new types of vehicles, not only passenger vehicles, but as 

Governors you know, how about the cost of school buses? How 

about the cost of your own transportation fleets? To actually make 

the Federal Government a partner with you, that is you go to buy 

mass transit vehicles, how we can have incentives to go to green 

vehicles that would help the so-called market cues. 

So we look forward to working with you. I am glad that we have 

put aside the oyster wars and I am ready for an oyster festival. So 

thank you very much. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Warner has told me that he would like Senator Cardin 

to go next. So our amazing colleague is again deferring, so Senator 

Cardin, the floor is yours. 
30 

Senator CARDIN. I add my thanks to Senator Warner. Senator 

Warner, as I mentioned when you had left, has been one of the real 

champions. The beginning of the Federal Government’s involvement in the Chesapeake Bay was the result of the leadership of 

two great U.S. Senators, Senator Warner and Senator Matthias. 

They took that on, and Senator Sarbanes joined them, and we have 

the involvement today as a legacy of Senator Warner, but he is 

going to do something else before he retires. 

He won’t retire before he leaves the Senate, and that is he is taking on the leadership on global warming. We thank him for that 

because he is going to I think give the type of sage advice that 

gives us the best chance of getting a bill enacted. We thank you 

for your continued leadership, and I thank you for your courtesy 

and for your help as a member of the U.S. Senate. 

I agree that a piecemeal approach won’t work on these issues, so 

we do need the Federal Government involvement. But I do think 

we can learn from the States. That is what federalism is about. So 

I really congratulate the leadership of both of our Governors here 

because you are giving us workable models that we can now use 

as national policy. 

Governor O’Malley, I know that your leadership in dealing with 

conservation and renewable energy sources has been just dramatic, 

and we thank you for that. This week, we held a hearing in this 

Committee on the economic advantage of green policies. We had 

testimony from Marylanders on solar energy, and our State is one 

of the leading sources now of solar energy development. My question to you is, have you evaluated the impact of your policies on 

the economy of Maryland and the reaction you are getting from the 

business community as you look towards ways of getting less electricity use, energy use in our State, and looking at developing a 

wider portfolio of energy supplies in Maryland? 

Governor O’MALLEY. Well, certainly our hope, Senator, is that as 

a Nation that has a very strong knowledge-based economy, as a 

people who have always been innovating and creating new jobs 

every generation, it is certainly our hope that as we develop new 

sources of energy, as we apply our minds and the diversity of 

minds that we have in our State to this challenge that there is a 

whole wealth of jobs that can be created by throwing ourselves into 

green building technologies, renewables, and energy efficiency. 

We have really been engaged in days and days of conversations 

with stakeholders as to how we throw ourselves into energy efficiency. However we go about doing it, it is unavoidable that it will 

require a lot of skilled and well trained people who will have to 

work here in Maryland in order to create whether it is a smart 

grid, whether it is smart meters in homes, the creation of energyefficient appliances and the like. 

So I think this could be a great new wave for our State and for 

our Country, the mixing both of high-minded, innovative, cutting 

edge technology, but also the sort of hands-on skilled jobs that put 

food on a family’s table and bring about the security and prosperity 

that is the mark of any progress. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you. 

Governor Kaine, I also want to join the Chairman in just appreciating the way that you brought in national security to this de-
31 

bate. I hadn’t thought about Hampton Roads and realized it was 

the second most vulnerable city or area to flooding, and the huge 

population center that is there. But it is of critical importance to 

our national defense. 

The additional risk we are putting on national defense, where we 

could do something about it, with extreme weather and the dangers. I very much appreciate your bringing that up, because that 

point has not been brought out in our discussions on global warming. I think it is an extremely important point and one that we 

should follow up on, Madam Chair, as part of our work. 

I also appreciate your testimony as to the quality of life, so many 

factors involved with the Chesapeake Bay and how it really makes 

Virginia a unique place to live and work. 

Madam Chair, I just want to bring to the committee’s attention 

the report that was released today by the National Wildlife Federation, the Chesapeake Bay and Global Warming. It points out some 

of the points that we have already talked about, that global warming threatens an already beleaguered Chesapeake Bay. We don’t 

deny it. We have problems in the Bay. But global warming is making it more challenging. 

It also talks about another part, and Congressman Gilchrest 

mentioned this, gone fishing or fishing gone. This report says that 

the Chesapeake is becoming too warm for winter flounder. We are 

liable to lose it altogether. And soft clams we are liable to lose altogether because the winter is just too warm. If it is appropriate, I 

would like to see this as part of our record. 

Senator BOXER. Without objection. 

[The referenced document follows on page 88.] 

Senator CARDIN. Again, I thank our Governors for being here. 

Senator BOXER. Senator Warner. 

Senator WARNER. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

I would like to follow on one of Senator Cardin’s themes, and 

that is the impact on the economy. Under the strong leadership of 

our Chair here, we had a hearing yesterday that was quite interesting. We are all quite familiar with the term ‘‘blue collar,’’ the 

people who get out there and sweat and work and make our economy what it is today in large measure, under the direction and 

framework of executives on top. 

But we have a new term coming up. It is called ‘‘green collar.’’ 

I thought we had a convincing body of fact given to the Committee 

yesterday about how the collective efforts of the several States, together with the Federal Government, towards the climate change 

remedies are creating an entire new class of citizens who proudly 

work in what we call green collar jobs, namely erecting the wind 

power stands and dealing with all of the other aspects of the initiatives that each of you have taken in your States. 

I wonder if you would lead off, Governor Kaine, followed by Governor O’Malley. Are you beginning to categorize these jobs and relate that to the citizens of our great State? Because I have always 

said from day one in my efforts on this subject, there is going to 

be added costs at the gas pump when you go and fill up your car. 

There is going to be an added cost when the homemakers have to 

pay that monthly heating bill. A lot of these costs of the industrial 
32 

and the manufacturing and the transportation levels are being fed 

right back to the consumer. 

So I think it is helpful to try and show the balance, the creation 

of a new category of jobs. 

Governor KAINE. Senator Warner, Virginia is the number one 

State in the Nation in the percentage of our workforce that work 

in technology jobs. We have seen in the last 3 or 4 years a definite 

anecdotal increase in the number of technology jobs in alternative 

energy and energy sectors. I just think of a very large Virginia 

company right across the river, AES, that does energy around the 

Nation and around the world. They are one of the largest producers 

of wind power in America right now. They produce alternative energy at facilities all around the United States and the world at this 

time. 

So we are seeing that green collar sector of the economy. I had 

not heard that phrase, but we are seeing that grow. It often clusters around the research institutions. We have a Coastal Energy 

Research Consortium at Old Dominion University with a lot of private sector involvement, including many contractors that work on 

the military installations in Hampton Roads. We have similar energy research going on, primarily on the coal side, clean coal down 

at Virginia Tech. 

So we do see these technology jobs grow in this area. I will also 

say this, and this is some good news. The traditional blue collar industries are not our opponents in this in Virginia. They have some 

questions. They have some challenges. They participated in a yearlong effort to put together this energy plan we just released, but 

the overwhelming number of the recommendations we made were 

with the environmental community and the manufacturers association on board. 

Ag and forestry is the biggest industry in Virginia. Global climate change dramatically affects the largest industry in Virginia, 

ag and forestry. Tourism is one of the largest five industries in Virginia. If we do not do something about this, the traditional industries that have been the bulwark of the economy up to this point 

are seriously jeopardized. 

So both the old economy industries and these new green collar 

opportunities have folks aligned with the notion that this is an important task that we should tackle. 

Senator WARNER. Good. 

Governor O’Malley. 

Governor O’MALLEY. We have not gotten to a point, Senator, 

where we are actually very good at categorizing these things, but 

we see them developing and happening around us. I think they 

have been in proportion to the clarity of this clear market signal. 

For example, we adopted one of the larger solar requirements in 

our portfolio and BP Solar in Frederick around that same time announced that they were going to double the size of their plant and 

their employment out there in Frederick. 

It is actually very exciting when you think about the new jobs 

that can be created, and just how much we have to do to align our 

workforce development, the sort of career technology training that 

we should be doing along with algebra two in our high schools and 

creating those pathways in our community colleges. Community 
33 

colleges are probably going to beat everybody to the punch on this 

because they are more nimble and get out in front of these things. 

We have a brave new world in front of us and look forward to 

aligning those, you know, capturing the opportunities that will 

come along with the some of the discomfort and additional cost. 

Senator WARNER. Good. 

Perhaps the Chair could ask our staff to provide these two distinguished witnesses with a little synopsis of the testimony that we 

had yesterday, and some copies of it, because I think it would be 

a great help. 

Senator BOXER. Will do. 

Senator WARNER. Both of these gentleman are quite busy in their 

respective full-time jobs, so I think I will yield the floor and let 

them return to their respective States, unless you want to talk a 

little bit about the football standing between Maryland and UVA. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator WARNER. How is that going, Governor Kaine? 

Governor KAINE. We will see. 

Governor O’MALLEY. We will get to the oyster wars. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. Governors, I thank you so much. I just want to 

particularly thank Senator Warner for his graciousness. I want to 

just say that the Governors we are hearing from, Senator Warner 

and other Senators, are from both parties. Today, we happen to 

have two Democrats, but I have heard from, of course, Governor 

Schwarzenegger, who has provided terrific leadership on this, and 

also Governor Crist of Florida, who is continually writing to us. 

And there are other Governors from both parties. I don’t want to 

start naming all of them. 

But I think it just shows that the States are ahead of us here. 

We have a lot of catching up to do, and I think the two of you have 

made a very powerful case and tied it to the Bay, which is so important because we can see it, feel it, and touch it. And so we 

thank you very, very much. Any ideas you have will be welcomed 

in the future. Thank you. 

Governor KAINE. Thanks, Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. And now we would invite up our third and final 

panel, while the Governors are leaving. 

William Baker is President of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation; 

Dr. Christopher Pyke, Member, Chesapeake Bay Program’s Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee, and Fellow, Virginia Institute of Marine Science’s Center of Coastal Resources Management; Dr. Donald F. Boesch, President, University of Maryland 

Center for Environmental Science; Dennis Avery, Senior Fellow, 

Hudson Institute, Director, Center for Global Food Issues; Dr. 

David W. Schnare, Esquire, Senior Fellow for Energy and the Environment, Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy; and Pastor 

Richard Edmund, United Methodist Churches of Smith Island. 

Gentlemen, we welcome you. We are very honored to have all of 

you here. We will go from Mr. Baker all the way this way, and we 

will try to keep it five minutes. I know we have a lot of questions. 

Mr. Baker, welcome, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation. We welcome you. 
34 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM C. BAKER, PRESIDENT, CHESAPEAKE 

BAY FOUNDATION 

Mr. BAKER. Senator Boxer, members of the Committee, Senator 

Mikulski, thank you for your leadership over these many years. My 

name is Will Baker. I am President of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation. On behalf of our 194,000 members, we thank you for the 

opportunity to testify. 

Senator Warner, special thanks to you for your years of support 

for programs to help Chesapeake Bay and especially for your generous support of that 30-year-anniversary tour with Senator 

Matthias—our great mutual friend and a founder of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation. I truly appreciate all that you have done 

over these many years. 

Many thanks as well to Senator Mikulski and Senator Cardin, 

Senator Webb, who was here previously, and Congressman 

Gilchrest, and our two esteemed Governors, Governor Kaine and 

Governor O’Malley. We are so lucky to have you fighting for, as we 

heard, not against each other, fighting for the Chesapeake Bay. 

Sadly, the Chesapeake Bay is in deep trouble. By any measure, 

it is only functioning at about 30 percent of its historic potential. 

Eighty percent of the Bay and its tidal tributaries are on EPA’s 

dirty waters list. Think of it. A national treasure so rich in history 

and so valuable to our regional economy in such trouble. 

Pollution is at the root of the problems. But now, global climate 

change is making matters worse. As the waters warm, they hold 

less dissolved oxygen, dangerously less dissolved oxygen. These waters are called ‘‘dead zones’’ and they plague the Bay. While the 

phenomenon is happening worldwide, it is worse in the shallow, 

slow-flushing coastal areas like the Chesapeake. Sadly, these waters are some of the most productive on earth. We are damaging 

the very nurseries that produce the fish and shellfish that we value 

so highly, like the Chesapeake Bay blue crab, to name just one. 

Warmer water itself adversely affects the fish and shellfish. 

Striped bass, for instance, cannot tolerate water that is 76 degrees 

or warmer, so as surface waters warm, they dive deeper to try and 

find cooler waters, only to be blocked by the deep water dissolved 

oxygen-starved dead zones. They are being squeezed from the top 

and the bottom and stressed, and the result is greater susceptibility to disease. 

Another real threat is to eelgrass. I know this is especially important to Senator Warner because it is the predominant Virginia 

species of underwater grasses. At 80 degrees, it simply dies, and 

we are seeing 80 degrees in the southern Bay all too often. No underwater grasses, no crabs, no fish, no shellfish. 

Unfortunately, some Bay species appear to benefit from warmer 

water. I say ‘‘unfortunately’’ because those species are the nuisance 

algae, some of which are toxic. One especially noxious species of 

algae was plaguing the Norfolk and Hampton Roads area for much 

of the summer. One last impact: sea level rise combined with an 

increase in storm intensity will mean more floods, more erosion, 

more polluted runoff, more damaged wetlands. None of this will be 

good for water quality or human health or recreation. 

There is some good news, however, and this time it really is good 

news. A primary strategy to reduce the nitrogen that is so polluting 
35 

the Chesapeake Bay is to help farmers install conservation practices on their land. The reason I bring it up at this hearing is because these practices, if implemented, will sequester a minimum of 

5 million metric tons of carbon, the equivalent of taking over 

750,000 Hummers, each driving 12,000 miles a year, off the road. 

Exceptional, exceptional result. 

So here is the win-win-win: help farmers stay on the land; reduce 

nitrogen and carbon; increase dissolved oxygen, a tremendous benefit for the environment. 

In closing, let me thank you and urge support for a cap and trade 

bill such as that which Senators Warner and Lieberman are developing. And let me urge support for a specific provision of that bill, 

which I understand will be in the legislation, that which will help 

provide funding for the great waters of the United States of which 

the Chesapeake Bay is certainly one. A national treasure, the 

birthplace of our great Nation, will thank you, and I thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Baker follows:] 

STATEMENT OF WILLIAM C. BAKER, PRESIDENT, CHESAPEAKE BAY FOUNDATION

Chairwoman Boxer, Senator Inhofe, Senator Warner, Senator Cardin and other 

distinguished members of the Environmental and Public Works Committee, I am 

William C. Baker, President of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation. Thank you for inviting me, on behalf of CBF’s board, staff, and 190,000 members, to participate in 

today’s hearing. 

I want to particularly acknowledge Senator John Warner for the work that he has 

done to improve the health of the Chesapeake Bay during the nearly thirty years 

that he has represented the people of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Even though 

the Bay still has many challenges, it is much better off than it would have been 

without Senator Warner’s strong interest and effective assistance during all those 

years. Although he has announced his retirement at the end of this Congress, this 

hearing and the development of the Lieberman/Warner legislation are indications 

that he’s a long way from being done. Senator Warner, thank you. 

Moreover, although none of them is retiring—in any sense of the word—I also 

want to acknowledge the tremendous work done that Senator Mikulski, Senator 

Cardin and Congressman Gilchrest are doing here in Congress on behalf of the Bay. 

All three are doing everything they can to restore the health of the Bay, and I know 

they will continue to do so for many years to come. 

For more than 40 years, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation has been working to 

protect and restore the Chesapeake Bay. The Chesapeake Bay is America’s largest 

estuary, and its 64,000 square mile watershed—from Cooperstown, New York to 

Cape Henry, Virginia and westward to the Allegheny Mountains—is a large part of 

the Mid-Atlantic states. More than 17 million people live in the Chesapeake Bay 

watershed, a number that is increasing by roughly 150,000 each year. 

If you follow the Chesapeake Bay Foundation’s annual State of the Bay report, 

you know that the lack of progress being made to improve water quality and protect 

the living resources of the Chesapeake Bay continues to cause very serious concern. 

The numeric score that our scientists calculated last year to represent the overall 

health of the Chesapeake Bay—29 on a scale of 100—is only one point higher than 

it was in 1999. This means that the Bay is ecologically functioning at between onefourth and one-third of its historic capacity, and is not improving nearly as fast as 

we would like. The most systemic problem continues to be an overload of nitrogen 

and phosphorus pollution creating a lack of dissolved oxygen in many parts of the 

Bay and its tributaries. Every summer, the mainstem of the Bay and several of its 

tributaries are plagued by dead zones, where not enough dissolved oxygen exists to 

sustain many forms of aquatic life. The volume of water affected by these dead 

zones varies by year, but on average about 80% of the Bay and its tidal rivers have 

insufficient levels of oxygen. 

The fact is that today’s Chesapeake Bay ecological web is a pale reflection of what 

it was not so very long ago. Chesapeake Bay oysters, the great natural filter of the 

Bay’s water, are currently less than 4% of their historic levels. The Bay’s flagship 

species—the blue crab—is in such jeopardy that entire watermen communities are 

disappearing, and the great crab processing companies now survive on foreign imports. The underwater grasses so essential to life in the Bay are subject to massive 
36 

die-offs related to increased water temperature, and the Bay’s wetlands, critical to 

thousands of species in its web of life, are being destroyed yard by inexorable yard. 

We have become complacent about the constant, slow deterioration of one of the 

world’s great natural resources. The degree of stress on the system from pollution 

flowing out of our cities and farms is enormous, and the system certainly does not 

need more stress. Yet additional stress is exactly what the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem is already getting from rising water temperatures and sea level rise. When 

CBF embarked on its mission to ‘‘Save the Bay’’ four decades ago, we had no idea 

that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases would be a huge threat to the people and other living resources that depend on the Bay for their existence. We understand now, however, that fossil fuels burning in Indianapolis or in India, as well 

as a host of other greenhouse gas producing activities, will negatively affect the people and creatures of the Chesapeake Bay just as toxics and other well-known pollutants do. The policy choices you and your counterparts in other nations make will 

determine how severe those negative effects will be and how long they may last. 

I will just touch briefly on what scientists believe will be the effects on the Chesapeake Bay unless action is taken to dramatically reduce emissions and sequester additional carbon. I know that my colleagues on this panel from the scientific community will fill in the details. 

WARMER WATERS

Ocean temperatures are rising, and the water temperatures in the Chesapeake 

Bay are as well. Warmer water has less capacity to hold dissolved oxygen, and dissolved oxygen is critical for most life in the Bay, its rivers, and its streams. Thus, 

higher temperatures may exacerbate the Bay’s dead zones, potentially expanding 

both the size and the duration of oxygen-deprived areas in the Bay. 

In one of nature’s characteristic cycles, oxygen-deprived dead zones in the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries can actually contribute to additional greenhouse gas 

generation. Globally, estuaries emit approximately one third of the world’s oceans’ 

net emissions of nitrous oxide, a very potent greenhouse gas. In the few places 

where it has been studied, nitrogen pollutant loads to estuaries have been shown 

to contribute to increased nitrous oxide emissions. Similarly, estuarine production 

of methane, another greenhouse gas, also increases under low-oxygen conditions due 

to bacterial activity, so the Bay, in its overloaded and degraded state, is actually 

contributing to climate change. 

Changes in water temperature can also affect the distribution and health of 

aquatic species in the Chesapeake. For instance, adult striped bass, also known as 

rockfish, try to avoid water warmer than about 76 degrees Fahrenheit by finding 

refuge in the cooler temperatures of deeper water. During the summer, however, 

rockfish face what scientists call ‘‘temperature-dissolved oxygen squeeze,’’ when dissolved oxygen concentrations in these waters drop past the point where adult rockfish can survive. With predictions of higher water temperatures and expanded dead 

zones, rockfish will be increasingly squeezed, forced to live in uncomfortably warm 

water in order to ‘‘breathe.’’ Such stress can affect the health of fish by changing 

their feeding habits or making them more susceptible to disease. 

Scientists still have much to learn about the effects of increased carbon dioxide 

and warmer water temperatures on the various types of algae found in the Bay, but 

it seems clear that some species, like the harmful algae Cochlodinium that plagued 

the Hampton Roads/Norfolk area last month, may prosper under the various climate 

change scenarios. 

STORM INTENSITY

Although climate change models are as yet inconclusive about whether more precipitation will fall in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, or exactly what seasonal variations in precipitation may look like, most models agree that storms will become 

more intense. Storm intensity has an important impact on the Bay region in terms 

of property damage as well as on Bay’s ecological health. Increased scouring and 

runoff from more intense rain events, regardless of season, will carry significantly 

higher loads of nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment to tributaries, and thus to the 

Bay. Since it is this trio of pollutants that is primarily causing the continued decline 

in the Bay’s water quality, additional heavy loads of them during more intense 

storms in the Mid-Atlantic states can be expected to appreciably compound the 

Bay’s water quality challenges. 

SEA LEVEL RISE AND FLOODING

With more than 11,000 miles of coastline, much of the Chesapeake Bay area, including some large population centers, lies very close to water level. Worldwide, the 
37 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicts that sea level will rise between 8 inches and 2 feet by the end of this century. Many scientists consider those 

estimates to be conservative, evidence is mounting that ice caps and glaciers are 

melting at accelerated rates. If the trend continues, apparent sea level rise could 

be as high as several feet in the region by the end of the century. 

Although sea level rise will affect many parts of the world, the Bay region may 

suffer even more. Why? Because, even as waters rise, much of the area is actually 

sinking due to geological processes that began during the last ice age. This combination of processes has resulted in approximately one foot of net sea level rise in the 

Chesapeake Bay over the past 100 years—a rate nearly twice that of the global historic average. As a result we are losing Tangier Island, Smith Island, and many 

other low-lying lands around the Bay. Thousands of acres of environmentally-critical 

tidal wetlands are now unable to trap sediments fast enough to keep pace with rising water levels. 

In the future, the combination of several feet of global sea level rise, flat topography, and subsiding land mass could make the people who live here in the MidAtlantic region particularly vulnerable. Demographic modeling correlated to projected sea level rise suggests that hundreds of thousands of people in low-lying 

coastal or river valley areas, including in several cities, could fall victim to serious 

floods, and these storms are likely to cause the most damage to socially vulnerable 

populations within the region. For example, a 2005 report by the Center for Integrated Regional Assessment defines areas within Hampton Roads that have high 

‘‘numbers of children and elderly, and with a high number of mobile homes’’ as vulnerable. By a wide margin, these at-risk communities are the most likely to face 

severe flood and storm damage. Additionally, these storms—which are also predicted to increase in intensity—will not only increase demands on emergency services and rescue facilities in these areas, but literally flood those facilities as well. 

Essentially, those with the fewest resources to recover from a catastrophic storm 

will be among those hardest hit. 

Clearly, the enormous challenge of reducing the effects of excess carbon dioxide 

and other greenhouse gas emissions requires a multiplicity of actions at every level 

of society to reverse our current destructive course. 

One important way to improve water quality in the Bay and help to reduce the 

effect of greenhouse gas emissions is to maximize the use of common agricultural 

conservation practices to prevent nitrogen and phosphorus from running to the Bay 

while at the same time sequestering carbon. The Chesapeake Bay watershed states 

have already defined agricultural conservation as a key tool to achieve the pollution 

reductions necessary to remove the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries from the 

Clean Water Act’s 303(d) list. As part of the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement—a pledge 

to cut the amount of nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment pollution discharged into 

the Bay and its rivers—Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, Delaware, West Virginia, 

New York and the District of Columbia have each developed river-specific ‘‘tributary 

strategies’’ to achieve targeted pollution reduction goals. Region-wide implementation of these plans’ agricultural components would reduce the excess nitrogen entering the Bay by nearly 65 million pounds annually—approximately 60 percent of the 

reduction needed to restore the Bay and its tributaries. 

A recent Chesapeake Bay Foundation report entitled ‘‘Climate Change and the 

Chesapeake Bay: Challenges, Impacts, and the Multiple Benefits of Agricultural Conservation Work’’, drawing on a study conducted at the Yale School of Forestry and 

Environmental Studies, made the case that more widespread use of common agricultural practices such as planting winter cover crops, establishing riparian buffers, 

and practicing rotational grazing and no-till farming can help to sequester carbon 

while at the same time moderating the effects of adding greenhouse gases to the 

atmosphere. The Yale study estimated that approximately 4.8 million metric tons 

of carbon dioxide would be sequestered annually—the equivalent of mitigating the 

carbon dioxide emissions from residential electricity use across the state of Delaware. On a state-by-state basis, the greatest carbon sequestration benefits would be 

accrued in Virginia—approximately 2.3 of the 4.8 million metric tons. This large 

share is due to the prevalence of forest buffers and restoration programs in the 

Commonwealth’s tributary strategies. In Pennsylvania and Maryland, carbon benefits would come from a broader combination of conservation practices. 

I am aware that farm bill reauthorization is not within the Environment and Public Works Committee’s jurisdiction. However, within the next few weeks, each of you 

will have an opportunity to influence the language of the farm bill on the Senate 

floor, providing you with a powerful opportunity to enhance the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions as you work toward more comprehensive solutions. Providing 

additional technical and financial assistance to farmers to increase the use of common conservation practices such as cover crops and buffers is a win-win strategy 
38 

for the Chesapeake Bay, as well as for the global atmosphere. In fact, enhancing 

carbon sequestration on America’s agricultural lands should be given more prominence as an objective of federal farm policy nationwide. 

As I near the end of my statement, I want to focus particular attention on one 

element of the cap-and-trade bill that Senators Lieberman and Warner are developing. According to discussion papers I have seen, the Lieberman/Warner bill will 

allocate 24% of the proposed National Emission Allowance Account to the Climate 

Change Credit Corporation, rising to 52% over time. These allocations will be auctioned and the proceeds will be used for various purposes, including 10% to help 

mitigate the impacts of climate change on terrestrial wildlife and aquatic wildlife 

in the nation’s great waters. 

Certainly there are many potentially important uses for the funds produced by 

the climate change credit auction, but I want to encourage you to make sure that 

a significant share of the proceeds goes to projects that will help us to protect and 

restore the great multitude of plants and animals that we are destroying through 

our thoughtlessness—or worse. We are causing great harm to the natural world 

through the actions that we take in the service of our prosperous lifestyles. It is only 

appropriate that we do our best to compensate. And, as I have outlined today, the 

Chesapeake Bay ecosystem, already on the brink, will be harmed even more by global climate change. It is critical that some of the proceeds from the credit auction 

go to the nation’s great waters, including the Chesapeake Bay, to address the impacts we are discussing here today. 

In conclusion, I want to simply reiterate that the Chesapeake Bay, an ecosystem 

in serious trouble, will be subject to very significant additional stresses in the coming years from the effects of global climate change. There is much we do not yet 

know, and a great deal of what will happen to the Chesapeake Bay depends on the 

actions that you and other policymakers choose to take, but the outlines are very 

clear. I urge you to work hard over the next few weeks for a 2007 farm bill authorization that allows farmers more ability to address the Bay’s nitrogen and phosphorus problem while at the same time sequestering carbon. As has already been 

recognized by the House of Representatives, the Chesapeake Bay watershed is a 

perfect national pilot area to simultaneously address water quality and carbon sequestration. Above all, I urge to you quickly consider and pass an aggressive capand-trade bill that will begin to force dramatic emissions reductions and provide a 

source of funds to help address the changes that we are already seeing in the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem. 

Thank you once more for the opportunity to be here today. I am happy to answer 

any questions that you might have. 

RESPONSES BY WILLIAM C. BAKER TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR CARDIN

Question 1. In the report on Climate change that CBF released earlier this year, 

you make the point that the actions we take to reduce the emissions will also have 

a positive, immediate impact on the Chesapeake Bay. Would you please take a moment to explain to the Committee the relationship between nitrogen and oxide pollution, global warming and current Bay restoration efforts? 

Response. As you note, one of the purposes of our report on climate change was 

to highlight that many of the actions needed to reduce nitrogen pollution and restore water quality in the Chesapeake Bay will also lead to reductions in greenhouse gas emissions (and vice versa). 1 will give three examples of these dual benefits. 

First, watershed-wide about one-third of the nitrogen pollution to the Chesapeake 

comes from the air, much of it in the from of nitrogen oxides (NOx), a group of compounds formed from the combustion of fossil fuels. Nitrous oxide—one of the ‘‘family’’ of nitrogen oxides—is a very potent greenhouse gas. In addition, as we know, 

the combustion of fossil fuels accounts for the majority of the carbon dioxide that 

is emitted in the U.S. Consequently, actions that reduce our combustion of fossil 

fuels (e.g. energy conservation and efficiency, renewable energy, fuel efficient cars) 

will have multiple benefits, including: (1) a reduction in nitrogen (NOx) pollution 

to the Bay, and (2) a reduction in the emissions of the greenhouse gases nitrous 

oxide and carbon dioxide, to the atmosphere. 

Second, a major source of nitrous oxide is agricultural fertilizer use One of the 

strategies to reduce nitrogen pollution to the Bay is the adoption of enhanced nutrient management practices by Chesapeake Bay farmers. This measure will result in 

less fertilizer use which, in turn, will lead to reduced emissions of nitrous oxide into 

the atmosphere and less runoff of nitrogen fertilizer into the Bay. 
39 

Lastly, in its current degraded state, the Bay itself is a source of greenhouse 

gases. Under oxygen-deprived conditions, greenhouse gases such as nitrous oxide 

and methane are formed in the Bay sediments and eventually released into the atmosphere. If we reduce nitrogen pollution to the Bay and decrease the size of the 

Bay’s dead zones, we will reduce the amount of these gases that are produced. 

Question 2. Sequestering carbon will have to he part of the solution to curbing 

greenhouse gas emissions. Can you please tell the Committee about some of the 

dual benefits we might see through conservation programs in the Farm Bill? 

Response. Implementation of agricultural conservation practices, while often overlooked in policy discussions about reducing greenhouse gases, promises to be doubly 

beneficial for climate change and water quality In the Bay region and beyond. 

Carbon sequestration refers to the net removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere into long-term or permanent terrestrial ‘pools’: living (trees or grasses; roots 

and microbes in the soil), stored in products with long lives such as lumber, or contained as soil carbon. An enormous amount of carbon is stored in the soil and detritus on the soil—the remnants of plants and trees. Agricultural practices can help 

increase these carbon pools. For example, planting streamside buffers results in carbon sequestered in trees or grasses as well as increasing the amount of carbon in 

soil. Traditional fanning techniques, such as plowing, reduce soil carbon levels by 

allowing carbon dioxide to be released into the air, but conservation tillage, where 

traditional plowing and hoeing are replaced with either no, or shallow, tillage exposes less soil to the air, leading to the retention and increase of soil carbon. Furthermore, these practices can be implemented now, while long-term strategies to 

mitigate greenhouse gases are developed and implemented. 

The chart below highlights the greenhouse gas benefits of some agricultural practices that are supported by Farm Bill conservation programs. 

RESPONSES BY WILLIAM C. BAKER TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR INHOFE

Question. As you know, while progress has been made restoring the Bay, the signatories of the 2000 Agreement are no where near completing most of the goals they 

outlined for the Bay. Were the goals and the timeframe realistic? In your view, what 

is the biggest obstacle you are running into? 

Response. The Chesapeake 2000 Agreement (signed in June of 2000 by the States 

of Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania, the federal government, the District of Columbia, and the Chesapeake Bay Commission) set numerous goals and objectives to 

be achieved by the year 2010. The overarching goal is to achieve clean water. This 

is defined as removing the Bay and tributary rivers from the Federal Clean Water 

Act’s Impaired Waters List. Ironically, this simply represents compliance with the 

Federal Clean Water Act of 1972. 
40 

While difficult to believe, very little progress has been made toward achieving this 

goal in spite of a clear knowledge of both the strategy and tactics to meet it. Scientists are consistent in their belief that the Bay states must achieve a 110 million 

pound annual reduction of nitrogen flowing into the system against a baseline of 

year 2000 loadings to meet the goal of dean water and a balanced system, resulting 

in a delisting from the Impaired Waters List. 

This goal was and is absolutely achievable, but not without following sound 

science and putting into place those practices which are proven to be effective. Bottom line, the science, the technology, and even the public support for carrying out 

this work are available. What has been missing is the political will to get the job 

done as promised in the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, sir. It was most eloquent. 

Senator WARNER. Madam Chairman? 

Senator BOXER. Yes, please? 

Senator WARNER. I can assure our colleague that that provision 

is in the bill now, but why don’t you look at it. If it needs a little 

strengthening, let me know. 

Mr. BAKER. Thank you, sir. 

Senator BOXER. That is a very good offer I would not turn down. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. Dr. Christopher Pyke, Member, Chesapeake Bay 

Program’s Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee; Fellow, 

Virginia Institute of Marine Sciences’s Center of Coastal Resources 

Management. Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER R. PYKE, MEMBER, CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM’S SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE; FELLOW, VIRGINIA INSTITUTE OF MARINE SCIENCE’S CENTER OF COASTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT 

Mr. PYKE. Thank you, Chairman Boxer, and members of the 

Committee, thank you for your invitation to discuss the impacts of 

climate change on the Chesapeake Bay. 

In December 2006, the Chesapeake Bay Program asked the staff, 

the Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee, to review research activities, identify critical knowledge gaps, and make recommendations for next steps in addressing climate change. I am 

leading STAC’s response to this, in collaboration with Dr. Ray 

Najjar from Penn State University and a team of coauthors. 

We conclude that climate change is more than a future threat to 

the Chesapeake Bay. The Bay Program partners are making longterm, capital-intensive decisions that are expected to yield results 

for decades into the future. Changes in sea level, temperature, precipitation and other aspects of climate are likely to alter the cost 

and efficacy of these activities. 

Consequently, climate change is an immediate concern for efforts 

to protect and restore water quality and living resources. Researchers have used historic observations to identify a variety of physical 

changes in the Bay, including trends in sea level, temperature and 

precipitation. Modeling studies suggest these trends are likely to 

continue and potentially accelerate. 

While projections of sea level and temperature are relatively well 

constrained, the greatest uncertainty is associated with precipitation. It is important to develop a better understanding of potential 

changes in regional precipitation, particularly the implications of 
41 

potentially unprecedented combinations of temperature and precipitation. 

Environmental monitoring is an essential component of the Bay 

Program and climate change adds to the already critical need for 

monitoring and creates new challenges. Bay Program monitoring 

systems should be designed to detect trends and allow managers to 

differentiate between changes driven by climate and those associated with other sources of degradation or restoration action. 

Climate change also creates new challenges for Chesapeake Bay 

restoration strategies, including two of the most important, including bay-wide water quality regulation and activities to restore living resources. Calculations used to develop water quality regulation are based on carefully selected historical meteorological observations. However, observations and modeling results make it increasingly clear that historic time series are unlikely to be representative of future conditions. Consequently, it is essential to develop and implement new methods for establishing water quality 

regulations that explicitly incorporate climate change. 

Similar considerations apply to efforts to protect and restore living resources. The Bay Program partners should assess the vulnerability of living resource restoration efforts such as eelgrass and 

SAV to climate change and require projects to take steps to promote success under changing conditions. 

The serious implications of climate change for the Bay Program 

lead directly to consideration of potential measures to adapt to 

changing conditions. This is an emerging area of research that has 

received relatively little attention from the scientific community. 

Effective adaptation requires linking resource management and 

monitoring to facilitate changes in practice over time. The Bay Program partners should take action to adapt their management practices to rising sea levels, increasing temperatures, and changing 

precipitation patterns. 

Stepping back, we can identify two general actions that can help 

the Bay Program partners and other stakeholders address these 

challenges. First, recognize that climate change is a component of 

a wide range of decisions associated with water quality regulation, 

living resource restoration, and other issues. The Bay Program 

partners can and should immediately require all major resource 

management decisions to include an assessment with three components. First, identify climatic assumptions. Second, evaluate the 

potential for climate change to undermine or alter these assumptions. And explicitly consider alternative management options that 

are more likely to be resilient and adaptive. 

The second action is to take a leadership role in addressing climate change across the watershed. The Bay Program partners can 

and should develop a bay-wide climate action plan that complements State level climate action plans with a specific emphasis 

on impact and adaptation opportunities relevant to the protection 

and restoration of the Bay. 

In conclusion, it is important to recognize that climate change is 

an immediate concern for the Bay Program. Fortunately, there are 

practical steps the Bay Program partners and other stakeholders 

can take to understand and prepare for changing conditions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pyke follows:] 
42 

STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER R. PYKE, MEMBER, SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE OF THE CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM; FELLOW, CENTER FOR

COASTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT, VIRGINIA INSTITUTE OF MARINE SCIENCE; DIRECTOR OF CLIMATE CHANGE SERVICES, CTG ENERGETICS, INC. 

INTRODUCTION

Chairman Boxer, ranking member Inhofe and members of the Committee: thank 

you for your invitation to address the Committee on the important issue of the impacts of global warming on the Chesapeake Bay. I am Christopher R. Pyke, and I 

currently serve as a member of the Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee for 

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Chesapeake Bay Program (Bay 

Program). I am also a fellow with the Virginia Institute of Marine Science’s Center 

for Coastal Resources Management, and the Director of Climate Change Services for 

CTG Energetics, Inc., a green building and sustainable design consultancy. Previously, I served as a physical scientist with the U.S. EPA’s Global Change Research 

Program, and as a co-chair of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program’s Human 

Contributions and Responses Interagency Working Group. I maintain a long-term 

interest in the implications of climate change for water quality and aquatic ecosystems, and I am actively engaged in a wide range of issues linking land use decisions with climate mitigation, impacts, and adaptation. A brief biography summarizing my professional experience is an attachment to this testimony. 

In response to Chairman Boxer’s letter of invitation, my testimony provides my 

views on the impact of global warming on the Chesapeake Bay with particular emphasis on findings from a report I am coordinating on behalf of the Bay Program’s 

Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee (STAC). Although my remarks draw 

extensively on findings in this forthcoming report, my comments reflect only my own 

professional opinion and they are not necessarily those of the STAC or any other 

organization. 

SUMMARY

Climate change is more than a future threat to the Chesapeake Bay. The Bay 

Program partners are making long-term, capital-intensive decisions that are expected to yield results for decades into the future. Changes in sea level, temperature, precipitation, and other aspects of climate are likely to alter the cost and efficacy of many of these activities. In this context, climate change is an immediate concern for efforts to protect and restore water quality and living resources. The Bay 

Program partners can and should take immediate action to assess the implications 

of changing climatic conditions for their activities and ensure that restoration strategies will be effective under future conditions. 

This outcome can be promoted by immediate action to: 

1. Identify and address climatic assumptions associated with important management and policy decisions (e.g., water quality regulation). 

2. Evaluate the sensitivity of water quality protection, living resource restoration, 

and monitoring strategies to climate change and promote the development and implementation of practices that are resilient and adaptive to changing conditions. 

3. Develop a comprehensive, Bay-wide Climate Change Action Plan that will serve 

as a roadmap to prioritize research and management activities and guide the implementation of adaptive responses. 

INTRODUCTION TO STAC CLIMATE CHANGE STUDY

The Chesapeake Bay Program’s Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee 

(STAC) provides guidance to the Bay Program on measures to restore and protect 

the Chesapeake Bay. STAC accomplishes its mission through technical reports and 

papers, discussion groups, reviews of Bay Program activities, technical conferences 

and workshops, and service by STAC members on Bay Program subcommittees and 

workgroups. STAC reports annually to the Bay Program Executive Council and 

quarterly to the Implementation Committee. STAC is composed of 38 members 

drawn from federal and state agencies, universities, research institutions, and private industry. 

In December 2006, the Chesapeake Bay Program requested that the STAC evaluate current understanding about the implications of climate change for the Chesapeake Bay, specifically the restoration of water quality and living resources. STAC 

was asked to review recent and on-going research activities, identify critical knowledge gaps, and make recommendations for next steps in addressing climate change. 

STAC’s response to this request is being led by Ray Najjar from Pennsylvania 

State University and myself with assistance from a team of co-authors including 
43 

Mary Beth Adams, Denise Breitburg, Carl Hershner, Robert Howarth, Michael 

Kemp, Margaret Mulholland, David Secor, Kevin Sellner, and Robert Wood. 

The forthcoming report will include three sections: 

1. A review of scientific research and literature 

2. An assessment of gaps in understanding and research priorities 

3. Recommendations for next steps 

A draft version of the report is currently under internal review by the STAC, and 

it is scheduled for public release at the end of October 2007. The following comments focus on the second two sections of the report. My testimony draws primarily 

on this study; however, any specific conclusions or interpretations reflect only my 

professional opinions. 

GAPS IN UNDERSTANDING AND RESEARCH PRIORITIES

The STAC review identified four research themes in recent climate change-related 

research associated with the Chesapeake Bay: 

1. Physical drivers of change 

2. Environmental monitoring 

3. Impacts on restoration strategies 

4. Adaptive responses to climate change 

Physical drivers of change 

Climate variability and climate change create challenges for the restoration of 

water quality and living resources in the Chesapeake Bay. Understanding of spatial 

and temporal dynamics associated with physical drivers is essential to effective responses to these challenges. Researchers have identified a variety of physical 

changes through analysis of historic observations, including trends in sea level, temperature, and precipitation patterns. Modeling studies suggest that historic trends 

are likely to continue and potentially accelerate across a wide range of socio-economic scenarios. Projections for sea level and temperature are relatively well constrained. While the greatest uncertainty is associated with one of the most important variables required to understand Chesapeake Bay ecosystems: precipitation. 

Spatial and temporal changes in precipitation patterns can have far-reaching implications for the Bay ecosystems through impacts on watershed hydrology and biogeochemical processes, particularly under warmer temperature regimes. It is essential 

to develop a better understanding of potential changes in regional precipitation and 

the implications of potentially unprecedented combinations of temperature and precipitation. 

Environmental monitoring 

Environmental monitoring is an essential component of the Chesapeake Bay Program. Computer models and simulations are used to develop environmental policy 

and regulation. However, the ultimate success (or failure) of these measures is 

based on real world conditions. Climate change adds to the already critical need for 

monitoring and creates new challenges. Chesapeake Bay monitoring systems must 

be designed to detect long-term trends and allow managers to differentiate changes 

driven by climate from those associated with other sources of degradation (e.g., land 

use) or restoration action. This information is necessary to evaluate the efficacy of 

management actions and accurately attribute the causes of improvement or degradation in ecosystem health and water quality. It is essential that the Bay Program evaluate the consequences of climate change for its existing monitoring systems and ensure that sampling designs provide adequate statistical power to detect 

trends and differentiate sources of improvement or degradation. 

Impacts on restoration strategies 

Understanding of physical drivers of change and consideration for the effectiveness of environmental monitoring help create the foundation of information needed 

to consider one of the most critical questions: What are the implications of climate 

change for the Bay Program’s strategies to restore water quality and living resources? 

Three of the most important strategies include: 

• Bay-wide water quality regulation. 

• State tributary strategies designed to achieve the goals of the Chesapeake 2000 

agreement. 

• Activities to protect and restore living resources, such as submerged aquatic 

vegetation and oysters. 

These strategies are central to the success of the Bay Program, and climate 

change is likely to jeopardize the validity of key assumptions used in current approaches to developing and implementing these strategies. 
44 

For example, calculations used to estimate TMDLs are based on a carefully selected subset of historic meteorological observations. However, observations and 

modeling results make it increasingly clear that these historic time series are unlikely to be representative of future conditions. It is essential to develop methods 

for calculating TMDLs that explicitly incorporate information about changing climatic conditions. 

State partners have developed implementation plans called tributary strategies. 

These documents describe the combination of approaches needed to restore Bay 

water quality. The performance of individual management practices is central to the 

design of tributary strategies, and our understanding about performance is based 

on observations under historic climatic conditions. For example, the ability of 

stormwater detention ponds to capture sediment and remove nutrients varies as a 

function of precipitation volume and intensity. It is increasingly likely that detention pond designs based on historic precipitation requirements may not meet performance goals under future conditions. Many widely-used water quality Best Management Practices are likely to exhibit similar sensitivities. It is important for the 

Bay Program partners to assess the consequences of climate change for the effectiveness of management practices. 

Similar considerations also apply to efforts to address living resources. Restoration efforts rely on understanding of historic relationships between climatic conditions and ecological processes. However, changes in climate are likely to jeopardize 

these relationships. For example, planting of submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV) 

is a major emphasis of the Bay Program; however, SAV is known to be highly sensitive to peak summer temperatures and flow regimes. Climate change is likely to 

alter both of these variables and alter the likelihood of restoration success. Fortunately, it is possible to identify these climatic assumptions and take action to develop more sustainable restoration plans. For example, experience with coral reef 

ecosystems suggests that it is possible to identify resilient sites where local conditions offset regional climatic stresses and increase the likelihood of restoration success. This suggests that restoration activities in the Bay may benefit from efforts 

to identify resilient restoration locations at local and regional scales. The Bay Program partners should assess the vulnerability of living resource restoration efforts 

to climate change and require projects to take specific steps to increase the likelihood of success under changing conditions. 

Adaptive responses 

The serious implications of climate change for the Bay Program lead directly to 

consideration of potential measures to adapt to changing conditions. This is an 

emerging area of research that has received relatively limited attention from the scientific community. 

It is possible to distinguish between resilient and adaptive responses to climate 

change impacts. Resilient responses help increase capacity of systems to respond to 

disturbance and accommodate changing conditions. Resilient responses strive to 

identify opportunities to make decisions more robust to a range of future conditions. 

Adaptive responses attempt to actively incorporate observations and model projections to anticipate and respond to changing conditions. The goal is to adjust management practices to increase the likelihood of success under future conditions. Unfortunately, adaptive approaches are often constrained by current practices locked 

by convention or regulation to historic conditions. For example, standard ‘‘design 

storms’’ are often used to develop stormwater management systems. Observations 

and modeling results clearly suggest that these design storms are unlikely to be representative of future conditions. Consequently, systems based on these specifications 

may fail under future conditions. Adaptation requires identifying these climatic assumptions and taking action to anticipate the consequences of changing conditions. 

This includes creating dynamic linkages between management and monitoring to 

provide feedback and facilitate changes in practice over time. The Bay Program 

partners can and should take action to increase the resilience of their activities to 

uncertain precipitation regimes and begin to adapt their management practices to 

rising temperatures and sea levels. 

NEXT STEPS

Climate change is more than a future threat to the Chesapeake Bay. The Bay 

Program partners are making long-term, capital-intensive decisions expected to 

yield results for decades into the future. In this context, climate change is an immediate concern to the restoration of water quality and living resources. The Bay Program partners can and should take immediate action to assess the implications of 

changing climatic conditions for their activities and ensure that restoration strategies will be effective under future conditions. 
45 

Identifying climatic assumptions and sensitivities 

The Bay Program partners can and should take immediate action to address these 

issues through its existing authorities, responsibilities, and resources. The first, and 

perhaps most important, step is to explicitly recognize that climate change is a component of a wide-range of critical decisions associated with TMDLs, tributary strategies, living resource restoration, and many others. The Bay Program partners can 

and should immediately require all major resource management decisions to include 

an assessment that (1) identifies climatic assumptions, (2) evaluates the potential 

for climatic change to undermine or alter these assumptions, and (3) explicitly considers alternative management options that are more resilient and adaptive. 

Climate Change Action Plan 

An assessment of climatic assumptions and sensitivities provides immediate opportunities for improvement to internal Bay Program decision making processes. 

This is necessary but not sufficient to address the scope of the problem. It is equally 

important for the Bay Program to take a leadership role in addressing climate 

change across the watershed. One mechanism for achieving this is the development 

of a broad-based, Bay-wide Climate Change Action Plan. This Plan would build on 

and complement state-level Climate Action Plans with a specific emphasis on impacts and adaptation opportunities relevant to the protection and restoration of the 

Chesapeake Bay. The preparation of the plan should begin with the foundation of 

information provided by the scientific community and quickly broaden to engage the 

full spectrum of Bay Program partners at Federal, state, and local levels. The plan 

should include a detailed roadmap for research and management action to help the 

Bay Program achieve its mission under changing climatic conditions. The Bay Program partners should take immediate action to promote and support the development of a Climate Change Action Plan. 

Research coordination and leadership 

Improvements to internal decision making and regional coordination are essential 

components for the Bay Program. A third component involves enhancing the flow 

of scientific and technical information from the research community to decision 

makers and managers. Current understanding of the implications of climate change 

for the Chesapeake Bay is sufficient to raise alarm. For example, there are many 

reasons to suspect that water quality regulations are highly sensitive to assumptions about climatic conditions. However, the research community cannot yet provide definite recommendations for how to address these concerns. 

The current body of knowledge reflects a history where research efforts have generally been broad in scope and, with notable exceptions, lacking in depth and duration. This pattern results from several decades of sporadic funding opportunities, 

the lack of institutional commitments, and the absence of widely-recognized research priorities. For example, there is no single research group or institution dedicated to climate change research and applications in the Chesapeake Bay. 

This situation contrasts with a number of regions with strong, long-standing relationships between climate science, public policy, and ecosystem restoration. For example, the Climate Impacts Group (CIG) at the University of Washington is an 

award-winning interdisciplinary research group that works to understand natural 

climate variability and global change to increase the resilience of the Pacific Northwest to fluctuations in climate. The CIG has contributed demonstrably to a foundation of knowledge that supports some of the progressive public policy in the nation 

with regard to climate change (e.g., King County, Washington’s 2007 Climate Plan). 

The Chesapeake Bay would benefit directly from a similar organization. The Bay 

Program partners should take the lead in establishing an entity that links climate 

science, policy, and management throughout the watershed as quickly as possible. 

RESPONSES BY CHRISTOPHER R. PYKE TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

FROM SENATOR CARDIN

Question. What do you think the essential elements of a science program for the 

Chesapeake Bay relative to climate change should be? 

Response. As I outlined in my testimony, climate change is a cross-cutting challenge to the mission of the EPA’s Chesapeake Bay Program and the health of the 

Chesapeake Bay ecosystem. One of the key messages from my testimony is that climate change needs to be considered as part of many important management decisions. The critical issue is that climate change is not a new issue that ‘‘stands apart’’ 

from existing concerns. It is a new challenge applicable to many existing responsibilities. Consequently, I strongly believe that a science program for the Chesapeake 
46 

Bay should be designed and implemented to provide support for decision makers 

and managers trying to understand and respond to changing climatic conditions. In 

other words, a science program for the Chesapeake Bay should be dedicated to the 

provision of effective decision support. 

This should be accomplished through a responsive, collaborative, solutions-oriented applied research program that is guided by the needs of stakeholders, particularly the EPA’s Chesapeake Bay partnership. This science program would constitute 

a climate extension service for the Chesapeake Bay. The success of this kind of activity would be based on successful programs for issues such as soil conservation 

and wildlife management. In these cases. Federal agencies have a long and successful track record of implementing programs that provide direct benefits to key constituencies and positive return-on-invest for society as a whole. These programs are 

often highly decentralized, often embedding extension scientists within universities 

with a mandate to facilitate technology transfer. A similar approach could be devised for the Chesapeake Bay. Ideally, an extension service should strive to create 

a self-sustaining market for climate change services between private parties. In 

other words, decision makers would recognize the need to consider climate change 

in their decision making and hire firms to help with technical analyses. The government can help by providing the foundation of applied research and development 

needed to establish these markets and, when necessary, rules that protect society’s 

interests by requiring consideration for climate change in decision making (see 

McGinty 1997 or Babbit 2001). 

REFERENCES

Babbit, B. 2001. Evaluating climate change impacts in management planning. 

Secretarial Order No. 322, Department of the Interior, January 19, 2001. 

McGinty, K.A. 1997. Guidance regarding consideration of global climatic change 

in environmental documents prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act. Draft memorandum to Heads of Federal Agencies from the Chairman of the 

Council on Environmental Quality, 9 pages. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, sir. 

Dr. Boesch, is that the right way to say it? All right. Dr. Donald 

Boesch, President, University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science. We welcome you. 

STATEMENT OF DONALD F. BOESCH, PRESIDENT, UNIVERSITY 

OF MARYLAND CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE 

Mr. BOESCH. Chairman Boxer and members of the Committee, I 

am very pleased to appear before you today to talk about what we 

know about the impacts of climate change and global warming, and 

what we expect to be happening in the Bay in the future. 

It is especially a rare honor for me today because I have the 

privilege of being here with not only my Congressman, but my two 

Senators and my Governor all at the same time. It is a rare, rare 

occurrence, as you might understand. 

Global climate change is not something in the Chesapeake Bay’s 

future. It is here today. The Bay is warming. Evidence is growing 

that this is the case. We have two long-term records from the Virginia Institute of Marine Science down in Virginia, and our Chesapeake Biological Lab, that we have now put together. They consistently show about a 2 °F increase in the average temperature of the 

Bay since about 1960. This follows and is consistent with the patterns we have been seeing in terms of air temperature over much 

of the Bay watershed, so this is consistent both in observation and 

argument. 

The projections that we can make in the future, of course, in 

terms of temperature in the Bay must be based upon the kinds of 

models that we use to project future climate, which predict air temperature changes. If we use those to understand what the impact 
47 

on the Bay water may be, we could anticipate over this next century an additional 5 to 9 °F increase in average temperature in the 

Bay. 

This comes, of course, all through the year with warmer summers, as well as warmer winters. As was pointed out, this has substantial effects on the organisms that live in the Bay, influencing 

things like eelgrass that Mr. Baker mentioned, a very important 

habitat in the Bay. This plant is near the southern end of its 

range, and is in serious jeopardy as a result of warming. But also 

the timing of things that occur in the Bay, the natural cycles in 

which the food supply for the young striped bass or crabs will be 

changed and thrown out of kilter, sometimes with unpredictable 

consequences. 

Of course, the other concern we have heard much about from our 

Governors is the issue of sea level rise. The Bay has much lowlying territory. It has 8,000 miles of shoreline, and we have very 

extensive areas on the Eastern Shore that are very susceptible. 

Senator Inhofe mentioned in the opening the fact that the sea level 

has been rising a long time in the Chesapeake Bay. In fact, that 

is the case. It rose very dramatically, of course, after the last glacial period of some 300 feet, and flooded the Bay thereby creating 

the Bay that we now appreciate. 

But it has been relatively stable for about 6,000 years. Obviously, 

since the founding of Jamestown Europeans have been occupants 

for only a small part of that period. Indeed, that period of time has 

seen the development of civilization not only here, but in other 

parts of the world. So as we see these changes that take place, they 

will affect not only our natural resources, but also our historical resources, as was pointed out by Governor Kaine. 

Let’s take what we know about the observed rates of sea level 

rise and the best estimates we have from the models that are used, 

for example, in the IPCC assessment. One must understand the 

fact that this region is slowly sinking about one-half foot per century, somewhat more in Hampton Roads, somewhat less in Washington. And then when we add to that the model projections, we 

could well see a 2- to 4-foot increase of sea level this century over 

much of the Chesapeake Bay region. 

Now, 2 to 4 feet, what does that mean? First of all, sea level rise 

will probably be at least twice what we have seen in the last century, which was about 1-foot relative to the land. And it could be 

as much as four times. While this is not the 20-foot inundation that 

you see in some popular animations, but remember this. Sea level 

is not going to stabilize in the year 2100. Sea level will not simply 

rise and then plateau. In fact, because of the lags in the world climate system, it will continue to rise in future centuries. So we 

have to then plan for a future in which we could see major portions 

of our historical Bay cities. 

As was pointed out by both Dr. Pyke and Mr. Baker, we are already dealing with major challenges in the Bay, and we now have 

to factor climate change into it. What we need to do, and I think 

you have heard Governor O’Malley and Governor Kaine now suggest, is to integrate what we are doing to restore the Bay with this 

new threat of climate change. We must find solutions to address 
48 

1 Boesch, D.F., J.C. Field, and D. Scavia. 2000. The Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change on Coastal Areas and Marine Resources. NOAA Coastal Ocean Program Decision Analysis Series Number #21, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Silver 

Spring, MD. 2 Boesch, D.F. and J. Greer. 2003. Chesapeake Futures: Choices for the 21st Century. Chesapeake Research Consortium, Edgewater, MD. 3Pyke, C., R. Najjar, M.B. Adams, D. Breitburg, C. Hershner, M. Kemp, R. Howarth, M. 

Mulholland, K. Sellner, and R. Wood. 2007. Climate Change Research and the Chesapeake Bay. 

Draft. Chesapeake Bay Program Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee, Annapolis, MD. 

climate change also to improve the way we are addressing the 

Bay’s problems and vice versa. 

In addition, as Dr. Pyke indicated, we really need much more attention from Federal agencies that fund the science and the research that we do to help predict regional scale impacts. A recent 

study by the National Research Council emphasized that although 

we have done great as a Nation in leading the world in understanding the climate system on a global scale, we have not emphasized the regional scale. We now need this information to help us 

plan our future. 

So thanks very much for this opportunity. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Boesch follows:] 

STATEMENT OF DONALD F. BOESCH, PROFESSOR AND PRESIDENT, UNIVERSITY OF

MARYLAND CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE, CAMBRIDGE, MD 

Chairman Boxer and members of the Committee, I am Donald F. Boesch and am 

pleased to appear before you today to address what is known about the impacts of 

global warming on the Chesapeake Bay, what future effects are likely, and what can 

be done to address the consequences to this magnificent ecosystem, its living resources and the people who live in the Bay region. This is a special honor for me 

because Maryland’s two senators and our Governor are all here today. 

By way of background, I am a marine ecologist who has conducted research along 

our Atlantic and Gulf coasts and in Australia and the East China Sea. Over 25 

years of my career have been spent studying the Chesapeake Bay or directing scientists who do. Although not a climate scientist, I have been engaged in several assessments of the possible consequences of climate change on coastal environments 

and try to keep closely abreast of the emerging climate change literature. Most notably, I served as co-chair of the Coastal Areas and Marine Resources Sector Team 

for the U.S. National Assessment of Climate Variability and Change1 and as co-editor of the report Chesapeake Futures: Choices for the 21st Century.2 And, currently 

I am serving as chair of the Scientific and Technical Working Group of the Maryland Commission on Climate Change. 

A WARMING BAY

Global climate change is not just something in the Chesapeake Bay’s future. Evidence is building that it has already resulted in changes in the Bay environment 

over the last several decades. Based on long-term records from the piers at the 

Chesapeake’s two historic marine laboratories—extending back to 1938 at my Center’s Chesapeake Biological Laboratory on Solomons Island, Maryland, and to 1948 

at the Virginia Institute of Marine Science at Gloucester Point—it is clear that the 

Bay has been warming. While annual Bay water temperatures have varied in relation to large-scale climate cycles, such as the North Atlantic Oscillation, there has 

been a superimposed warming trend of about 1 °C or nearly 2 °F since the 1960s. 

This is, by the way, consistent with the observed increases in air temperature over 

much of the Bay region during that same time period. 

Because of the close connection of air temperature—the monthly averages rather 

than the daily extremes—and the temperature of Bay waters, the General Circulation Models used to project future climate conditions as a function of increasing 

greenhouse gases provide some insight into further changes in temperature in the 

Bay. Depending on the emission scenarios, these models suggest a 3 to 5 °C (5 to 

9 °F) increase in annual mean temperature by the end of this is century.3 These 

increases in air temperature may be modulated somewhat as water temperatures 

respond, but even if we act today to dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions 
49 

4Wood, R.J., D.F. Boesch, and V.S. Kennedy. 2002. Future consequences of climate change 

for the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem and its fisheries. American Fisheries Society Symposium 

32:171–184. 

Glick, R., A. Staudt, and D. Inkley. 2007. The Chesapeake Bay and Global Warming: A Paradise Lost for Hunters, Anglers and Outdoor Enthusiasts? National Wildlife Federation, Reston, 

VA. 5 Austin, H.M. 2002. Decadal oscillations and regime shifts, a characterization of the Chesapeake Bay marine climate. American Fisheries Society Symposium, 32:155–170. 

Secor, D.H. and R.L. Wingate. In review. A 69 year record of warming in the Chesapeake Bay. 

Fisheries. 6Titus, J.G. and C. Richman. 2001. Maps of lands vulnerable to sea level rise: Modeled elevations along the U.S. Atlantic and Gulf coasts. Climate Research 18:205–228. 

around the world, the Chesapeake Bay is still very likely to experience significant 

additional warming. 

The much warmer waters during the summer and much milder temperatures during the winter would have substantial consequences for the organisms that live in 

the Bay and how this ecosystem works. Species that are already stressed by high 

summer temperatures, such as the eelgrass that provides important habitats in the 

lower Bay, may be greatly reduced or eliminated. Milder winter temperatures are 

likely to open the back door to invaders from warm temperate areas around the 

world who hitchhike into the Bay in ships’ ballast waters. With earlier spring warming the critical timing of spawning of species such as striped bass and blue crabs 

will adjust, potentially out of phase with other processes, such as food production, 

that are critical to the success of their young.4

Mean annual water temperature at the Chesapeake Biological Laboratory (midbay) and the Virginia Institute of Marine Science (lower-bay).5

INUNDATION

The Chesapeake Bay region is one of the areas of the country most sensitive to 

the effects of sea-level rise because of its 8,000 miles of shoreline and extensive, low 

lying areas, particularly on the Eastern Shore.6 Sea level has been rising in the Bay 

for a long time, initially as a result of the melting of glaciers at the end of the last 

ice age. In fact the Bay itself is a series of drowned river valleys, inundated by the 

rise in the ocean levels of over 300 feet 7,000 to 12,000 years ago. Sea level has 

been rather stable in recent centuries, however, rising only slowly as a result of the 

sinking of the land—a slow subsidence of the Earth’s crust that had bulged upward 
50 

7Zervas, C. 2001. Sea Level Variations of the United States, 1854–1999. NOAA Technical Report NOS CO–OPS 36. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring, MD. 8Solomon, S., D. Qin, and M. Manning. 2007. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth 

Assessment Report. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva. 

under the weight of glaciers to the north. Still this has been enough to cause the 

abandonment and, in some cases, disappearance of several islands that had human 

habitation in the 19th and early 20th centuries. 

During the 20th century the Bay level rose a little over one foot relative to the 

land over most areas of the Bay. Accurate tide gauge records at six locations in the 

Bay showed this relative sea-level rise to range from 2.7 mm per year in Washington, DC to 4.5 mm per year in Hampton Roads, Virginia,7 with the difference 

apparently related to differences in subsidence rates. With the rise in the surface 

of the ocean during the 20th century averaging 1.7 mm per year,8 subsidence rates 

vary from 1.0 to 2.9 mm per year and, because this is a slow geological process, are 

expected to remain constant for the foreseeable future. Satellite altimeter measurements suggest that globally the level of the ocean was rising faster, as much as 3.1 

mm per year, during the period 1993 to 2003 than earlier in the century8; although 

this effect is not yet clearly evident in the Chesapeake Bay tide gauge representation of relative sea level because of variation due to winds and other factors. 

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change projected average global rise in 

sea level through the 21st century for different greenhouse gas emission scenarios.8

If one adds to their rates the average regional subsidence rates for the Chesapeake 

Bay of 1.8 mm per year, the projections equate to relative sea level rises by the 

2090–2100 time period of 0.37 to 0.57 meter (1.2 to 1.8 feet) with aggressive reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and 0.44 to 0.73 meter (1.4 to 2.5 feet) if emissions 

continue to grow. However, there are several reasons to believe that these estimates 
51 

9 Rahmstorf, S. 2007. A semi-empirical approach to projecting future sea-level rise. Science 

315:368–370. 10Larson, C., I. Clark, G. Gunterspergen, D. Cahoon, V. Caruso, C. Hupp, and T. Yanosky. 

2004. The Blackwater NWR Inundation Model. Rising Sea Level on a Low-lying Coast: Land Use 

Planning for Wetlands. U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 04–1302 http://pubs.usgs.gov/ 

of/2004/1302/index.html 11 Hilton, T.W., R.G. Najjar, L. Zhong, and M. Li. In review. Is there a signal of sea-level rise 

in Chesapeake Bay salinity? Journal of Geophysical Research. 

might be too low. First, as mentioned earlier, satellite evidence indicates that the 

rise of the global ocean level during 1993–2003 was already much faster than the 

low emissions estimate. Secondly, the IPCC projections excluded acceleration of the 

melting of polar ice sheets and evidence is mounting that the melting of the Greenland ice sheet has accelerated. Recently published empirical projections suggest an 

increase in ocean levels of between 0.5 and 1.3 m,9 which with regional subsidence 

would equate to 0.69 to 1.38 meters (2.1 to 4.8 feet) by century’s end. 

While there remains uncertainty, not only as related to behavior of the climate, 

but also of the level of accumulated greenhouse gases, it appears likely that relative 

sea level in the Chesapeake Bay will rise twice as much during this century than 

it did in the previous century and could rise three or more times as much. This rise 

would probably be measured in several feet, rather than the catastrophic sea level 

rise of 20 feet or more associated with the complete melting of Greenland as depicted in some popular animations. Still, it is important to keep in mind that sea 

level would not simply reach a plateau in 2100 but will continue to rise under almost any emission assumption. Furthermore, a rise in Bay water level of just a foot 

or two will place into jeopardy extensive intertidal wetlands, many of which are already showing deterioration due to inundation,10 and additional low lying islands. 

Sea level rise will have profound, but poorly understood effects on the Bay itself. 

For example, the deepening of the Bay will allow saline ocean water to extend farther up the estuary. Already, this effect seems to be evident in the slight increase 

in salinity when one factors out the effects of freshwater inflow variations and hydrodynamic models project shifts in salinity significant enough to allow oyster diseases to penetrate deeper into the estuary.11
52 

12Boicourt, W.C. 2003. Physical response of Chesapeake Bay to hurricanes moving to the 

wrong side: Refining the forecasts. In K.G. Sellner and N. Fisher (eds.), Hurricane Isabel in Perspective. Chesapeake Research Consortium, Edgewater, MD. 

But the effects will be felt in the built environment as well, as roads, utilities, 

sewerage and drainage systems are threatened with inundation and erosion of developed shorelines and saltwater intrusion into aquifers progress, not only on the 

Eastern Shore and the imperiled communities on Smith and Tangier Islands, but 

also in part of the cities of Hampton Roads, Baltimore, Annapolis, Alexandria and 

the Nation’s Capital itself. 

These effects will be experienced not just through the slow encroachment of mean 

sea level but during the extremes, when storm surges build on top of the inexorably 

slowly rising Bay. For example, in 2003 Hurricane Isabel resulted in storm surges 

up to 9 feet, typically exceeding the maximum recorded levels of a 1933 hurricane, 

which had a very similar trajectory and intensity, by about one foot.12 This is the 

approximate increase in relative sea level over that 70 year interlude. Add to this 

the potential for increased frequency and intensity of tropical cyclones as result of 

warmer ocean waters and there emerges the considerable likelihood of significantly 

increased vulnerability of the Chesapeake Bay’s coastal communities and environments as a result of global climate change. 
53 

13 Hayhoe, K., C.P. Wake, T.G. Huntington, L. Luo, M.D. Schwartz, J. Sheffield, E. Wood, B. 

Anderson, J. Bradbury, A. DeGaetano, T.J. Troy, and D. Wolfe. 2007. Past and future changes 

in climate and hydrological indicators in the US Northeast. Climate Dynamics 28:381–407. 14 Bachelet, D., D.F. Boesch, K.L. Ebi, G.A. Meehl, and R.R. Twilley. 2007. Regional Impacts 

of Climate Change in the United States: Four Case Studies. Pew Center for Global Climate 

Change, Alexandria, VA. 15Government Accountability Office. 2006. Chesapeake Bay Program: Improved Strategies 

Needed to Better Guide Restoration Efforts. GAO–06–614T. Government Accountability Office, 

Washington, DC. 16 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Blue Ribbon Finance Panel. 2004. Saving a National Treasure: 

Financing the Cleanup of the Chesapeake Bay. Chesapeake Bay Program, Annapolis, MD. 17For information on the activities of the Maryland Commission on Climate Change see http:// 

www.mde.state.md.us/air/mccc/ 

WHAT HAPPENS ON LAND MATTERS

As a large, but shallow estuary with limited exchange with the ocean, the Chesapeake Bay is particularly affected by what drains into it from its 64,000 square mile 

watershed. Greatly increased inputs of sediments and nitrogen and phosphorus nutrients as a result of land uses, agricultural inputs and atmospheric fallout are the 

root cause of the deterioration of the Bay during the latter half of the 20th century. 

And, reducing those nutrient and sediment inputs are the main focus of the Chesapeake Bay restoration program. 

Climate change could affect the runoff of nutrients and sediments in a number 

of ways that interact, making prediction of future conditions somewhat difficult. The 

wild card is how climate change will affect precipitation and ultimately river runoff. 

Model projections for precipitation in the Mid-Atlantic region do not have the same 

level of consistency as those for temperature. However, there is considerable agreement for increased precipitation during the winter and spring.13 This would likely 

mean the flushing out of more nutrients through river flow to the Bay during the 

critical January-May time period, exacerbating water quality problems in the Bay, 

particularly summertime oxygen depletion of the deep waters of the Bay or the socalled ‘‘dead zone.’’ 14 On the other hand, models have less agreement in summer 

precipitation, with most predicting little or no overall increase but with most rain 

delivered during intense events that punctuate dry spells. Keeping in mind that 

warmer temperatures mean more evaporation and plant transpiration this would 

suggest significantly less river discharge during the summer, which could further 

allow the salt-water intrusion into the Bay discussed in the context of sea-level rise. 

Compounding these physical phenomena are the human responses, particularly in 

agriculture, to changing energy costs, temperature, soil moisture and water availability. These, as well as the still needed pollution abatement practices, will affect 

the inputs of nutrients in the first place. 

RESTORING THE CHESAPEAKE

Substantial public investments have been made and individual actions taken to restore the Chesapeake Bay. Almost $3.7 billion has been spent on that effort between 1995 and 200415 and it has been estimated that an additional $15 billion will 

be required to achieve the water quality objectives of the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement.16 While some of the changes in the regional climate that are anticipated over 

the remaining century might actually result in improvements in environmental 

quality, the tally sheet of reasonable expectations is heavily tilted toward the detrimental in terms of ecosystem recovery. For example, higher winter-spring runoff 

will require even more efforts to control non-point source pollution in order to receive the same water quality goal for the Bay. The loss of tidal wetlands will reduce 

their natural cleansing capabilities, and so on. 

There are two corollary implications for Bay restoration. First, the impacts of climate change must be factored into restoration goals and actions. No longer should 

this be put off as too hypothetical, too political or too daunting. Second, mitigating 

the causes of climate change to avoid dangerous extreme changes should become 

part of the Bay restoration agenda. 

SEEKING COMMON SOLUTIONS

Integrating climate change mitigation and adaptation with Chesapeake Bay restoration requires the search for common solutions. If considered with an open mind, 

there are opportunities and savings rather than additional costs to be realized. Governor Martin O’Malley has created the Maryland Commission on Climate Change 

to recommend a Plan of Action for mitigating and adapting to climate change.17 The 

Commission has discovered that as practical strategies to reduce the emissions of 

greenhouse gases are developed in other states there are significant net economic 
54 

18 Chesapeake Bay Commission. 2007. Biofuels and the Bay: Getting It Right To Benefit 

Farms, Forests and the Chesapeake Bay. Chesapeake Bay Commission, Annapolis, MD. 19 National Research Council. 2007. Evaluating Progress of the U.S. Climate ChangeScience 

Program: Methods and Preliminary Results. National Academies Press, Washington, DC. 

benefits, although initial investments are usually required to achieve them. Energy 

conservation and emphasizing transportation options that get many of the singleoccupancy vehicles off the roads favor smart growth and reduce impacts to the Bay. 

At the same time, we need to mitigate if not avoid apparent solutions to the fossil 

fuel dependence that result in additional degradation of the Bay. In that vein, the 

rapid increase in growing corn, which has high fertilizer requirements and concomitant nutrient losses, to produce ethanol is particularly troublesome,18 particularly 

when, on careful inspection, this seems to produce few if any net reductions in 

greenhouse gas emissions. 

SOUND SCIENTIFIC GUIDANCE

To accomplish this integrated approach to Bay restoration and climate change 

mitigation and adaptation will require innovative and rigorous science to understand both the synergistic as well as the antagonistic interconnections. While the 

Chesapeake Bay has a robust scientific community actively engaged in supporting 

Bay restoration, there is a critical need to build capacity in research, monitoring 

and assessment related to the consequences of regional climate change. This is 

largely because the federal science agencies have not invested much in this area. 

In a recently released review of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program, the National Research Council19 concluded that: 

• Discovery science and understanding of the climate system are proceeding well, 

but use of that knowledge to support decision making and to manage risks and opportunities of climate change is proceeding slowly. 

• Progress in understanding and predicting climate change has improved more at 

global, continental, and ocean basin scales than at regional and local scales. 

• Our understanding of the impact of climate changes on human well-being and 

vulnerabilities is much less developed than our understanding of the natural climate 

system. 

The Chesapeake Bay Program’s Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee3 has 

prepared a review and agenda to support the practical understanding of regional climate change that could serve as a blueprint for the needed federal investments. 

However, we are not in this predicament alone—other regions of the country face 

similarly daunting challenges in assessing and responding to their climate future. 

As I mentioned at the beginning, over seven years ago I contributed to the U.S. 

National Assessment of Climate Variability and Change, performed under Congressional mandate. Unfortunately, we have lost much the intervening time—a critical 

period of time when one considers the pace of climate change and the immediacy 

of decisions that will be required—when informed regional assessments and response strategies could have been developed. I urge Congress to make up for this 

lost time by authorizing and supporting the regional studies of regional climate dynamics and ecosystem and social responses that are needed to manage our future 

wisely. 

RESPONSES BY DONALD F. BOESCH TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

FROM SENATOR CARDIN

Question 1. What do you think the essential elements of a science program for 

the Chesapeake Bay relative to climate change should be? 

Response. As summarized during the hearing by Dr. Christopher Pyke, the Scientific and Technical Advisory Committee of the Chesapeake Bay Program is near 

completion of a report Climate Change Research and the Chesapeake Bay that discusses the status of research in four research themes: physical drivers of change, 

environmental monitoring, impacts on restoration strategies, and adaptive strategies. The STAC report notes that, in particular, there is a low level of attention to 

the impacts on restoration strategies and to adaptive strategies. I would agree that 

a Chesapeake Bay science program relative to climate change should have an essential guiding focus on how climate change will affect our efforts to restore the Bay 

and on informing the policies and actions for adapting to the inevitable change we 

will experience in the 21st century. Given that, there are several questions that 

seem to me to be critically important at the start: 
55 

(a) How will likely changes in precipitation and evapotranspiration interact with 

projected land use changes to affect the flow of fresh water, nutrients and sediments 

into the Chesapeake estuary? 

(b) How will likely sea-level rise and the resulting deepening of the Bay affect circulation, the distribution of salinity, groundwater intrusion, stratification, hypoxia, 

and sedimentation? 

(c) How will tidal wetlands and shorelines respond to likely acceleration in sealevel rise and what are the most effective measures that can be taken to avoid or 

minimize negative impacts to natural environments and human infrastructure? 

(d) How will likely increases in temperature and its seasonal timing affect ecologically and economically organisms, potential invasive species and key biogeochemical processes in the Bay? 

(e) To what degree will increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere result in 

acidification of Bay waters and what will be the ecological consequences of such 

changes? 

Question 2. Can you take a moment to explain how you would see an ‘adaptive 

management’ program working the Chesapeake region as we deal with the evolving 

effects of global warming? 

Response. More effective application of adaptive management is required for 

Chesapeake Bay restoration in order to cross-compare model projections on which 

restoration measures are based with real-world, observed outcomes. This would 

allow more rigorous evaluation of the effectiveness of restoration efforts, appropriate 

redirection and redesign, and ultimately much greater efficiencies. This is essentially the point made in the Government Accountability Office’s 2005 report Chesapeake Bay Program: Improved Strategies are Needed to Better Access, Report, and 

Manage Restoration Progress. (GAO 06–96). Adaptive management is also useful 

when changes in environmental and socioeconomic conditions occur and, thus, will 

be applicable in our efforts to adapt to climate change. For example, as we prepare 

for likely sea-level rise and river discharges over the planning horizon for Chesapeake Bay restoration, it is prudent to forecast how these changing conditions are 

likely to affect the attainment of restoration goals and either adjust the goals or 

measures (e.g. nutrient loading reductions) need to achieve them. Monitoring feeds 

into this iterative process not only realistic assessment of goal attainment but also 

information about the changing environment. 

What adaptive management cannot do is manage global warming. That is, we 

cannot monitor sea level, for example, until we observe a substantial acceleration 

in its rise and then decide to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The residence times 

of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are too long and the responses in Earth’s 

climate systems are too slow for that. Rather, our mitigation strategies must be anticipatory, precautionary and robust. 

Question 3. In your experience around the nation, especially in Louisiana and 

other coastal areas, are they facing the same challenges? Are actions we are discussing important just to the Chesapeake, or are they equally applicable around the 

country? 

Response. Coastal regions are among the most sensitive areas of the world to climate change as they are directly affected by sea-level rise but also are impacted by 

changes in the frequency and intensity of cyclones and other storms, temperature, 

and freshwater inflows. No coastal regions on Earth are immune to these effects and 

some effects, such as in coastal regions of the Arctic that are rapidly eroding due 

increased wave attack as sea-ice cover is reduced, are already quite dramatic. Coastal regions will vary to some degree in their susceptibility to climate change—compare steep, rocky shorelines to the low-relief coastal environments of Maryland’s 

Eastern Shore of Louisiana, for example. And, coastal ecosystems may be more or 

less vulnerable to other climate related changes—river flow or temperature, for example. Actions taken to mitigate the increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and thus reduce global warming are of consequence to all coastal regions of 

the country. However, the steps taken to adapt to inevitable changes will vary considerably depending on the important dynamics, drivers, and vulnerabilities of the 

region. One might think, for example, that a region like coastal Louisiana with its 

high rates of land subsidence, already degraded wetlands, and exposure to hurricanes may have few adaptation options. But, that region has the substantial capacity of Mississippi River sediments that could be managed to offset relative sea-level 

rise that other regions do not. 

Question 4. Can you explain to the Committee the relationship you see between 

the global scientific efforts to understand and deal with global warming and the 

more regional understanding that is needed for areas like the Chesapeake? What 
56 

is a reasonable scale, both geographically and in time, for us to understand and respond to climate change? 

Response. Global climate change is being effected by processes in the atmosphere 

and the ocean that are global in scale, thus scientists have worked to develop global 

models of geophysical processes that help explain the changes that have been observed and project the changes that we are likely to experience based on current 

understanding. These models are the basis of the climate change projections made 

by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and conclusions about 

the reduction in emissions needed to stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations and 

thus the degree of climate change. These models are necessarily of global scope and 

thus, for practical reasons, do not resolve much detail at the scale of the Chesapeake Bay, its watershed, or the Mid-Atlantic region, for that matter, and consequently only fairly coarse regional projections are provided in the IPCC report. 

Furthermore, these models are unable to incorporate climatic dynamics that might 

operate on such region, as opposed to global scales. Furthermore, additional scientific efforts are required to interpret the consequences of the climate changes on 

regional ecosystems, resources and socioeconomic conditions. 

As the National Research Council (NRC) recently pointed out in its report Evaluating Progress of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program: Methods and Preliminary Results, the U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) has done a very 

good job at keeping the U.S. at the leading edge of discovery science and understanding of the Earth’s climate system at global, continental and ocean basin scales, 

but has been much less effective in predicting climate change at regional and local 

scales. Furthermore, the NRC found that the CCSP has lagged in advancing the use 

of that knowledge to support decision making and to manage risks and opportunities of climate change. This is beyond regretable because the congressionally mandated U.S. National Assessment completed in 2001 (Climate Change Impacts in the 

United States: The Potential Consequences of Climate Variability and Change) included very useful regional assessments that provide a solid basis for the science 

needed to improve regional understanding. In my opinion, the delay by the Federal 

government over the last six years in accepting the reality of global climate change 

resulted in avoiding the kinds of scientific investments needed to deal with the consequences of climate change in places where we live. I strongly support the NRC’s 

recommendations that such investments are now urgently needed. 

The space and time scales that must be addressed for understanding and response 

are in an important sense nested. Improving understanding at the regional scale, 

say on the scale of the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed, is a weak link at this 

time. However, this understanding will depend on continued development of our 

skill in making projections on a global scale. Furthermore, understanding and response will also be required on a very local scale, for example judging how sea-level 

rise and storm surges will affect vulnerability in downtown Baltimore. In the same 

vein, we need to develop the understanding to make more confident projections over 

this century, the principal time scale that the IPCC and U.S. National Assessment 

addressed, but we also need to understand the longer term changes that will occur 

as a result of actions during this period (e.g. sea level will continue to rise over hundreds of years as a result of the amount of 21st century warming that occurs). And, 

at the same time we will need to better understand whether anomalies that we see 

in one or a few years—this year’s drought in the southeast or the 2005 hurricane 

season—are manifestations of climate change or just natural variability. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Doctor. 

At this point, before we hear from Dr. Avery and the rest of the 

panelists, I am going to hand the gavel over to Senator Cardin because I have an urgent meeting. I am hoping to get back, but if 

I don’t get back, just understand that you have an ally in this California Senator, and I am sure in the other California Senator as 

well. We share a common set of values based around our water resources, and we face similar challenges. You know that. 

I just wanted to ask unanimous consent to place in the record an 

article that talks about what is happening in Greenland. Senator 

Inhofe and I have this go-around every time we have one of these 

hearings. And so I just wanted to make sure in the record goes this 

article, which points out that over the past 20 years the air temperature in southeast Greenland has risen by 3 °C. That is 6 °F. 
57 

As we all know, because the three of us went, you could actually 

see the ice move if you stay in one place. Every hour you just see 

the ice move and these magnificent icebergs floating in the Atlantic. It is one of the most awesome sights that I have ever seen. I 

think I speak for all of us. Knowing that the average age of this 

ice is 9,000 years, and it is going to disappear in 1 year from the 

time it breaks off into the Atlantic. 

So it is quite an awesome sight, and I recommend that anybody 

interested in the subject make that trip. It is very much worthwhile. So we will place that in the record, without objection. 

[The referenced document follows on page 107.] 

Senator BOXER. Again, I want to say to Senator Mikulski, you 

have added immeasurably to our discussion today, and we are partners in this whole fight against global warming. I am just so honored that you spent your time with us, given all of the requirements on your time. 

Senator Cardin, the gavel is yours. 

Senator CARDIN [Presiding]. Senator Boxer, we thank you for 

making this hearing possible. We think it is very important for our 

Country to understand the practical effects of global warming to 

the Chesapeake Bay region. You have given us the opportunity to 

have this hearing. Senator Mikulski and Senator Warner and I all 

thank you for making that possible. 

Senator MIKULSKI. Senator Boxer, I, too, want to echo my support because by focusing on the Chesapeake Bay, we want to bring 

home the impact of global warming on our own people. Number 

one, that it has real consequences to people, as you are going to 

hear about a waterman’s family, and particularly to our economy 

and to our national security, as Senator Warner has indicated. 

So we thank you and I thank you for your courtesy in having me. 

We hope to see our science bill in Commerce, Justice, Science on 

the floor as part of the October group, and we look forward to your 

participation to show how important what we do is. Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. You can count on my support. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you. 

We will now hear from Dennis Avery. He is Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute; Director, Center for Global Food Issues. 

STATEMENT OF DENNIS T. AVERY, SENIOR FELLOW, HUDSON 

INSTITUTE; DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR GLOBAL FOOD ISSUES 

Mr. AVERY. Thank you, Senator. I am also the coauthor of a new 

book entitled ‘‘Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years.’’ 

The book is about the 1,500 year climate cycle that was discovered 

in 1984 in the Greenland ice cap ice cores by two gentleman named 

Dansgaard and Oeschger. 

Over the last 11,000 years of the planet’s history, the 1,500 cycle 

has dominated our temperatures. The Vostok ice core in the Antarctic indicates nearly 600 of these cycles in the last million years. 

Each one raised the temperatures in the Bay region by one to 3 °C 

above the mean for centuries at a time, and then dropped the Bay 

region temperatures 1 to 3 degrees below the mean for centuries 

more. The flora and the fauna quietly adapted. 

We may not like the stress. We may not like the change, but it 

has been with us. By the way, Dansgaard and Oeschger shared the 
58 

Tyler Prize, the environmental Nobel, in 1996, but today nobody 

wants to discuss the cycle they found, almost no one. 

Thankfully, Senator Mikulski’s people have sponsored Tom 

Cronin of the U.S. Geological Survey, who studied the magnesium 

and calcium ratios in the Bay sediments. He found temperature 

shifts of 2 to 4 °C associated with the Little Ice Age, the Medieval 

Warming, the Dark Ages, the Roman Warming, and presumably 

would have found them in previous years if the Bay had been alive 

that long. 

Deborah Willard, also of the USGS, found a 1,429 year cycle in 

the abundance of the Bay’s pine trees, associated with winter temperature declines of as much as 2 °C. She also found very long 

drought periods near the Bay during both the Roman Warming and 

the Medieval Warming. Again, we may not like these changes, but 

whatever we do on energy policy is unlikely to trump the sun. 

The temperatures of the modern warming are well within the parameters of past natural warming cycles. Our temperatures have 

increased about .7 degrees since 1850. About five tenths of that occurred before 1940, and thus much before much human-emitted 

CO2. Our net warming since 1940 is two-tenths of a degree Celsius, 

and we have had no warming at all since 1998. 

A warming of .1 degrees over 65 years is not much, especially 

while the atmosphere has been becoming increasingly saturated 

with atmospheric CO2. The only place we see radical warming is 

in the unverified computer models whose early predictions have already proven inaccurate. Nor will sea levels rise much. Higher temperatures evaporate more ocean water, but they also drop more 

snow to become more ice on Greenland and the Antarctic. 

Neils Reeh of the University of Denmark reports a broad consensus among sea level experts that another degree of warming, 

which would more than double the warming we have had in the 

last 150 years, would melt enough Greenland ice to raise sea levels 

three tenths to seven tenths of a millimeter per year. At the same 

time, it would add enough Antarctic ice to subtract two tenths to 

seven tenths of a millimeter of sea level per year, leaving us with 

very little sea level change. The 6 inches per century that we have 

had in the last 400 or 500 years may be a good guess for the future. We have seen no acceleration since 1850. 

No wild species has been found anywhere in the world to have 

gone extinct because of the higher temperatures. Instead, the tree 

and plant species, the birds, butterflies, crickets and mammals 

have been expanding their interlocking ranges, creating more biodiversity per acre than the planet has seen for 500 years. The 

birds, fish, and mammals of the Chesapeake Region have quietly 

adapted to the temperature and rainfall changes associated with 

the cycle. Again, they may not be the changes we would prefer, but 

I seriously question our ability to stop them. 

Fossil pollen shows nine complete reorganizations of North 

America’s trees and plants during the past 14,000 years. That is 

a cycle of 1,650 years. The number of pine trees varies with the 

cold. The distribution of the fish species changes with the cold. The 

one thing I can see that we might impact at this moment is the 

distribution of corn plants on the Eastern Shore and Western 

Shore of the Chesapeake Bay. The biofuels program is greatly in-
59 

1 Nasif Nahle, (2007) ‘‘Warmer than current periods in the Holocene epoch,’’ Biology Cabinet, 

biocab.org/Holocene.html.,. 2W. Dansgaard, et al, (1984), ‘‘North Atlantic Climatic Oscillations Reveled by Deep Greenland Ice Cores,’’ in Climate Processes and Climate Sensitivity, F.E. Hansen, ed., Geophysical 

Monograph 29, 28–98, American Geophysical Union, Washington, D.C. 

tensifying corn production and may be intensifying pollution problems in the Bay as a result. That is one thing that we could rein 

in, even though we can’t control the sun. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Avery follows:] 

STATEMENT OF DENNIS T. AVERY, HUDSON INSTITUTE, DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR

GLOBAL FOOD ISSUES

Thank you for the opportunity to present this testimony on a vital public issue. 

NO HUMAN IMPACT ON CHESAPEAKE TEMPERATURES?

The first point I must make is that we cannot document any significant current 

impact from man-made warming on the Chesapeake Bay. Nor are we likely to do 

so in the future. A number of recent studies have found incontrovertible evidence 

of a long, moderate natural global climate cycle—which has periodically raised the 

temperatures of the Chesapeake to higher levels than today, and for extended periods. Quite simply, the Bay has been through higher temperatures before, and will 

be again. The flora and fauna have also been through these warmer periods, and 

adapted. That is fortunate, because the natural climate cycle is apparently driven 

by the sun, and the warmings are unstoppable. 

Previous Bay warmings include the Medieval Warming (950–1300), the Roman 

Warming (200 BC–600 AD), and at least two earlier Holocene Warmings since the 

last Ice Age 12,000 years ago, that were regarded by paleontologists as warmer than 

today by several degrees C.1

These natural warmings, and the coolings interspersed with them, are called 

Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles. The cycles are named after their discoverers, Willi 

Dansgaard of Denmark and Hans Oeschger of Switzerland, who found them when 

they brought up the world’s first long ice cores from the Greenland ice cap in 1983, 

the Greenland ice cores revealed the 1,500-year cycles for the first time, embedded 

in 250,000 years of Greenland ice history. (Oxygen isotopes in the ice layers documented the air temperatures that existed when each layer was laid down.)2 The cycles had been too long, and too moderate, to be discerned by peoples lacking thermometers and written records. 

Since the 1980s, the evidence of these cycles has also been found in a 900,000- 

year Antarctic ice core; in the sediments of at least six oceans and hundreds of 

lakes; in cave stalagmites on every continent plus New Zealand; in ancient documents in Europe and Asia; in the long-term records of Nile floods; and in archeological remains, which show farms and primitive villages simultaneously moved up 

the slopes of the Alps and Andes during the warmings, and back down during the 

coolings. 

Fossil pollen shows nine complete reorganizations of North America’s trees and 

plants during the past 14,000 years, in concert with the temperature cycling. In Ontario, this means that beech trees dominated the forests during the Medieval Warming, giving way to more oak trees as the Little Ice Age set in, and finally yielding 

to more pine trees as the cold intensified. Today, the oak trees are coming back and 

the beech trees are waiting their next turn. 

Both seabed sediments and ice cores show the Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles extending back at least 1 million years, and dominating the earth’s temperatures during 

the last 11,000 years. Incidentally, Dansgaard and Oeschger shared the 1996 Tyler 

Prize (the ‘‘environmental Nobel’’) with Claude Lorius, leader of the Antarctic team 

that brought up the Vostok ice core, so the cycle evidence is well-known to the environmental movement. 

I have co-written a new book, with climate expert Fred Singer, titled 

Unstoppbable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years. It cites peer-reviewed studies, 

authored and co-authored by more than 500 scientists and published in leading scientific journals, which (1) found evidence of the natural cycle, (2) linked it to the 

sun’s variations, or (3) found some other serious flaw in the current global warming 

alarmism, such as the loss of 1 million wild species or radically increased human 

deaths. The researchers’ scientific specialties range from tree rings, lichens and marine fossils to public health and satellite imagry. There are many more such studies 
60 

3T.M. Cronin, et al., (2003), ‘‘Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age and 20th Century temperature variability from Chesapeake Bay,’’ Global and Planetary Change 36: 17–29. 4D.A. Willard, et al., (2005), ‘‘Impact of millennial-scale Holocene climate variability on eastern North American terrestrial ecosystems: pollen-based climatic reconstruction,’’ Global and 

Planetary Change 47:17–35. 

which the book did not cite, and we plan to identify more of them and their authors 

in the near future. 

The Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles are moderate above all. They have typically 

warmed the earth by 1–2 °C above the long-term average, and then dropped it by 

1–2 degrees below the long-term average at the latitude of Washington and the 

Chesapeake. Arctic temperatures vary more widely, which may or may not stress 

the polar bears but seems inevitable. The shifts from warm to cool and back are 

often abrupt, gaining half their total change within a few decades. Near the equator, 

temperatures change little, but rainfall patterns change sharply, as the tropical rain 

belts shift north and south by hundreds of miles. This shift in the rain belts has 

produced mega-droughts in California and very long droughts in the Chesapeake region. 

All of the current global warming evidence today is consistent with our Modern 

Warming being a natural rebound from the Little Ice Age. Our total warming since 

1850 is apparently just 0.7 °C. The only place we find dramatically dangerous manmade warming is in the projections of the global computer models—which have been 

verified with each other, but not with the real world. The models have consistently 

overestimated the Greenhouse effect, and the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been slowly and reluctantly reducing its warming forecasts over 

time. 

This moderate climate cycle has raised the Chesapeake’s temperatures higher 

than today as recently as 5,000 years ago. Thus, we can hardly call today’s temperatures an ‘‘unprecedented’’ or ‘‘unnatural’’ threat to wild species. Rather, today’s temperatures should be regarded as ‘‘within the normal range’’ of the ecosystem, and 

the responses of the Bay’s plants and animals as ‘‘normal’’ adaptations. 

RECENT STUDIES OF THE BAY’S LONG-TERM TEMPERATURE HISTORY

In 2003, T.M. Cronin and his research team used the magnesium/calcium ratios 

in Chesapeake Bay sediment cores to document rapid temperature shifts—2–4 °C 

within 100 years—in past Chesapeake Bay temperatures.3 These big shifts occurred: 

(a) 150 years ago in 1850 AD 

(b) 400 years ago in 1600 AD 

(c) 650 years ago in1350 AD 

(d) 950 years ago in 1050 AD 

(e) 1600 years ago in 400 AD and 

(f) 2100 years ago in 100 BC. 

The big, sudden temperature changes reflect the Roman Warming, the Dark Ages, 

the Medieval Warming and the Little Ice Age. Nothing would be more ‘‘natural’’ 

than the Little Ice Age being followed by another warming. 

Cronin and his colleagues noted that the temperatures of the 20th century were 

2–3 °C higher than those in the previous 2000 years. However, they did not comment on the Holocene warmings, which other authors have found to be as much as 

6 degrees warmer than any of the more recent cycles in the Arctic (with somewhat 

lesser temperature elevations at lower latitudes). 

Debra Willard of the U.S. Geological Survey and a research team in 2005 used 

pollen from Bay seabed sediments to reconstruct the Bay’s temperature history for 

the past 10,000 years.4 Her team identified a 1429-year cycle in the abundance of 

the Bay’s pine trees, associated with winter temperature declines of up to 2 °C. The 

most recent of these cycles correlates with the Little Ice Age. This is consistent with 

the findings of the Cronin team. 

Willard and her authors note that the climate cycle fits well with a similar cycle 

in the ‘‘solar isotopes’’ (carbon14 in trees and beryllium10 in ice). The solar isotope 

cycle, in turn, correlates closely with temperature proxy cycles found in Greenland 

ice by Dansgaard in 1984 and by Colombia University’s Gerard Bond in North Atlantic ice-rafted glacial debris in 2001. All are thus tied to cyclical changes in solar 

activity. 

In 2003, Dr. Willard had used the fossils of tiny marine organisms and the pollen 

from long-dead trees to construct a record of rainfall in the Chesapeake region for 

the last 2300 years. The authors found very long dry periods (1) during the Roman 

Warming, from 200 BC to 300 AD, and (2) during the Medieval Warming, from 800 
61 

5Willard, et al., (2003), Late Holocene climate and ecosystem history from Chesapeake Bay 

sediment cores, USA,’’ The Holocene 13: 201–214. 6 N.K. Johnson, (1994), ‘‘Pioneering and Natural Expansion of Breeding Distributions in Western North American Birds,’’ Studies in Avian Biology 15: 24–44. See also E. Pollard et al., 

(1995), ‘‘Population Trends of Common British Butterflies at Monitored Sites,’’ Journal of Applied ecology 32: 9–16. 

AD to 1200 AD.5 These droughts were due to the north-south movement of the tropical rain belts as part of the Dansgaard-Oeschger cycling. 

The Willard study also found decade-long dry periods during the Little Ice Age, 

between 1320–1400 and 1525–1650. One of these may have eliminated the ‘‘lost’’ 

British colony established on North Carolina’s Roanoke Island in 1587, during the 

most extreme growing-season drought in 800 years. The Jamestown colony also had 

bad weather luck, arriving in 1607, during the driest 7-year period in 770 years. 

All of these Chesapeake droughts seemed to reflect much more serious and simultaneous droughts in the Southwestern U.S., including southern California. California’s Medieval-Warming droughts have been well-publicized by Scott Stine of California State University. 

THE ‘‘NEW MATH’’ OF GLOBAL WARMING

The temperatures of the Modern Warming are well within the parameters of past 

natural warmings and coolings. The earth has probably warmed about 0.7 °C since 

1850, but about 0.5 °C of the warming occurred before 1940, before significant 

human emissions of CO2. The pre-1940 warming can, therefore, be credited to the 

natural cycle. 

The net warming since 1940 is a tiny 0.2 degrees, over more than 60 years, during 

which the atmosphere has become increasingly saturated with CO2. (After saturation, no more CO2 be retained in the air around us or have a Greenhouse impact.) 

Logic would indicate that human emissions can be credited for half of that warming 

or .1 degree. It is difficult to assign any significant climate change in the Chesapeake to human-emitted fossil fuels. 

We have had no additional warming since 1998, though CO2 levels in the atmosphere have continued to soar. 1934 is still the warmest year of the last century, followed closely by 1998 and 1921, which emphasizes how moderate our warming has 

been. The solar index has recently turned sharply downward and the temperatures 

are likely to follow. None of this guarantees that there will be no further warming, 

but indicates further warming is likely to be moderate. 

If human emissions can logically claim only 0.1 degree of warming over 65 years, 

then the climate models are claiming too high a Greenhouse sensitivity for the atmosphere. There is certainly no published evidence to support the current high 

numbers. The climate has never warmed anywhere near as much as the IPCC’s 

original forecasts, even with the documented assistance of the current DansgaardOeschger warming. 

SPECIES ADAPTATION

It is important to note that no wild species extinction has yet been tied to the 

rise in earth temperatures since 1850. A claim was made that the Golden Toad, 

which lived in a Costa Rican cloud forest, went extinct due to higher sea surface 

temperatures. However, the loss of the Golden Toad has now been blamed on the 

clearing of the once-forested mountainsides below its cloud forest home, which altered the cloud-forest moisture conditions. 

Biologist Chris Thomas of Great Britain has claimed that the world would lose 

more than a million wild species due to the projected speed and scope of modern 

global warming, but this claim is literally incredible. 

In the first place, the record of past Dansgaard-Oeschger cycles indicates that 

they are typically abrupt. Yet most of our wild species ‘‘body types’’ date back about 

600 million years and are still going strong. 

In the second place, the shifts in ecosystems are not likely to be abrupt. Most 

trees and plants are cold-limited but they are not heat-limited. Stand replacement 

of trees must await fires or disease outbreaks to clear a path for the invading species to take over. Thus, the current warming is encouraging the vegetation to gradually expand ranges, and the associated fauna have the same opportunity. Study 

after study, around the world, shows more biodiversity in our forests and wild 

meadows today than have resided in them for centuries.6

Thirdly, Dr. Thomas himself has documented wild species’ adaptations to the 

warming. He has reported on butterflies colonizing ‘‘new types of habitat’’ during 

the warming, and bush crickets producing more offspring with longer wings, the bet-
62 

7 Chris Thomas, et al. (2001) ‘‘Ecological and Evolutionary Processes at Expanding Range 

Margins,’’ Nature 411: 577–81. Have the species adapted before? They must have. Does the 

polar bear have adaptation strategies too? That also seems certain. Even though the polar bear 

is a relatively recent offshoot of the grizzly bear, it goes back some 200,000 years. 8 J. Stone et al.,(2003), ‘‘Holocene Deglaciation of Marie Byrd Land, West Antarctica,’’ Science 

299: 99–102 9W. Munk, ‘‘Ocean Freshening, Sea Level Rising?’’ Science 300 (2003): 2014–43. 

10 N. Reeh, ‘‘Mass Balance of the Greenland Ice Sheet: Can Modern Observations Methods Reduce the Uncertainty?’’ Geografiska annaler 81A (1999): 735–42. 

ter to reach new territories.7 We have already seen dramatic evolutions of wild species, including tolerance for massive quantities of cadmium by mudworms in the 

Hudson River near a battery factory, and insects quickly developing tolerance for 

synthetic pesticides. 

NOT MUCH SEA LEVEL RISE

Much has been made of the potential of the current warming to melt the Greenland and Antarctic Ice Caps, dramatically raising sea levels. That would certainly 

impact the Chesapeake. However, it takes 80 times as much heat to melt an ice 

cube as it does to raise the temperature of the water from that ice cube 1 degree. 

Recently, we have seen estimates that the Arctic ice has been radically reduced in 

extent—but the extent of Antarctic ice has simultaneously risen to amazing levels. 

Warmer temperatures melt more glacier ice, but they also evaporate more water 

from the oceans, much of which falls again as snow on the ice caps. More snow becomes more ice, and the Antarctic is currently adding billions of tons of ice per year, 

mostly on the ultra-cold East Antarctic Ice Sheet. This ice is too cold to melt. It 

flows downhill virtually in solid blocks, based on the slope of the underlying mountains. It has been flowing at about the same rate for 10,000 years, and that rate 

has not accelerated during our warming. It would take another 7000 years to get 

rid of that ice at current rates, according to John Stone of the University of Washington.8

Walter Munk of the Scripps Oceanographic Institute reports that glacial melting 

due to higher 20th-century temperatures can account for only four inches per century of sea level rise9 Neils Reeh of the University of Denmark reports a ‘‘broad consensus’’ that another 1 degree of warming would increase the melting of Greenland’s 

ice sheet only enough to raise sea levels 0.3 to 0.77 inches—while the additional ice 

in Antarctica would subtract 0.2 to 0.7 mm per year.10

THE EMERGING DANGERS OF GRAIN-BASED ETHANOL

If humans have not significantly changed the Bay’s temperatures, they have certainly had other impacts on it. The Willard authors note that European colonization 

had severe impacts on the watershed and estuary. Forest clearance and farming altered estuarine water quality, with the fossils indicating less dissolved oxygen and 

increased turbidity. The Willard data also show another drop in the Bay’s water 

quality after 1950, when the fossils indicate water-quality changes associated with 

increased urbanization, more hypoxia, and more fertilizer use. 

A new element of man-made danger now threatens the Bay for the first time, and 

it is a direct result of our concern about burning fossil fuels. The Federal government has adopted a mandate to produce 35 billion gallons of ethanol per year to 

help achieve ‘‘energy independence’’ without increasing gasoline use. Unfortunately, 

America has only corn with which to produce the ethanol, and corn yields only about 

50 gallons worth of gasoline per acre per year—against annual gasoline demand of 

more than 134 billion gallons. 

Ethanol’s demand for corn has already doubled corn prices, and has bid farming 

acres away from soybeans, wheat, and cotton. The whole price structure for commodities and farmland has been wrenched upward, causing street riots in Mexico 

over tortilla prices and China’s canceling of further expansion in its ethanol program due to food price inflation. Food prices make up a full one-third of the Chinese 

cost of living. 

The Center’s analysis indicates that the current federal ethanol mandate will soon drive corn to $4.50 per bushel, even in the absence of any crop diseases or weather 

problems in the Corn Belt. 

The commodity magazine that follows vegetable oil prices, Oil World, recently 

stated, ‘‘It is high time to realize that the world community is approaching a food 

crisis in 2008 unless usage of agricultural products for biofuels is curbed.’’ 

World food demand is rising due to moderate population growth plus rapid income 

gains. There is no more farmland to bring into production, unless the Sierra Club 

and Greenpeace are prepared to endorse massive forest-clearing in the American 
63 

Midwest to support more corn ethanol. Unfortunately, the U.S. might have to clear 

50 million acres of forest for enough corn ethanol to make much of a dent in its 

gasoline demand. 

The President apparently wanted to foster ethanol from non-food sources, but the 

enzymes to break down the cellulose in switchgrass, corn stalks and wood chips are 

not yet available, and we do not know when they might be. Corn ethanol is not an 

adequate substitute for cellulosic ethanol. 

I recently toured parts of the Eastern Shore of the Chesapeake Bay. I have never 

seen such intensive planting of crops. Next to a marina, the owners of a mansion 

could no longer see the water, because they had planted their front yard to corn! 

Ethanol plants are being planned for the Eastern Shore that would lock in this intensive cropping pattern, and even intensify it further. The USDA says America’s 

corn ethanol plants will need an extra 1 billion bushels of corn in 2008, and then 

more and more corn in the years after that. 

All to produce high-cost corn ethanol that will not protect the Bay from higher 

temperatures but will certainly subject it to more soil erosion and potential pollution. 

I submit that corn ethanol is merely the first of a whole series of ‘‘global warming’’ 

decisions that could threaten ecological damage, global food supplies and public 

health—without ‘‘saving the planet.’’ 

RESPONSES BY DENNIS T. AVERY TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM SENATOR INHOFE

Question 1. I would also like to insert into the record the attached chart. It shows 

that the Bay’s sea surface water temperatures have fluctuated over the last 2000 

years. Is this consistent with your understanding of global sea surface temperatures? 

Response. Yes, the attached chart represents the Bay’s surface water temperatures over the last 2000 years, as found in a study of the Bay’s bottom sediments 

over that period. The study was led by Dr. Thomas Cronin of the U.S. Geological 

Survey, and published in Global and Planetary Change, Vol. 36, pp. 17–29. The 

study shows that the Bay’s surface temperatures have fluctuated by several degrees 

Celsius, in a rhythm of about 1,500 years, plus or minus 500 years. The Holocene 

Warmings 6,000 years ago were particularly strong. 

Question 2. What few people outside of academia understand is that those who 

argue man-made emissions are causing global warming are using computer models 

to predict the alleged global warming related catastrophes. As noted by Dr. Art Robinson of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine ‘‘There is no scientific basis 

upon which to guess that the rise will be less or will be more than this value. Such 

a long extrapolation over two centuries is likely to be significantly in error—but it 

is the only extrapolation that can be made with current data. There may be no sea 

level rise at all. No one knows.’’ 

Can you comment on the risks associated with these models and basing future 

investment decisions on the models’ conclusions? 

Response. Climate is one of the most complex phenomena we try to understand. 

The computerized climate models have never been validated with real-world data, 

and there is no reason to believe that they are giving us accurate forecasts of the 

earth’s climate future. In particular, the IPCC admitted in its 2001 report that the 

computer models cannot accurately model clouds. Yet Dr. Henrik Svensmark of the 

Danish Space Research Institute has found evidence that the low, wet clouds, which 

deflect solar heat back into space, are among our planet’s key thermostats. If the 

computer models cannot model clouds, it is highly unlikely that they can forecast 

future changes in the earth’s temperatures—or in its sea level riser. 

Question 3. In Mr. Baker’s testimony, he acknowledges that today’s climate models are inconclusive about whether more precipitation will fall in the Chesapeake 

Bay watershed. Mr. Boesch would have us integrate climate change mitigation into 

our restoration efforts. One of the primary contributors to the Bay’s impairment is 

stormwater runoff. If the models cannot predict future levels of rainfall, do you 

know how to incorporate those rainfall levels into the mitigation projects? 

Response. If the climate models cannot predict future levels of rainfall, then they 

cannot forecast future stormwater runoff, one of the key Bay variables. The models 

are particularly bad at attempting to forecast regional climate changes, such as in 

the Mid-Atlantic States. One model tells us South Dakota will be a future desert, 

while another model says it will be a swamp. Even if we could believe the models, 

we would have no guidelines for action. 
64 

Senator CARDIN. We will now hear from Dr. David Schnare, Senior Fellow for Energy and the Environment, Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID W. SCHNARE, SENIOR FELLOW FOR ENERGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT, THOMAS JEFFERSON 

INSTITUTE FOR PUBLIC POLICY 

Dr. SCHNARE. Thank you, Senator Cardin. 

I would also like to thank Senator Mikulski for being here. I 

have two messages for you, Senator Mikulski. It was some years 

ago when I had the honor of serving on Appropriations staff when 

you first came to the committee, and I saw your leadership and I 

know that your leadership will be needed now on these issues. The 

one issue that no one seems to be discussing is something known 

as geo-engineering. It is the mechanism by which humans alter 

large-scale geophysical processes such as putting sulfates high into 

the stratosphere to create a sunscreen that would reduce the temperature. This is the identical process that happens when volcanoes 

erupt and they cause cooling. 

Why do I raise this? I raise this because according to Scott Barrett, Professor at Johns Hopkins University in International Policy 

Studies, he says geo-engineering is inevitable. Why is it inevitable? 

A report that came out as recently as just this morning suggests 

that Bangladesh, with a single meter of ocean rise, will lose one 

third of their landmass and require 25 to 30 million of their people 

to move. As a result, someone is going to say it is in our interest 

to reduce global temperatures using this kind of engineering, especially in light of the fact that doing so would cost one one thousandth the cost of relying exclusively on reducing greenhouse 

gases. 

Geo-engineering is not new and it will potentially have an effect 

on the Bay and rain in this area because, as we have seen in China 

when they want a sunny day in Beijing, they seed the clouds to the 

west. This will happen next summer during the Olympics. 

Senator MIKULSKI. They seed? 

Mr. SCHNARE. Seed with nitrate crystals, which causes it to rain 

one place and not another. These techniques are already in use to 

sequester carbon. Significant tests are going on, and there are commercial activities to put iron into the ocean, to grow algae, to sequester carbon. None of this geo-engineering is under a regulatory 

control or the control of any governmental body. 

Yet because it is so inexpensive, because it is inevitable that it 

will be done because of the economic consequences of not doing it, 

we need leadership, international leadership and leadership that 

can begin with this Committee, to examine the significance of geoengineering with regard to global warming and the means by 

which we can organize and ensure its use, its safe use, its incremental use, but its recognized high value use. 

Senator Mikulski, the research in this area is necessary. 

Now, let me turn to the Bay, briefly. If we rely exclusively on reducing greenhouse gases, it is my fear, having served on the staff 

of EPA’s Appropriations subcommittee, that we will rob the purse 

of all the funds we need to clean up the Bay. The Thomas Jefferson 

Institute is very proud of its work in bringing together staff from 
65 

1Dr. Schnare is the Institute’s Senior Fellow for Energy and the Environment. His position 

with the Institute is pro bono. He has been employed by the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency for 30 years and currently serves as a Senior Counsel in the Office of Civil Enforcement 

prosecuting violations of the nation’s Clean Air Act. This testimony reflects the views of the author and does not necessarily reflect the position of the U.S. EPA or the Thomas Jefferson Institute. Dr. Schnare received his doctorate in environmental science and management from the 

University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill (1978) and his Juris Doctor Cum Laude from the 

George Mason University School of Law (1999). 2P.J. Crutzen, ‘‘Albedo Enhancement By Stratospheric Sulfur Injections: A Contribution To 

Resolve A Policy Dilemma?’’ Climate Change, September 1, 2006; see: http:// 

downloads.heartland.org/19632.pdf. 3 And see: William B. Mills, ‘‘Geoengineering Techniques To Mitigate Climate Change: From 

Futuristic To Down-To-Earth Approaches’’, American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting 2006, abstract #GC51A–0451, ‘‘Within the past several years, more and more scientists are questioning 

whether these techniques can be implemented on a global scale quickly enough to avoid dangerous anthropogenic climate change impacts. Further, some signatories to the Kyoto Protocol 

have already indicated they will not be able to meet their reductions of emissions by the agreed 

upon date of 2012, and in fact expect to increase their emissions. An important question becomes: Are there other mitigation techniques that could be used in a supplemental manner to 

help control anthropogenically-induced climate change should those techniques mentioned above 

fall short? In fact there are a variety of techniques that are commonly called geo-engineering 

methods’’ http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006AGUFMGC51A0451M. 4See, e.g., International Herald Tribune at http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/08/18/ 

asia/AS–GEN–Australia–APEC–Emissions.php, documenting China’s refusal to attempt an 80% 

reduction, and see, reports on the international agreement to go no further than adopting 

unenforceabale ‘‘aspirational’’ goals at http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/move-to-lowergreenhouse-expectations/2007/08/17/1186857774683.html. 

the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and from the State of Virginia to 

accelerate the pace with which some of these techniques to reduce 

nutrient flows into the Bay are used. Never-till farming is an example. 

Part and parcel of that, it is critical that there be continued 

funding, Federal and State funding for these activities. If we let 

our activities to restore the Bay be sacrificed on the altar of exclusive greenhouse gas reductions, we will have larger dead zones, 

more fish kills, and a significantly deteriorated quality of the Bay. 

It is our view that this Committee should, as part of its approach 

to dealing with climate change rely as a first response on a thorough examination of geo-engineering and leadership in its use. Absent that, someone else will do it, and the United States will be a 

bystander watching. That is not in our interest. It is not in the interests of the international community. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Schnare follows:] 

STATEMENT OF DAVID W. SCHNARE, ESQ. PH.D.1, THOMAS JEFFERSON

INSTITUTE OF PUBLIC POLICY

Good morning Madam Chairman and Members of the Committee. On behalf of 

the Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy, we appreciate your invitation to 

attend this Hearing and thank you for the opportunity to participate in a discussion 

involving two issues on which the Institute has a continuing strong interest—Restoration of the Chesapeake Bay and the implications of alternative responses to 

global warming and climate change. 

The greatest threat to restoration of the Chesapeake Bay comes not from the potential geophysical effects of climate change, but from the potential responses to climate change and, in particular, exclusive reliance on a strategy of reducing greenhouse gases. The scientific community has reached a consensus on this. As Nobel 

Laureate Paul Crutzen admits, efforts to forestall climate change exclusively 

through reductions in greenhouse gases is no more than ‘‘a pious wish’’.2 3 Public 

reports show nations have rejected this strategy 4, and without full, massive global 

cooperation, reliance on greenhouse gas reductions, alone, will fail. 

In this light, how do we protect the Bay and otherwise address the potential effects of global warming? In his influential law review article, Jay Michaelson suggests, ‘‘We need an alternative to the policy myopia that sees emission reductions 

as the sole path to climate change abatement,’’ and in particular we need to apply 
66 

5 Jay Michaelson (JD Yale), ‘‘Geoengineering: A Climate Change Manhattan Project’’ Stanford 

Environmental Law Journal January, 1998, see, http://www.metatronics.net/lit/ 

geo2.html#three 6 Alan Carlin, ‘‘Risky Gamble,’’ Environmental Forum, 24(5): 42–7, (September/October, 2007), 

see http://carlineconomics.googlepages.com/CarlinEnvForum.pdf; and see: ‘‘Global Climate 

Change Control: Is there a Better Strategy than Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emissions?’’ University of Pennsylvania Law Review, June 2007, see http://pennumbra.com/issues/articles/155– 

6/Carlin.pdf; ‘‘Implementation & Utilization of Geoengineering for Global Climate Change Control,’’ Sustainable Development Law and Policy, Winter 2007 see http: // 

Carlineconomics.googlepages.com/CarlinSustainableDevelopment.pdf; and ‘‘New Research Suggests that Emissions Reductions May Be a Risky and Very Expensive Way to Avoid Dangerous 

Global Climate Changes,’’ http://yosemite.epa.gov/EE/epa/eed.nsf/WPNumberNew/2007–07 7Ken Caldeira, Standford University, quoted in the Christian Science Monitor, see, http:// 

www.csmonitor.com/2007/0329/p13s02-sten.htm. 8 IPCC Climate Change 2001: Report of Working Group III: Mitigation ‘‘It is unclear whether 

the cost of these novel scattering systems would be less than that of the older proposals, as is 

claimed by Teller et al. (1997), because although the system mass would be less, the scatterers 

may be much more costly to fabricate. However, it is unlikely that cost would play an important 

role in the decision to deploy such a system. Even if we accept the higher cost estimates of the 

NAS (1992) study, the cost may be very small compared to the cost of other mitigation options’’ 

(citing to Schelling, 1996). See, http://www.grida.no/climate/ipccltar/wg3/176.htm 9William D. Nordhaus, ‘‘The Challenge of Global Warming: Economic Models and Environmental Policy’’, Yale University, July 24, 2007; see: http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/ 

dicelmssl072407lall.pdf. 10Scott Barrett, ‘‘The Incredible Economics Of Geoengineering’’ Johns Hopkins University 

School of Advanced International Studies, 18 March 2007, (in press, Environmental and Resource Economics). 11See, David W. Schnare, ‘‘Only a Market Can Clean Up the Bay’’, PERC Reports (June 2007) 

http://www.perc.org/perc.php?subsection=5&id=887. 

geo-engineering that can prevent global warming and reduce acidification of the 

oceans.5 Others agree. Alan Carlin, Senior Economist with the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency argues that geo-engineering is ‘‘our best hope of coping with a 

changing world.’’ 6 It is our best hope because we have firm evidence it will work 

and because the developing world can afford this approach. As Ken Caldeira, a professor of climate science at Stanford University, explains, reducing greenhouse gases 

will cost around 2 percent of the gross domestic product while geo-engineering (by 

putting reflective aerosols into the upper atmosphere) will cost about one-thousandth of that.7

Indeed, the IPCC 8 and William D. Nordhaus, Sterling Professor of Economics at 

Yale University, agree that the price tag for preventing the effects of global warming with geo-engineering is so small as to be considered virtually ‘‘costless’’.9 More 

significantly, Professor Scott Barrett, Director of the Johns Hopkins University 

School of Advanced International Studies argues convincingly that because geo-engineering is the only practical means to mitigate catastrophic climate change, and is 

a virtually costless means of doing so, use of this technology is inevitable and our 

task is to ensure we do it in a sensible, incremental and reasoned manner.10

Thus, any investments in reducing greenhouse gases that would eat away at our 

existing investment in protecting and restoring the Bay would be the greatest threat 

to the Bay. 

Restoration of the Bay requires concerted efforts by local, state and federal governments, and funding from each. It also requires a vigorous, market-based application of advanced agricultural practices.11 Any threat to that funding or the nascent 

nutrients market is a threat to restoration of the Bay. To date, private and governmental action has done no more than prevent further Bay degradation in the face 

of growing populations. To achieve full restoration, this local-state-federal-private 

coalition must expand its current commitments. It will need significant and continuing federal and state funding, as well as an expansion of the means to trade 

nutrient reduction credits. If it receives this support, we can look forward to restoration of the Bay within the next 20 years. If not, we simply cannot. Thus, the greatest threat to this restoration is not global warming or climate change. Rather, as 

explained below, barring an earthquake, and in light of the inevitability of geo-engineering, the strategy of relying exclusively on reduction of greenhouse gases stands 

as the single greatest threat to restoration of the Bay. If we rely exclusively on reduction of greenhouse gases, and prevent use of geo-engineering, advocates for the 

Bay will get a smaller slice of a smaller pie and the Bay will disappear in the impending ocean rise. 

The remainder of this testimony first explains the timescale of climate change and 

the inevitable use of geo-engineering. Thereafter you will find a discussion of the 

Chesapeake Bay, its origin and how we are working to preserve and further restore 

its vitality. Finally, the testimony concludes with a recommendation that this Com-
67 

12G. Wo ̈ppelmann, et al., ‘‘Geocentric sea-level trend estimates from GPS analyses at relevant 

tide gauges world-wide’’, Global and Planetary Change 57 (2007) 396–4. But note, while not a 

specialist in glaciers and ice sheets, Jim Hansen (NASA) argues that by 2100 we could expect 

a five meter rise in ocean levels due to melting of the Greenland ice sheet. As argued by Barrett, 

the timescale estimate is irrelevant as a mere one foot increase in sea level will occasion the 

inevitable use of geo-engineering. 13G. Wo ̈ppelmann, et al., ‘‘Geocentric sea-level trend estimates from GPS analyses at relevant 

tide gauges world-wide’’, Global and Planetary Change 57 (2007) 396–4. 14Timothy M. Lenton, ‘‘Tipping Points or Gradual Climate Change?’’, (t.lenton@uea.ac.uk) 

School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich NR4 7TJ, UK 

mittee take a leadership role in building a two-pronged attack on climate change— 

one relying on geo-engineering as a first response and cost-effective greenhouse gas 

reduction as a final response. 

CLIMATE CHANGE AND GEO-ENGINEERING

As the Committee knows, the international policy community defines the term climate change as human-caused changes in climate and geophysical processes. The 

current assumption is that, if we do nothing, greenhouse gases will cause further 

increases in global temperature that, in turn, will cause no less than seven irreversible geophysical events. Those events, in turn, will cause large increases in ocean 

levels and other undesirable outcomes. 

The seven (preventable) irreversible events reach their first ‘‘tipping point’’ with 

melting of the Greenland ice sheet, an event that commences with a 1.2 ° to 2 °C 

rise in global temperature and which, according to the IPCC (2007) may have already, albeit slowly begun. We must keep in mind, however, that complete melting 

of the ice sheet would cause a 7 meter ocean rise only after some 300 to 1,000 years. 

This long melting timescale assumes CO2 rises to nearly three times the current 

level (four times the pre-industrial level) and stays that high for a millennium. Notably, science marches on, and in February of this year, a report on the assumptions 

underlying these estimates indicate that the IPCC estimate of the rate of sea-level 

rise is 29 percent higher than the actual value, while another analysis suggests the 

timescale is smaller than the IPCC estimate.12 Thus, Greenland ice sheet melting 

may be more than 300 years off.13 The other six events do not reach their tipping 

points until global temperatures increase by about 3 ° to 6 °C and include: loss of 

the Amazon rainforest, melting of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, loss of boreal forests, massive positive and negative rain and heat effects in the Sahara and Sahel, 

stoppage of the Atlantic ocean circulatory system, and increases in ENSO amplification, leading to large shifts in climate over important agricultural lands worldwide.14 The only event necessary to destroy the Bay is complete melting of the 

Greenland ice sheet. 

If permitted to occur, the land surrounding the Bay would eventually flood and 

the Bay itself would become no more than a part of the continental shelf. Under 

this assumption, as the watershed slowly submerges, the Bay environs would lose 

habitat, ecological integrity and commercial and recreational value. Notably, as part 

of a new coast line, we would also gain habitat, evolve a new ecological system and 

gain new commercial and recreational opportunities. According to the IPCC (2007), 

the loss of existing shoreline would begin very slowly and inundation would not 

occur for 300 to 1,000 years. As discussed below, natural processes may cause a 

similar degree of flooding at any time and are more likely to occur than the predicted climate change. 

Increasing greenhouse gas levels may also cause a second undesirable effect, 

ocean acidification. Modeling of climate change acidification effects has not focused 

on the Bay or similar estuarial waters, particularly with regard to the types of organisms prevalent in or sought to be resurrected in the Bay and its freshwater tributaries. Geo-engineering can also address this problem, as seen in the liming activities long used in Scandinavia to prevent acidification of their fragile lakes. 

We have every reason to believe that neither of these climate change-related geophysical effects will ever harm the Bay because, as Professor Barrett explains, some 

party will apply geo-engineering techniques that will prevent the warming and protect the commercial activities in the Bay. What, then, is geo-engineering? 

GEO-ENGINEERING—THE INEVITABLE RESPONSE

In general, geo-engineering is the deliberate modification of large scale geophysical processes and, in the context of this testimony, that means by processes 

other than by limiting the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases. The first 

of the two most common examples cited is placement of reflective aerosols into the 

upper atmosphere in order to reflect incoming sunlight and thus reduce global tem-
68 

15 Crutzen, P.J. (2006). ‘‘Albedo Enhancement by Stratospheric Sulfur Injections: A Contribution to Resolve a Policy Dilemma?’’ Climatic Change 77: 211–219. http://downloads.heartland.org/19632.pdf. 16Travis, D.J., A.M. Carleton, and R.G. Lauritsen (2002). ‘‘Contrails Reduce Daily Temperature Range.’’ Nature 418: 601 17Six papers delivered at the AAAS symposium appear in Clim. Change, 33(3), July 1996, 

edited by G. Marland. They cover scientific, legal, technical, political and ethical questions. See, 

http://www.gcrio.org/gccd/gcc-digest/1996/d96aug2.htm. 18See, for example, the citations in Crutzen (2006), Barrett (2007) and Carlin (2007b), cited 

in supra notes 14, 10 & 6, respectively. 19Wigley, T.M.L.. ‘‘A Combined Mitigation/Geoengineering Approach to Climate Stabilization.’’ 

Science 314: 452–454. (2006) 20Teller, E., Hyde, R., Ishikawa, M., Nuckolls, J., and Wood, L. ‘‘Active stabilization of climate: inexpensive, low risk, near-term options for preventing global warming and ice ages via 

technologically varied solar radiative forcing,’’ Lawrence Livermore National Library, 30 November, 2003. 21 Nordhaus (2007) http://nordhaus.econ.yale.edu/dicelmssl072407lall.pdf. 

perature. The second is injecting iron into parts of the ocean in order to speed the 

growth of phytoplankton and thus sequester carbon. Similar techniques can be used 

to inject lime into the ocean and reduce near-coast water acidity, and thereby protect coral reefs and shellfish. 

You might think of geo-engineering as a human effort to replicate natural processes such as volcanic eruptions that inject large quantities of sulfates into the air 

and thereby shield the planet from sunlight. The eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the 

Philippines in 1991 injected a significant amount of sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere, lowering the Earth’s surface temperature by about 0.5 °C the year following 

the eruption.15. Indeed, there have been many examples of intended and unintended 

geo-engineering, including some that have exacerbated warming. For example, when 

coal is burned, sulfate particles are thrown into the troposphere, thus limiting the 

amount that global temperatures rise due to carbon dioxide, something also produced when burning coal. But, the U.S. EPA has established regulations to limit 

the emission of sulfates into the atmosphere and by reducing emissions of these sulfate particles, U.S. EPA has inadvertently exacerbated global warming. In another 

example, jet aircraft routinely emit sun-blocking exhaust into the atmosphere.16

Scientists have been studying geo-engineering solutions for a considerable time. 

As early as 1996, the American Association for the Advancement of Science sponsored a symposium on the subject,17 and recent contributions are reaching substantial numbers.18 As discussed in the geo-engineering literature generally, because 

these techniques mimic natural phenomena, we know more about how quickly and 

well they work than we do about the efficacy of attempting to reduce greenhouse 

gases. We have measured the effects of the natural processes and can state with 

considerable certainty, bordering of complete certainty, that they will produce the 

result sought. Although the effects of greenhouse gas reduction would occur over a 

period of no less than decades and more likely centuries, the effects of geo-engineering can (and will) be manifest in a matter of weeks after application.19

The extremely low cost of geo-engineering allows many like Barrett to describe 

these techniques as economically ‘‘incredible.’’ Table 1 shows that geo-engineering 

is not merely 200 to 2000 times less expensive, it prevents more damage than exclusive reliance on carbon control. Further, consider a risk not included in the $17 Billion worth of residual global warming damages shown in Table 1—the $10 Billion 

a year cost to the United States from UV-caused cancer that would be avoided using 

geo-engineering.20 In practical terms, the benefits to the United States, alone, and 

for UV-related cancer, alone, justify using geo-engineering—a gift to the world that 

would prevent some $5.2 Trillion in global warming-caused damages.21

Table 1 

Total Present Value 

Abatement Cost 

(2005 $Billions) 

Residual 

(unprevented) Global 

Warming-Related 

Damages 

(2005 $Billions) 

Exclusive Reliance on CO2 Emissions Reductions: ....................................................

(Nordhaus ‘‘optimal’’, 2007) .................................................................................. $2,200 $17,000 

Aerosol geo-engineering: 

(Nordhaus, 1994) ................................................................................................... $10 0 

(Teller et al., 2003) ................................................................................................ $1.2 
69 

22See, http://www.planktos.com/About/About.html 23 C. Wylie Poag, U.S. Geological Survey, ‘‘The Chesapeake Bay Bolide Impact: A New View 

of Coastal Plain Evolution’’, July, 1, 1998. See: http://marine.usgs.gov/fact-sheets/fs49–98/. 24 Rebecca Hanmer, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ‘‘Chesapeake’s value worth more 

than the sum of its parts’’, see http://www.bayjournal.com/article.cfm?article=2395. 

Notably, geo-engineering has gone commercial. Planktos, Inc., for example, is a 

for-profit ecorestoration company based in San Francisco with offices in the European Union and British Columbia. Their primary focus is to restore damaged habitats in the ocean and on land. They inject iron into iron-deficient waters to induce 

large blooms of plankton. This helps sequester carbon and Planktos sells carbon sequestration credits on the various carbon markets.22 One must ask, if private geoengineering to sequester carbon is already in play, can private geo-engineering to 

reduce global temperatures be far behind? Considering the potential harm from 

global warming, the potential regulatory costs associated with a greenhouse gasbased strategy and the relatively low cost of launching sunscreens, there is good 

reason to believe the inevitable use of geo-engineering to limit global temperature 

risk could occur in the private sector. This is a troubling concern many have discussed and on which this testimony touches in its final section. 

THE CHESAPEAKE BAY AND ITS RESTORATION

The Chesapeake Bay is a relatively recent geo-physical development. It exists because of a meteor impact occurring 35 million years ago. The impact fractured the 

earth’s mantle and created a depression that forced rivers to reverse their flows and 

cut paths into what is now the Bay estuary. But the Bay formed long thereafter. 

As late as 18,000 years ago, the bay region was dry land; the last great ice sheet 

was at its maximum over North America, and sea level was about 200 meters lower 

than today. This sea level exposed the area that now is the bay bottom and the continental shelf. With sea level this low, the major east coast rivers had to cut narrow 

valleys across the region all the way to the shelf’s edge. About 10,000 years ago, 

however, the ice sheets began to melt rapidly, causing sea level to rise and flood 

the shelf and the coastal river valleys. The flooded valleys became the Chesapeake 

Bay and the rivers of the Chesapeake region converged at a location directly over 

the buried crater.23

This ancient meteor created many faults that now cut through the sedimentary 

beds below the site of the impact, many of which lay no more than 10 meters below 

the bay floor. These faults are zones of crustal weakness and have the potential to 

suddenly collapse and thus flood large portions of land surrounding the Bay. In 

other words, we now confront natural and potentially cataclysmic coastal flooding 

we cannot prevent and in a timeframe we cannot predict. 

Rather than permit this inevitability to limit our economic interests in the Bay, 

we instead accept the risk and seek to preserve this ecosystem for as long as nature 

allows. On the geological clock, our interests reflect mere ticks of the second hand. 

We measure the timescale of Bay degradation and restoration in decades, not centuries or millennia. A mere 70 years ago, the Bay was the largest commercial fishing waters in the U.S. If restored, the Bay could produce $3 billion in commercial 

fishery revenues per year. It now produces less than $100 million. Overall, some 

suggest the fishing and recreational value of a bay at full ecological competence (assuming the ecology of the past) at more than a trillion dollars.24 Virginia, Maryland, 

Pennsylvania, the District of Columbia, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

and others, began their efforts to recover the ecological wealth of the Bay only 20 

years ago. They have succeeded in preventing significant further deterioration despite large increases in population density and growth over the intervening years. 

An entire array of local, state and federal regulatory programs now protect the 

Bay as an ecological, recreational and commercial resource. The size of the annual 

revenues generated within the private marketplace for Bay related activities from 

mere shore-side residence to recreational swimming and sailing and to commercial 

activities like fishing, all testify to our success in maintaining, and to some degree 

improving the quality of the Bay. Nevertheless, problems persist. The Bay suffers 

from two threats that the current regulatory programs have not resolved: the discharge of sediments and nutrients into the waters of the Bay’s watershed. The sediments bury the life on the bottoms of rivers, deltas, and shorelines. These include 

the extremely important breeding grounds for mollusks and fish. As the name implies, nutrients, specifically nitrogen and phosphorus, provide essential ‘‘food’’ to 

algae and other small life forms that constitute the bottom of the food chain in the 

bay. Too many nutrients, however, and the algae can consume too much oxygen, 

thus forcing the top of the food chain (the fish) to other waters, and causing mollusks and fish hatchlings to fail to thrive and eventually die. Restoration will re-
70 

25See: http://www.charlescity.org/2rivers.php. There is a wealth of technical science on notill and never-till cropping, as a browse through an internet search will access. 26See, http://www.ppionline.org/ppi— 

ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=116&subsecID=900039&contentID=252026. 27See, http://www.iowafarmbureau.com/special/carbon/default.aspx. 

quire reductions in both sediments and nutrients by two critical sectors on the watershed, municipalities and the agricultural community. 

Figure 1, below, shows the significant sources of the threats to the Bay and each 

source’s potential to reduce discharges. As these charts show, all sources will have 

to participate in reducing nutrient loadings into the Bay. In some cases, municipalities simply will not be able to do their share, in part because they simply will not 

have the funds needed to build advanced water treatment facilities. If response to 

climate change empties the state and federal environmental purse, as would happen 

with current legislative proposals, then we will not only lose the battle to restore 

the Bay but will lose ground due to continuing population growth. Even with current funding levels, municipalities will not have the capacity to do their share. Fortunately, in Virginia, the state legislature has authorized a state nutrients bank 

that allows municipalities to pay others to reduce nutrients when they can not. In 

the main, those ‘‘others’’ are our agricultural community. 

Reduction of nutrients from agricultural sources takes several forms, but controls 

on concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) and ‘‘never-till’’ crop management seems the most promising. By leaving all but the harvestable grain in the 

field, by not tilling the field and by planting cover crops to hold nutrients and soil 

in place over the winter, this cropping technique has reduced nutrient and sediment 

runoff from those croplands by over 95 percent.25 Ten years ago farmers used these 

conservation tillage practices in only rare occasions. In Virginia today, farmers have 

nearly 15 percent of small grains and corn cropland in never-till management. To 

expand this number significantly will require a more robust nutrient market, increased technical agricultural assistance and further funding of transition to conservation tillage. Like municipal wastewater treatment, we will succeed in solving 

this problem only if response to climate change does not empty the state and federal 

environmental purse. 

With regard to sediment, again the agricultural community has the tools to resolve much of the problem. Conservation tillage holds sediments in the field, reducing sediment discharge by over 95%. Indeed, the nutrients adhere to the sediments 

and in particular the carbonaceous elements within the soil. Further, conservation 

tillage sequesters carbon in the soil. And, the farming community has already recognized the potential to reap carbon sequestration dollars through never-till farming.26

At present, Iowa’s Farm Bureau is currently providing services to allow farmers 

to participate in the carbon sequestration market.27 Notably, for every ten pounds 
71 

28Soil Organic Carbon Sequestration Rates by Tillage and Crop Rotation: A Global Data Analysis, see, http://cdiac.ornl.gov/programs/CSEQ/terrestrial/westpost2002/westpost2002.pdf. 29 Cass R. Sunstein, Karl N. Llewellyn Distinguished Service Professor of Jurisprudence, University of Chicago, Worst-Case Scenarios’’, Harvard University Press (2007). 30The worst example of this narrow-minded approach was recently used in North Carolina 

and is on the hunt in many other states. One group (Center for Climate Strategies), funded by 

foundations committed to raising alarm about global warming, has used non-transparent, highly 

subjective and openly coercive methods to exclude discussions on alternatives to their preferred 

carbon-reduction strategy. Notably, this group has failed to provide your testifier the basis for 

their analysis or the assumptions they used in their analysis. They have failed to consider a 

policy of limiting action only to those efforts likely to reduce global warming. And, they refuse 

to estimate the effects their proposals on global warming. Groups such as CCS offer a false 

promise in light of the international rejection of greenhouse gas proposals required to prevent 

significant warming. See: http://www.carolinajournal.com/exclusives/display—exclusive.html?id=4087 

of carbon sequestered through never-till practices, a pound of nitrogen (and an 

equivalent weight of phosphorus) is also sequestered in the soil.28

In light of the financial interest the farming community has in carbon sequestration and the potential for large scale positive effects of conservation tillage on the 

water quality of the Bay, we believe Bay restoration should be considered an element of climate change mitigation, but recognize this opportunity will disappear if 

funding for both municipal and agricultural Bay restoration efforts evaporate. 

We further suggest that the timescale of Bay restoration stands in stark contrast 

to the timescale of climate change and the timescale of a response to climate change 

that relies exclusively on reduction of greenhouse gases. 

We recommend something else. 

GLOBAL LEADERSHIP ON GEO-ENGINEERING—AN UNMET NATIONAL DUTY

In light of the inevitable use of geo-engineering to prevent further global warming, this Committee may be well advised to follow Professor Sunstein’s admonition 

to avoid the twin dangers of over-reaction and apathy.29 So too would groups that 

have decided to bypass Congress and attempt to convince State governments to commit to policies relying exclusively on regulatory reduction of greenhouse gases.30

Sunstein recommends that Congress try to ameliorate, if not avoid, future catastrophes, by looking at the widest possible solution set, by rejecting preconceived notions and emotion-based argument, thus retaining our sanity as well as scarce financial resources that can be devoted to more constructive ends. 

Sunstein makes an important point on the need to remember we have goals other 

than carbon reduction. In this hearing you cannot fail to recognize that commitment 

to a remedy based exclusively on reduction of greenhouse gases would sacrifice our 

current commitment to restoration of the Bay. Having served on the staff of the 

Senate appropriation committee, I thoroughly understand the level of competition 

for federal dollars. I know you do too. As you consider how to respond to global 

warming, I ask that you keep in mind what programs you will cut in order to pay 

for what you propose. And keep in mind that use of geo-engineering will pay for 

itself, while exclusive reliance on greenhouse reduction will not only fail to pay for 

itself, it will fail to prevent global warming. 

In light of Professor Sunstein’s admonition, and the economic and fiscal realities 

of global warming, geo-engineering and alternatives thereto, the most sensible approach would be a mixed strategy of geo-engineering to prevent further global 

warming and the effects of ocean acidification over the next century or two and vigorously developing a transition from carbon-based energy, to include research on 

scrubbing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. Lacking this two-pronged attack, 

current legislative proposals must be considered what Sunstein calls ‘‘over-reaction’’ 

or panic. 

We can make no more eloquent argument than that of Professor Barrett regarding what next this nation should do with regard to climate change, so this testimony 

ends by quoting his recommendation: 

Mitigating, forestalling, or averting global climate change is a global public 

good. Supplying it by means of reducing emissions is vulnerable to free riding. 

Too few countries are likely to participate in such an effort, those that do participate are likely to reduce their emissions by too little, and even their efforts 

may be overwhelmed by trade leakage (Barrett 2005). Geoengineering presents 

a very different set of incentives. A single country can deploy a geoengineering 

project on its own—and the economics of geoengineering are so attractive that 

it seems likely that a country, or perhaps a small group of countries, may want 
72 

to try to do so at some point in the future, especially should the worst fears 

about climate change ever unfold. 

The challenge posed by geoengineering is not how to get countries to do it. 

It is to address the fundamental question of who should decide whether and 

how geoengineering should be attempted—a problem of governance (Barrett 

2007). Failure to acknowledge the possibility of geoengineering may or may not 

spur countries to reduce their emissions, but it will mean that countries will 

be unrestrained should the day come when they would want to experiment with 

this technology. This, to my mind, is the greater danger. 

Madam Chairman, as this Committee demonstrates leadership in protecting the 

Chesapeake Bay while meeting its duty to help prevent catastrophic climate change, 

it should champion sensible, incremental, international geo-engineering, in addition 

to reasoned, cost-effective efforts to limit greenhouse gases. 

Because the Barrett and Carlin messages are of such paramount importance, I 

have attached hereto copies of their seminal papers. [The referenced document follows on page 109.] 

RESPONSES BY DAVID W. SCHNARE, ESQ. PH.D., TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM

SENATOR INHOFE

Question 1. Can you expand on your testimony regarding the natural processes 

that may cause the flooding of the Chesapeake Bay and why you think that is more 

likely to occur than flooding from climate change? 

Response. The phrase ‘‘flooding of the Chesapeake Bay’’ has been used in an ambiguous manner. The concern about ‘‘flooding’’ reflects two different phenomena— 

ocean level rise and land subsidence. Thus, the question asks whether ocean level 

rise, presumably from global warming, is less or more likely to happen than land 

subsidence. Under either condition, coastal lands will be submerged—surely a considerable human and environmental loss. The likelihood of this occurring due to 

global warming and related ocean rise, however, is relatively small, considering our 

ability to prevent such warming, either through heroic reductions in CO2 or through 

solar radiation management, a form of geo-engineering. Director of Johns Hopkins 

International Programs and graduate of the London School of Economics in Natural 

Resource Economics, Professor Scott Barrett explains that the cost of solar radiation 

management is so small, a mere billion dollars a year compared with tens of trillions per year for CO2 reduction, that the use of this geo-engineering is inevitable. 

If the United States or some international body does not use the technology, some 

nation at great risk from flooding will. Thus, the likelihood of flooding of Bay tidal 

lands due to global warming is very small. 

Conversely, the likelihood of land subsidence from geological faults is not merely 

high, it is common. The lands around the Bay have seen twice the flooding as the 

rest of the world specifically because of this subsidence. Indeed, the area is overdue 

for an earthquake—one which will cause significant subsidence around the crater 

that created the lower portions of the Bay. 

Thus, flooding due to subsidence is certain to occur while the likelihood of flooding 

from global warming is unlikely. 

Question 2. Let’s assume that greenhouse gases will cause temperatures to rise, 

why will current legislative and environmental organizations’ proposal fail to prevent the catastrophes they claim will arise? 

Response. The IPCC has stated that a 2 °C. rise in temperature will cause an irreversible loss of the Greenland Ice Sheet. The IPCC suggests that there is greater 

than a 90% chance that the globe will suffer this temperature if greenhouse gases 

reach levels equivalent to 450 parts per million of CO2. According to Flannery, the 

IPCC has concluded that the GHG levels reached 455 CO2eq in 2005 and continue 

to rise; and that the IPCC will announce that conclusion this fall. As such, absent 

some form of geo-engineering to reduce temperatures or scavenge CO2 out of the atmosphere, it is too late to prevent melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet, and the planet will suffer a 23 foot rise in ocean levels. None of the legislative proposals direct 

research on or use of solar radiation management to prevent catastrophic melting 

of the Greenland ice sheet. Thus, the goal of environmental organizations and legislative proposals to stabilize CO2 levels will fail to prevent ocean level rise of mammoth proportions. 

Question 3. Does geo-engineering make sense even if global warming is a natural 

phenomenon? 

Response. That depends on the associated risks and benefits of global warming 

as compared with using geo-engineering to stabilize planetary temperatures. A 
73 

small increase in global temperatures appears to have net positive benefits for the 

world civilization and nature. A large temperature rise will cause massive geophysical change with equally massive net-adverse effects on world civilizations and 

massive upsets in nature. 

Regarding effects on human civilization due to warming and concomitant sea level 

rise, a single meter rise in ocean levels would flood one-third of Bangladesh and 

force the relocation of from 25 to 30 million people. Similar effects would be felt in 

China at a two-meter rise in the ocean. A five foot rise in storm surge would incapacitate nearly all commercial harbors world-wide causing hundreds of trillions of 

dollars in damage. In light of these potential effects, a measured effort to stabilize 

global temperatures would be justified even if, for example, it caused small adverse 

effects such as minor drought in portions of the world. Current modeling of the potential adverse effects of solar radiation management, using high-tech particles to 

reflect the sun in only one wavelength and with no chemical reactivity in the upper 

atmosphere (stratosphere and troposphere), suggest no change in local climate (see 

Caldeira 2006). 

The reverse of the question is also of interest. Would it make sense to warm the 

planet, using solar radiation management, if we confronted a new ice age? Would 

it be sensible to stabilize temperatures to prevent loss of Chicago, Detroit, Seattle, 

and the rest of developed land north of the Mason Dixon line—worldwide? Again, 

the negatives would have to be very large to refuse use of solar radiation management. 

The appropriate approach to use of geo-engineering is to fund research on these 

tools now so that if they need to be deployed, we will have second or third generation technology on the shelf, rather than have to use unexamined proposals. For this 

reason, I have recommended directing $3.5 million toward research on solar radiation management (see my supplemental testimony which includes the geo-engineering framework requested by Senator Mikulski), along with research on how to 

create a body to manage international coordination of geo-engineering activities to 

ensure measured, responsible and efficacious stabilization of possible global climate 

extremes. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you for your testimony. 

We will now hear from Pastor Richard Edmund, who is from the 

United Methodist Churches of Smith Island. As I mentioned earlier, Smith Island is the only inhabitable island in Maryland. It is 

on the Virginia–Maryland border, 225 sturdy people. Pastor Edmund is their spiritual leader and we thank him for that. We are 

pleased to hear from you. 

STATEMENT OF RICHARD EDMUND, PASTOR, UNITED 

METHODIST CHURCHES OF SMITH ISLAND 

Pastor EDMUND. All right. Thank you, Senator Cardin. It is an 

honor to be here, and also with Senator Mikulski, especially in 

light of the other distinguished panel members that came before 

me. 

My name is C. Richard Edmund. I am the Pastor of the three 

United Methodist Churches on Smith Island, Maryland. I am here 

to speak for Smith Island, the planet, future generations, and how 

I believe God wants humans to interact with creation. Smith Island 

is located across from the mouth of the Potomac River, surrounded 

by the waters of the Chesapeake Bay. Our population is about 225 

people spread among the three communities of Ewell, Rhodes 

Point, which you can see in the photograph up there, and Tylerton. 

Because of our geographic location, we are certainly vulnerable 

to the effects of a rising sea level. Most of the dwellings are just 

a couple feet above an abnormally high tide or a storm surge from 

a hurricane. In 2003, Hurricane Isabel caused a storm surge which 

came into a few of the homes and covered most of the inhabitable 

land, and all of the marsh area. 
74 

A rising sea level would accelerate the effects of erosion which 

threaten parts of the island. The recent work by this Committee 

and the corresponding members on the House side is greatly appreciated in including the Smith Island Project in the recently passed 

Water Resources Development Act. Thank you. 

Almost all the island families depend on harvesting from the 

water for their livelihood. The numbers of crabs and oysters are 

much less than earlier. Any climate changes caused by human activity can only diminish what God created and called good. 

While I have not been on the island long enough to observe possible climate changes myself, older residents tell me that, number 

one, some houses that never or rarely had water in their yards now 

often experience that inconvenience during extra high tides. Number two, we do not have the winter blizzards or freezes that is 

within the memory of many islanders. Now, most winters, the total 

snowfall is less than six inches. 

Number three, there is a wildlife presence now that didn’t used 

to be there. The brown pelican is the largest example. They began 

settling this far north about a dozen years ago and now nest on the 

border with Virginia. 

The independent folks of our community have been toughened 

over time from dealing with the elements of nature. Despite the 

difficult times for watermen, residents are determined to stay until 

forced to leave by the economy or the environment. Twenty-five 

years ago, experts said we wouldn’t be here in 25 years. As one islander, Jennings Evans, summed it up, ‘‘We will be here as long 

as the Lord wants us here.’’ 

But reports of potential sea level rises are daunting. I know both 

of you and others have been to Greenland recently and seen firsthand the beginning of large-scale meltdown. Predictions of a 20 

foot to 23 foot sea level rise would affect many millions of people 

worldwide. A rise of three feet would likely be the end of practical 

living on Smith Island. 

A recent movie, which I was with at the premier with Congressman Gilchrest, was entitled ‘‘We Are All Smith Islanders.’’ It highlights that while our area is the oft-referred-to canary in the coal 

mine, all of us are vulnerable in some way to any human-involved 

climate changes. 

In 1813, one of the future members of the Senate, Army General 

William Henry Harrison of Ohio, received a war report from Commodore Oliver Perry after the battle of Lake Erie: ‘‘We have met 

the enemy and he is ours.’’ For Earth Day in 1970, Walt Kelly 

changed one word in order to point out where the blame originates 

with our environmental problems. His cartoon character, Pogo, 

says: ‘‘We have met the enemy and he is us.’’ 

I urge this Committee to strongly address this issue. It threatens 

our security, and I believe disrupts God’s instructions to Adam and 

Eve to work the Garden of Eden and take care of it. 

On a kayak trip I took down the Susquehanna River, a man in 

Northern Pennsylvania asked me, ‘‘Are they mad at us down 

there?’’ He was wondering if the acid mine drainage, silt runoff, 

and other pollutants originating in the upper river area had upset 

those living around the Bay. The larger question is whether future 
75 

generations downstream in time will be angered with us for not 

doing more to stem the changes that seem inevitable now. 

One of the reasons I feel good about being here today is that my 

daughter has brought my four oldest grandchildren, Bryn, 

Elisabeth, Brooke and Caroline here with me. I trust that part of 

my legacy to them will be that they will tell their grandchildren 

that in September of 2007 their great-great-grandfather spoke to 

this Committee to address the issue of global warming and the 

long-term consequences. I want them to know that I did what I 

could. Members of this committee, I trust you will do the same. 

Thank you for the privilege of speaking. 

[The prepared statement of Pastor Edmund follows:] 

STATEMENT OF RICHARD EDMUND, PASTOR, UNITED METHODIST CHURCHES, 

SMITH ISLAND, MD 

Thank you, Madam Chairman, and members of the Committee. My name is C. 

Richard Edmund and I am the pastor of the three United Methodist churches on 

Smith Island, Maryland. 

I’m here to speak for Smith Island, the planet, future generations, and how, I believe, God wants humans to interact with Creation. 

Smith Island, Maryland is located across from the mouth of the Potomac River 

surrounded by the waters of the Chesapeake Bay. Our population is about 225 people spread among the three communities of Ewell, Rhodes Point, and Tylerton. 

Because of our geographical location we are certainly vulnerable to the effects of 

a rising sea level. Most of the dwellings are just a couple of feet above an abnormally high tide or a storm surge from a hurricane. In 2003 Hurricane Isabel caused 

a storm surge which came into a few of the houses, and covered most of the inhabitable land, and all of the marsh area. 

A rising sea level will accelerate the effect of erosion which threatens parts of the 

Island. The recent work by this Committee and the corresponding members on the 

House side is greatly appreciated in including a Smith Island project in the recently 

passed Water Resources Development Act bill. Thank you! 

Almost all of the Island families depend on harvesting from the water for their 

livelihood, and the numbers of crabs and oysters are much less now than earlier. 

Any climate changes caused by human activity can only diminish what God created 

and called ‘good’. 

While I have not been on the Island long enough to observe possible climate 

changes myself, older residents tell me: 

1. Some houses that never or rarely had water in their yards now often experience 

that inconvenience during extra high tides. 

2. We do not have the winter blizzards or freezes that is within the memory of 

many Islanders. Now most winters the total snowfall is less than 6 inches. 

3. There is wildlife present now that didn’t use to be there. The brown pelican 

began settling this far north about a dozen years ago and now nest on the border 

with Virginia. 

The independent folks of our communities have been toughened over time from 

dealing with the elements of nature. Despite difficult times for watermen, residents 

are determined to stay until forced to leave by the economy or the environment. 

Twenty five years ago, experts said we wouldn’t be here in 25 years. As an Islander, 

Jennings Evans summed it up, ‘‘We’ll be here as long as the Lord wants us here’’. 

But reports of potential sea level rises are daunting. I know several of you have 

been to Greenland recently and have seen first hand the beginning of a large scale 

meltdown. Predictions of a 20-23 foot sea level rise would affect many millions of 

people worldwide. A rise of three feet would likely be the end of practical living on 

Smith Island. A recent movie entitled, ‘‘We Are All Smith Islanders’’ highlights that 

while our area is the oft referred to ‘‘canary in the coal mine’’, all of us are vulnerable is some way to any human involved climate change. 

In 1813 one of the future members of the Senate, Army General William Henry 

Harrison of Ohio received a war report from Commodore Oliver Perry after the Battle of Lake Erie, ‘‘We have met the enemy and he is ours’’. For Earth Day 1970 Walt 

Kelly changed one word in order to point out where the blame originates with our 

environmental problems. His cartoon character Pogo says, ‘‘We have met the enemy 

and he is us.’’ 
76 

I urge this Committee to strongly address this issue which threatens our security 

and I believe disrupts God’s instruction to Adam and Eve to ‘‘work the Garden of 

Eden and take care of it’’. 

On a kayak trip I took down the Susquehanna River a man in northern Pennsylvania asked me, ‘‘Are they mad at us down there?’’ He was wondering if the acid 

mine drainage, silt runoff and other pollutants originating in the upper River area 

had upset those living around the Bay. 

The larger question is whether future generations, downstream in time, will be 

angry with us for not doing more to stem the changes that seem inevitable now. 

One of the reasons I feel good about being here today is that my four oldest 

grandchildren, Bryn, Elisabeth, Brooke, and Caroline, are here with me, along with 

my daughters. I trust that part of my legacy for them will be that they will tell their 

grandchildren that in September of 2007 their great great grandfather spoke to this 

Committee to address the issue of global warming and the long term consequences. 

I want them to know that I did what I could. Members of this Committee, I trust 

you will do the same. 

Thank you for your time. 

RESPONSES BY PASTOR RICHARD EDMUND TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS

FROM SENATOR CARDIN

Question 1. With a population of just 225 people and three churches, Smith Island 

must be home to people who really value their faith. You have spoken eloquently 

today about how faith sustains the people of Smith Island. Would you please take 

a few minutes more to talk about how your faith motivates you to be involved in 

issues such as this one, especially the role you see among people of faith and their 

stewardship responsibilities for God’s creation? 

Response. A lot of my sense of responsibility for caring for God’s creation comes 

from the book of Genesis. In chapter 2 verse 15 God instructs Adam to ‘‘work and 

keep’’ the Garden of Eden. Surely this is a guideline for the rest of our environment. 

While we have dominion over the earth, that doesn’t mean we dominate and subject 

it to whatever purpose seems best for us for our immediate future. 

After the Flood God makes a covenant with Noah and his descendants never 

again to destroy the earth by a flood. In this passage in Genesis 9, verses 9 and 

10, God includes ‘‘birds, livestock, and all the wild animals’’ in this binding agreement. They are our partners in this covenant with God, and I believe we need to 

defend them against harm. There is Biblical support for this position in Proverbs 

31:8–9 where we are told to ‘‘speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, 

. . . defend the rights of the poor and needy.’’ While this is directed primarily toward other humans, I believe God would want us to defend His creation and our 

partners against harm due to our greed. Nature is often without defense from our 

modern machinery and waste products from power plants, homes and industry. It 

must please God that some are speaking up for the part of God’s creation we are 

intentionally and unintentionally changing. As I said in my testimony, God called 

Creation good, and we can’t make it better. 

We on Smith Island certainly use our share of energy and contribute to global 

warming, but I believe that folks like watermen and farmers who work with nature 

have a greater appreciation for being good stewards of God’s creation. It is their 

faith in God and what I see as my responsibility to them, and the rest of the world, 

that helps form my faith response on this issue of global warming. 

Question 2. In your testimony you relate a wonderful story about a conversation 

you had with someone who lived ‘up-watershed’ in Pennsylvania who expected criticism for the pollution that was making its way down into the Chesapeake. Your gracious answer to him was a good lesson to all of us about finding solutions, not assigning blame. But I want to focus on the challenge that you then issued to all of 

us. You say that we need to answer the challenge of those who live not just downstream today, but those who live in downstream generations. I agree. Would you 

take a moment to talk about the responsibility we have to future generations to address climate change today? 

Response. Many Native American tribes traditionally considered how their actions 

would affect those who came after them for seven generations. There is a statue 

dedicated to this thought on the banks of the Susquehanna River which provides 

one-half of the fresh water flowing into the Chesapeake Bay. It was further upriver 

from that point that the question was asked about responsibility for what has happened to the Bay and beyond. I have a feeling that those in the generations to follow 

ours will wonder ‘‘What were they thinking?’’ when those in positions to make a difference stood by and watched as pollutants in many forms poured into our air, land 
77 

and water and did little or nothing to stop the effects with which they will then 

have to contend. 

As a heavily loaded train or a large ship takes a long distance to slow down and 

stop, the earth changes we seem to have initiated will take many years and maybe 

generations to slow down. It is an almost complete unknown what will really happen after we are gone. The wildly differing estimates of sea level rise attest to that 

factor in the equation of global change. But each little step will help and we can’t 

be intimidated by the enormity of the problem. 

A couple years ago I testified for the Maryland legislature about why power plants 

should restrict their emissions into the atmosphere. In addition to the Senate hearing where I was very honored to speak to this issue of global warming, I will share 

that with my children and grandchildren, and I trust they will pass along to their 

children in turn, that I did try to help stem what seems like a runaway train that 

they will have to figure out how to stop, or how to live with the consequences. We 

all can do more to stem the changes that will inevitably come, but our legacy to 

those who come along after we are gone, should be that we tried to make a difference. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you for your testimony. We welcome your 

family. I think it is a fitting conclusion to this panel, and tells us 

the responsibility that all of us have in trying to get the Federal 

policies correct. 

We will start the questioning with Senator Mikulski. 

Senator MIKULSKI. First of all, I just want to thank every member of the panel for not only their contribution to this hearing, but 

what you do every day in terms of the vitality of the Bay, in terms 

of what you bring to the table, whether it is scientific commentary, 

pastoral stewardship, or advocacy. 

Dr. Schnare, thank you very much for bringing the geo-engineering information. We will come back to it in time, but I would just 

invite you, if you have a framework that you would like to bring 

to my committee’s attention, we would welcome this, because I 

think it will be a topic that will move on the global screen. I have 

questions and yellow lights about it. But rather than us giving our 

opinions about it, let’s go beyond opinion and go to sound data and 

research, which is what we have been talking about here today. 

Dr. SCHNARE. I would be happy to do that. 

Senator MIKULSKI. I believe that anything dealing with global 

warming, and any changes, has to deal with, number one, the right 

diagnosis and the right prescription. Then you need the political 

will. Political will will only come if people think they are affected. 

Now, Pastor Edmund, when I hear your testimony and look at 

the fact that there are now only 225 people on Smith Island, when 

it used to have a much larger population, the fact that people leave 

the island every day to commute into Crisfield, taking jobs, for example, at the prison so that they could have health care and a reliable revenue stream, while the men are kind of foraging for crabs. 

My question to you, and I know you have been part of a covenant 

approach, et cetera, tell me why are so many people leaving the island now on a permanent basis? 

Pastor EDMUND. It is complicated to answer, as global warming 

is. Some of them leave because it is a difficult situation for their 

young people to commute back and forth each day to school. It is 

a one hour boat ride each way, and if they want to be involved in 

sports activities and other activities. 

Senator MIKULSKI. Let’s go to the economics. Is it the fact that 

there is a decline in oysters, or what? 
78 

Pastor EDMUND. There are certainly many of the younger people 

that are not deciding to get into the watermen industry. It is a big 

output financially to do that. The future doesn’t hold strong for a 

good harvest from the crabs or the oysters, so some people are leaving for that reason. Some people are going and working on barges 

and tugs. Quite a few people do that for the consistent income and 

also for the benefits provided, because of the difficulty to continue 

crabbing. 

Senator MIKULSKI. So two things: No. 1, the concern about reliable income; and No. 2, reliable income is usually based on the way 

they earn their living, and the way they earn their living was off 

primarily crabbing and oysters. Isn’t that right? 

Pastor EDMUND. Yes. I would say maybe 90 percent of the income for just people living on the island comes from the watermen 

business. 

Senator MIKULSKI. Let’s go to you, Dr. Boesch. The Wildlife Federation put out this report, and we welcome it. But how long have 

you been studying the Bay? 

Pastor BOESCH. A little over 25 years. 

Senator MIKULSKI. Twenty-five years, and you have everything 

from peer measurements that go back 100 years, to your own research team. Now, in this report, as Senator Cardin has raised, 

oysters and crabs are part of our identity. They are also an important part of our economy, and we know that just if we look at 

watermen alone, let alone the multiplier part, we are talking about 

what was once thousands of people. 

So here is my question. Given temperature rise, the change in 

chemical composition possibly, as a colleague mentioned, what now 

are there indications will happen to crabs and oysters, say, in the 

next—let’s take crabs and then go to oysters—over the next 5 

years? Not the worst case scenario, but a mid-case scenario. And 

where do you think we will be in, say, 5 years or 10 years if current trend lines continue? 

Pastor BOESCH. Well, of course the predictions are difficult, particularly, as they say, about the future. So it is hard to draw firm 

conclusions. However, we can look at the things that we think are 

the most likely to happen as the Bay continues to warm, and sea 

levels continue to rise. The threats to those two resources are primarily these. 

First of all, juvenile crabs, depend on the Zostera or eelgrass 

beds in the lower bay that we have talked about. Just 2 years ago, 

we almost lost them. At the end of a very warm summer, populations were down to a very low level. Young crabs also depend on 

tidal marshes, which are very much in jeopardy as sea level rise 

accelerates. So for crabs, the habitat losses are a really critical 

problem. The prognosis doesn’t seem to be promising. We won’t lose 

crabs altogether, but the number and productivity of blue crabs 

will probably be diminished. 

Second, with respect to oysters, as the Bay deepens as sea level 

rises, more ocean water coming into the Bay. If there is a fixed 

amount of fresh water coming in from the rivers, this means the 

salinity lines move up in the Bay. As you know, Senator, that is 

really a serious problem for oysters because of the oyster diseases 
79 

which are controlled by salinity. So as salinity increases, the diseases will progress farther up the Bay. 

Senator MIKULSKI. So is it conceivable that the economy that we 

know, that if we were sitting at one of our famous crab houses, and 

I won’t mention them by name. It is like saying who is your favorite child. But if we were sitting in one of the crab houses in Maryland, it is conceivable— 

Senator WARNER. Or Virginia. 

Senator MIKULSKI. Or Virginia. 

Senator WARNER. Thank you. 

Senator MIKULSKI. You know, we still haven’t had that crabcake 

cook-off that you challenged me with. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator MIKULSKI. But the fact is that we could look to more and 

more importing because we cannot meet the demand now. Is that 

right? 

Mr. BOESCH. That is correct. As you know, Senator, that is happening now with the importation of both oysters and crabs to meet 

the local and regional demand. 

Senator MIKULSKI. Which would be a decline of our economy and 

our whole way of life. I mean, the watermen. 

Now, let’s, if I could just turn from my last question, to Will 

Baker. Will, and all the panelists, do you remember when Isabel 

hit and we had the surge in the Bay and the water came up. In 

my mind, we got a taste of what rising sea level would mean. It 

was temporary, but it was devastating. Will, take me on a tour 

down the Bay, starting at Crisfield and ending in Baltimore. As 

you see the temperature rise, what would you say is the impact, 

just physically, on Crisfield, Hoopers, Annapolis, and Baltimore? 

Mr. BAKER. Well, Senator, we released a climate change report 

this summer. On the cover is a picture of downtown Annapolis during Hurricane Isabel. I think that picture speaks 1,000 words. That 

is what you are going to see in Crisfield and Hoopers Island and 

St. Michaels and all the way up into Baltimore, is streets flooded, 

resources flooded, economic damage. I think it is critical. 

You mentioned the farmers. It certainly impacts there. With 

greater storms and runoff and erosion, you are going to have more 

sediment loads in the Bay. So I would add that to what Dr. Boesch 

said is an impact. 

Senator MIKULSKI. And agricultural legacy issues, in other 

words, no matter what you have been able to work out constructively with agriculture and poultry, what will run off will not be 

pristine topsoil. 

Mr. BAKER. There is no question. We could face severe economic, 

environmental, recreational, human health issues. 

Senator MIKULSKI. But if we picture Hoopers Island, that would 

probably go under water. 

Mr. BAKER. The islands of the Bay are already disappearing, and 

you would see that accelerate and probably come to a conclusion in 

our lifetimes. 

Senator MIKULSKI. Now, let’s picture Annapolis, from the Naval 

Academy to Main Street. During Isabel, it just flooded out. We had 

$42 million worth of damage at the Naval Academy. It flooded out 
80 

the entire power plant at the Naval Academy, and classes had to 

be moved to a variety of other settings, just as an example. 

Can you describe what Annapolis would look like? 

Mr. BAKER. Absolutely. That is what you would see more of. Fells 

Point, your hometown, underwater. So there is human, economic, 

and environmental health impacts from all of this. 

Senator MIKULSKI. Well, I will stop with my questions. 

Senator Cardin, do you remember how you, both as a House 

member and in the General Assembly, remember how we had to 

deal with beach erosion in Ocean City? So we had to deal with a 

lot of remedial work. It seems to me we have to look ahead to, if 

global warming is so, and water will rise, not at the draconian rate 

of say 20 feet, but 2 feet, then they are not going to be able to get 

insurance for their buildings; being able to pull back from the 

water. I don’t know how you pull back the Naval Academy. I really 

don’t. And all that has been around it would be significant. 

When you think of Baltimore, what would run off into the Bay, 

because you have agricultural legacy, but we have industrial legacy 

that could cause significant pollution. But there would be no remediation to protect our land resources. 

So I will stop now, because to me the best prevention will be 

working internationally, and of course, our own national solutions 

with Governors. But again, I am going to stop. We really want to 

thank you. I am sorry I couldn’t ask each and every one of you a 

question. 

Senator CARDIN. Senator Mikulski, thank you. As I pointed out, 

AllState already has stopped insuring, and many of the insurance 

companies. If you live in the coastal areas, it is tough to get insurance today because the insurance companies understand the risk, 

not only the risk from sea level change, but it is climate change. 

They understand that. They understand that they are not willing 

to risk their financial investments. It is causing real hardships for 

people who live in coastal areas. 

The chart that we brought here shows a one meter, the red is 

a one meter increase in sea level. Dr. Boesch indicated two to four 

feet would be what you could reasonably anticipate. So that would 

be about the average increase, but then red would be under water. 

So it gives you an indication of the serious threat this region has 

from sea level change increases. 

Senator Warner. 

Senator WARNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

A question for Mr. Baker. The environmental bill that Senator 

Lieberman and I are working on does have a provision for the Bay. 

As a matter of fact, there is quite a liberal provision in there for 

distribution of funds to the interests of fishermen, trout streams. 

We have a lot of environmental funding streams going out. But 

let’s assume we have a block of money, and it does pass through 

for the Bay, what are the mechanisms by which we get it down into 

the proper priorities for the Bay? Congress can’t be expected to 

know the details to make that assessment. 

Should we sort of divide the money between the several States 

that are surrounding the Bay? It may be somewhat disproportionate for Maryland and Virginia, given that their shorelines consume a good deal of it. How would you go about the mechanism by 
81 

which we—the conduit for the money to the Bay form the cap and 

trade proposal now under consideration? 

Mr. BAKER. The good news, Senator, is that thanks to scientists 

here today, Dr. Boesch, Dr. Pyke and certainly all those behind 

them, the science is very precise in terms of how the money could 

be spent most effectively. I will just touch on one area that I mentioned in my testimony which has benefits also for global climate 

change because it sequesters carbon. 

To use some of this money to help the farmers put the best management practices on their land, that have proven to be the most 

cost-effective way to reduce a pound of nitrogen from coming into 

the Chesapeake Bay, just to take that one pollutant, seems to me 

the place where now much of the focus should be. 

Thanks to the good work in the Commonwealth and in the State 

of Maryland, we have come a long way towards addressing sewage 

treatment plant upgrades to the state of technology. But now we 

need to turn to the agricultural sector. They are meeting us more 

than half way. They want to do what is right. They want to invest 

their own money, but they need assistance. 

There are numerous mechanisms whereby those decisions can be 

made to get the money to the most effective areas in keeping with 

science. 

Senator WARNER. Well, is it better to say to the State of Virginia 

and Maryland, ‘‘Here is the money; you go back and direct how 

your farmers do it, not the Federal Government.’’ If I might draw 

on a modest bit of experience. I spent many of my summers as a 

boy on farms growing up, back in the days when we didn’t have 

many tractors. They are all big dray horses we used. And I then 

owned quite a few farms in my lifetime. So I have always been interested in it. 

Farmers are very independent. When you step on their land, that 

is their sovereign territory. Now, it doesn’t take a genius to figure 

out that when you are plowing, you expose the soil, but you have 

to do it—although we do more sod planting now—but plowing exposes a very dangerous time for the drain-off. But you can plug up 

the tributaries and so forth it drains off into. 

I don’t see why it takes so much money to try and help the farmers do what seems to me is obvious to them. They have farmed that 

land and their forefathers in most instances have farmed it, too. 

Mr. BAKER. Well, I think it is competing—— 

Senator WARNER. It’s not rocket science, is it? 

Mr. BAKER. I think it is competing in a world economy that is 

trying to get more and more production out of the same acre of 

land. 

Senator WARNER. I agree with that. 

Mr. BAKER. We see that happening all the time in terms of the 

intensity with which land is farmed now, dramatically increased 

even for the last 40 or 50 years, so more fertilizers, more herbicides, more intense croppings. I think that is really at the root of 

why it is so much more difficult today than it may have been in 

the past. 

Senator WARNER. Any other suggestions? I think you are well 

taken and you are correct about the advancement in science in trying to take less and less tillage land and put it to good use. 
82 

Dr. SCHNARE. Senator, the Thomas Jefferson Institute has been 

working very hard to try and find ways to encourage farmers to 

transition to never-till farming. We don’t begin to take responsibility for what has happened, but we are very pleased to report 

what has happened. As recently as 5 years ago, fewer than 80,000 

acres in Virginia were in the mix. It is now up to about 150,000 

acres out of 1.1 million. You can reduce nutrients by 90 percent by 

using these advanced techniques. 

Senator WARNER. You mean nutrients escaping from the farmland? 

Dr. SCHNARE. Exactly. 

Senator WARNER. You don’t have the streams and tributaries 

feeding into the—— 

Dr. SCHNARE. Yes, sir. Exactly that. But what we found it takes, 

because farmers make money doing this, it is to their benefit to do 

it, it is rocket science. It is a difficult change in farming, and we 

found, and have worked very hard, for one, I am pleased that the 

State legislature acceded to this, to increase funding to the technical experts in the State Farm Bureaus and the like, who can be 

the agents of change to help farmers transition. They haven’t done 

it immediately, but it is growing. The number one most productive 

corn farmer in the United States has been doing never-till farming 

for over 15 years. 

Senator WARNER. You mean sod planting? 

Dr. SCHNARE. No, Senator, I mean corn production Virginia. 

Senator WARNER. No-till. 

Mr. SCHNARE. He doesn’t even use winter cover crop at this 

point. 

Senator WARNER. Is that right? 

Mr. SCHNARE. He is right on the Rappahannock. He is a remarkably good farmer and he is a model for the entire State. We are 

going to encourage more and more of that. That is why we work 

with the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and others to try to bring 

these methods forward over the last several years. 

But keep in mind, and this is important to understand, regardless of how we get them the money, we have a short-term problem 

as well as a long-term problem. The short-term problem is the foot 

or two ocean rise. The second problem is the many feet ocean rise. 

They are two different kinds of problems. 

I extend again the opportunity to inform you, as Senator Mikulski has asked us to do, to talk about geo-engineering, which will 

address these, some in the short term and some in the long term. 

Those are not State challenges. Those will have to be Federal and 

international. 

Senator WARNER. I appreciate that testimony, and I may have 

been a little off the mark on that. I accept your answer as being 

the correct one, that there is a measure of rocket science in this 

and we have to help our farmers learn it. 

Could I have one more quick question? A little bit of philosophical approach to this whole subject of climate change. I am a 

relative newcomer. I have been on this committee I think 20 odd 

years now, but we have really come into focus on this issue. I have 

teamed up, and I am ready to step out and take risks and politics 

be darned. We are going to try and drive this bill through. 
83 

But in fairness to other colleagues on this Committee and 

throughout the Senate, there is still a lot of question marks about 

global climate change, is it real, what are the unknowns. I mean, 

it caught my attention when Mr. Boesch, his opening statement, 

very well drafted, and I will repeat it: ‘‘Chairman Boxer, members 

of the Committee, I am Don Boesch. I am pleased to appear before 

you today to address what is known.’’ That is the key phrase, 

‘‘what is known about the impacts of global climate change.’’ 

Now, any bill like cap and trade is secretly reaching into the 

pockets of Mr. and Mrs. America, the working people. There is 

nothing that is of greater value next to a man’s home and his family, than his car. And that is becoming a more costly means of 

transportation because of fuel costs. Every home has got to go 

through a measure of heating or cooling, as the case may be, during various times of the year. 

These costs are going to begin to creep, and the public I think 

is going to say, ‘‘OK, let’s give it a chance; I will continue to pay.’’ 

But if we try and push too far in our initial charge forward on this 

issue, and we overstep technology and overstep what we know and 

how to go about correcting it, I think the public might rebel and 

we will all pull back and then have to start again, and I don’t know 

when we would get the momentum to start again. 

So I do it with a measure of caution. No matter how committed 

you are individually, and I am and certain members of this committee, there are those who way to say let’s go at a pace where we 

are secure, and then consolidate our gains, and then move ahead 

again. 

Now, it is clear that we have to put down some very strong 

markers. We can’t go about this thing half-hearted. But whatever 

we do, let’s go at it with a full heart, but only try and gain that 

amount of ground in our first charge out of the trenches and over 

the top into the face of the unknown, and then consolidate and 

then do it again. 

Just philosophically, do you all share that? Or do you have a difference of views? Let’s just start at your end and go the other way 

for a change. 

Pastor EDMUND. Well, we certainly want to be correct in what we 

are doing. It is a fine line as to whether we delay long enough to 

make 100 percent certainty as to whether this climate change is actually going to occur. Of if we wait too long, and then it is so much 

of a larger job ahead of us. 

But I think if we apply reasonable measures, it is better to err 

on the side of caution. We certainly for a couple centuries now have 

been putting a lot of pollutants into the air that have to have some 

sort of effect, I believe, on the climate in the long run. 

Senator WARNER. I agree with you. I am willing to take a measure of risk, not concerning my political risk or anything like that. 

Pastor EDMUND. Right. 

Senator WARNER. Take a measure of risk, but we just want to 

capture that high ground that we can take based on some pretty 

solid data as to the effects of climate change and the degree to 

which technology and modern science can put in corrective measures. 
84 

Mr. SCHNARE. Thank you, Senator. I think the question of incremental approaches crashes on the rocks of the time scales with 

which we are operating. If we are to prevent 550 parts per million 

of CO2 in our atmosphere, which is considered the point at which 

we hit the first tipping point, the inevitable full melting of the 

Greenland ice sheet, some argue, including Nobel laureate Paul 

Crutzen, that it is already too late, and that any attempt to prevent that is nothing more than, in his words, ‘‘a pious hope.’’ 

If what I am hearing from you is that the 80 percent reduction 

needed worldwide is too much of a first step, and since China and 

India refuse to do it, it probably is, then I think what you have to 

examine is what can we do—we know there are acute things to do 

for the first 20 years. We know they are affordable. But they will 

not solve the initial problem. We are going to need a couple of centuries to move away from carbon-based fuel, which is why I have 

raised to the Committee this concern about geo-engineering, that 

someone will use, but which is not now being managed or even contemplated on how we would manage this process. 

Senator WARNER. Well, I don’t mean to be half-hearted, but just 

philosophically I will take into consideration your views. 

Mr. Avery. 

Mr. AVERY. The correlation between our temperature record over 

the last 150 years with CO2 is very, very weak. The correlation 

with the sun spot index is very, very strong. I think that, with all 

due respect to the power of the Congress, you are headed for enormous anguish, frustration and misspent capital in this effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It will not halt the temperature 

cycle. 

Mr. BOESCH. Well, first the good news. We have a good starting 

point, because I think we have all agreed, despite the difference of 

perspectives, that the world is warming. So let’s get on beyond that 

discussion and figure out how much of the warming is due to humankind, and how much is due to natural cycles. 

The fact of the matter is that we have added greenhouse gases 

into the atmosphere over the last 30 years that warmed the earth 

10 times more than the variation in the solar energy reaching the 

earth. So although Mr. Avery indicated that the solar activity does 

affect our climate, we are going to a new era beyond that. We are 

already in a warm period and we are now taking it outside of what 

the earth has seen over hundreds of thousands of years. 

So I would agree that time is not on our side. We do need to 

make some positive commitments and actions, but we don’t have 

all the solutions in hand. Whether it is geo-engineering or carbon 

sequestration, all of these things are going to take time and investment. 

However, another point that Dr. Schnare made, is that there are 

lots of things that we can do now to sort of reverse the upward 

growth in emissions and then reduce them. That is why States 

have formed climate commissions, including the one Governor 

O’Malley talked about, that are developing goals from a State perspective. The States are setting 2020 goals for emissions reductions, something that we could actually begin to strive to achieve 

specifically. What they are concluding is that once you look at it, 
85 

it is feasible to return to levels of emissions that were present in 

1990. 

Guess what? This fear that it is going to bankrupt us, we can’t 

afford it, goes away when you start to look at ways to achieve these 

goals. The State of Arizona recently completed its plan. The State 

of Arizona is one of the fastest growing States in the Nation and 

Lord knows, it has huge demands for air conditioning. It estimated 

that it could reduce its greenhouse gas emissions back to 1990 levels even with all of its growth and economic development, and actually save for their economy $5.5 billion—not cost, but save. There 

are up-front investments. There are investments that have to be 

made in terms of alternative energy sources. But most of the other 

things we can do actually benefit our economy and benefit families, 

because they reduce energy consumption. 

Senator WARNER. The point is well taken. I didn’t mean to consume time. I think I hit sort of an interesting note. 

Senator CARDIN. No, no, I want to give you the chance for the 

last two to respond. I think it is a very important question. 

Senator WARNER. Let’s do that. 

Senator CARDIN. Because we need to figure out what is the practical way we can get this accomplished. 

Senator WARNER. That is correct. 

Mr. PYKE. Thank you. I will try to answer very succinctly. 

One, emissions choices make a difference. That is important. 

Two, wearing one hat, part of my professional life is in the building 

sector. It is an industry that is transforming itself to meet higher 

levels of performance. This not so much about cost as it is about 

fixing a fragmented and complicated industry. That is something 

we can do and we can all profit from in various ways. 

The third and more important issue, or equally important issue, 

is that a lot of the things we talked about with regard to the Bay 

are process improvements. This is about electing to make a different decision in how we are managing our resources. As Dr. 

Boesch had said, we are looking at changing conditions. Thus, it is 

irresponsible to carry out our responsibilities as if climate wasn’t 

changing. And so as we carry out the Clean Water Act, as we carry 

out the Endangered Species Act, as we look at NEPA, those are situations where it is now responsible. The standard of care is shifting so that we should ask our agencies to include that in their decisionmaking process explicitly. That can be done immediately. 

Senator WARNER. Good. 

Mr. BAKER. I truly believe the costs will actually come down to 

the general public. In the Chesapeake Bay Foundation’s energy efficient building, for instance, we are saving $75,000 a year in energy costs. So I think conservation of energy is a great cost saving. 

Senator WARNER. I agree. 

Mr. BAKER. But secondly, maybe here is the philosophical part, 

let’s accept for a moment that global warming is not going to happen. And then let’s look at all the strategies that have been put forward to address global warming. All of them make great environmental sense even if they are not to address global warming. I will 

just cite my friend Jim Woolsey, who is such an advocate for energy conservation. His motivation is because he believes global 
86 

warming is real, but also energy independence for this Country and 

the great benefit that is to national security. 

So there are lots of other benefits of the strategies we have all 

been talking about beyond global warming. 

Senator WARNER. I share your admiration for Jim Woolsey. 

I thank the Chair. I thank my colleagues. What an excellent 

hearing we have had this morning. 

Senator CARDIN. Senator Warner, thank you. I think the last 

point that Mr. Baker made is that there is more unity in this issue 

than one might expect, for different reasons. I think there is a 

strong need for the environmental issues, including the Chesapeake Bay, but also national security on energy independence, and 

also economic issues because we can save a lot of money for our 

economy. 

Following up with what Dr. Boesch said, there is agreement, I 

think consensus, that we are getting warmer, and warmer is not 

good for the health of the Chesapeake Bay region. Whether it has 

to do with the warmer waters, which is affecting the life on Smith 

Island because it affects the watermen’s livelihood, or whether it 

affects people who want to live here because they want to go out 

on the weekend and catch rockfish, which might not be here in the 

future if we are not careful as to what happens with the warming 

of the Chesapeake Bay, whether it is sea level increases, which certainly is having an impact on the life of this entire region, or 

whether it is storm conditions which bring us more unpredictable 

weather, which is affecting the ability not only to get insurance, 

but the safety of your family. 

These are all issues that I think we need to deal with. I do think 

that there is also general agreement with what Dr. Boesch said, 

and that is, sure, we go through cycles of warming, but there is 

normally stability in those cycles. And then in the last 50 years, 

we have seen something somewhat dramatic as to what has happened. Although there may be some argument as to what impact 

the greenhouse gases have on that, it has been the major variable 

over the last 50 years, the amount of emissions of greenhouse 

gases. So it is something that is a major concern as to how we are 

going to figure out what is right for the Chesapeake Bay and our 

environment, but also what is right for our energy policy in this 

Country. 

I think Senator Warner’s point about coming up with a practical 

solution is important. It is not only important from the point of 

view of getting a bill passed in the Congress and signed by the 

President, but we need also to be credible for international leadership. The United States has to get back in the game. We do need 

to be able to exercise international leadership as it relates to what 

is happening in China and India and other countries because obviously that has an impact on what we are doing. 

So I think these are all interrelated, but clearly the people in the 

Chesapeake Bay region are directly affected by these policies. 

I thank all of you for the manner in which you have made your 

presentations today. I agree with Chairman Boxer, I think this has 

been a very, very important hearing for all of us who are trying to 

do what we can to preserve a way of life for the people of this region. And to Pastor Edmund, I will conclude with you. Your grand-
87 

children should be very proud of what you are doing. On a typical 

Sunday, you should know that Pastor Edmund needs to use a golf 

cart and a boat in order to get to the three churches on Smith Island in order to provide the spiritual leadership to that community, 

which is just an inspiration to all of us. 

We thank you very much for all of you being here. We look forward to working with you. 

The Committee will keep the record open for one week. 

If there is nothing further? 

Senator MIKULSKI. Mr. Chairman, Acting Chairman, I would like 

to just thank again everyone who participated, and all the hard 

work that went into it. 

What I would like to just comment is that I was very pleased 

that maybe I have had a modest impact on public policy by my 

presence. But I have obviously helped you move up and in 21⁄2

hours become Chairman. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator MIKULSKI. We have had a good day. Thank you very 

much. 

Senator CARDIN. Maryland is in a good position right now. 

Senator MIKULSKI. As Louis Goldstein would say, ‘‘God bless you 

all real good.’’ 

Senator CARDIN. The Committee will stand adjourned. Thank 

you all. 

[Whereupon, at 12:04 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:] 
88 
89 
90 
91 
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 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 
152 
153 
154 
155 
156 
157 
158 

Æ