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

57–968 2010

GLOBAL WARMING MOUNTAINTOP ‘‘SUMMIT’’: 

ECONOMIC IMPACTS ON NEW ENGLAND 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SELECT COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY INDEPENDENCE 

AND GLOBAL WARMING 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JUNE 4, 2007 

Serial No. 110–6 

( 

Printed for the use of the Select Committee on 

Energy Independence and Global Warming 

globalwarming.house.gov 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
(II) 

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ENERGY INDEPENDENCE 

AND GLOBAL WARMING 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts, Chairman 

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

JOHN B. LARSON, Connecticut 

HILDA L. SOLIS, California 

STEPHANIE HERSETH SANDLIN, 

South Dakota 

EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri 

JOHN J. HALL, New York 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin, Ranking Member 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

DAVID MOULTON, Staff Director 

ALIYA BRODSKY, Chief Clerk 

THOMAS WEIMER, Minority Staff Director 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. Edward J. Markey, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, opening statement .................................................... 1 

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

Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Wisconsin, opening statement .............................................................. 5 

Hon. John B. Larson, a Representative in Congress from the State of Connecticut, opening statement ................................................................................ 6 

Hon. Greg Walden, a Representative in Congress from the State of Oregon, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 6 

Hon. Paul W. Hodes, a Representative in Congress from the State of New 

Hampshire, opening statement ........................................................................... 7 

Hon. Carol Shea-Porter, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

New Hampshire, opening statement .................................................................. 8 

WITNESSES

Ms. Alice Chamberlin, Special Assistant for Policy, Energy, Environment 

and Transportation, Office of Governor John Lynch ......................................... 9 

Dr. Timothy Perkins, Ph.D., Director, Proctor Maple Research Center, University of Vermont ..................................................................................................... 11 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 13 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 60 

Dr. Cameron Wake, Ph.D., Research Associate Professor, Climate Change 

Research Center and Department of Earth Sciences, University of New 

Hampshire ............................................................................................................ 22 

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

Mr. Bill Koury, Former President, The New Hampshire Wildlife Federation, 

Avid Sportsman .................................................................................................... 31 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 33 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 65 

Ms. Betsy Blaisdell, Manager, Environmental Stewardship Program, 

Timberland ........................................................................................................... 35 

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

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Prepared statement of Governor John Lynch ....................................................... 71 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING

pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
(1) 

GLOBAL WARMING MOUNTAINTOP ‘‘SUMMIT’’: 

ECONOMIC IMPACTS ON NEW ENGLAND 

MONDAY, JUNE 4, 2007 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ENERGY INDEPENDENCE

AND GLOBAL WARMING, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 11:05 a.m. In Franconia, 

New Hampshire, on the summit of Cannon Mountain, Hon. Edward J. Markey [chairman of the committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Markey, Larson, Hodes, Shea-Porter, 

Sensenbrenner and Walden. 

The CHAIRMAN. This hearing will come to order. 

I am Congressman Ed Markey from the State of Massachusetts. 

I am the chairman of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming. We thank all of you for coming here 

today to the summit of Cannon Mountain for our field hearing on 

this very important issue of global warming. 

When we initially scheduled the hearing, we had hoped that the 

weather would cooperate and we would have a clear view of New 

Hampshire and New England. However, as Mark Twain once said, 

one of the brightest gems of the New England weather is the dazzling uncertainty of it. 

Despite the clouds, today’s hearing will still give us a lot of clarity about the ways that global warming is affecting New England 

and its economy. We are sitting at an elevation of 4,180 feet, and 

our hopes are that it will help to give us a perspective as to how 

this issue is affecting New England and other parts of our country 

and the world that are at higher elevations. 

Critical components of the New Hampshire economy, such as skiing, tourism, maple sugaring, hunting, and fishing are especially 

vulnerable to the impacts associated with global warming. Tourism 

spending associated with many of these industries currently brings 

billions of dollars into New Hampshire every year. We are already 

seeing impacts associated with global warming here in the Northeast such as warming winters with less snow and more rain, a 

shorter snow season, earlier leaf and bloom dates in the spring and 

a growing number of heavy precipitation events. 

According to a 2006 analysis by a team of climate experts, including one of whom will be testifying today, the average temperatures in the Northeast have been increasing at a rate of almost a 

half a degree Fahrenheit per decade since 1970 and during winter 

months at a much faster rate of roughly 1.25 degrees per decade. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
2 

Over the last 35 years, winter temperatures in the Northeast have 

increased overall by a remarkable 4.4 degrees Fahrenheit. 

As we will hear from our panel today, global warming has the 

potential to completely devastate the winter outdoor recreational 

industries that are essential components of the New England economy and their way of life. We already know that if we don’t cut 

global warming pollution we may need to rename Glacier National 

Park because one day there may be no glaciers in that park, and 

now it appears we may also have to one day rename the White 

Mountains because there may be no more snow. 

However, the response from the people of New Hampshire at the 

State and local level has been astonishing. At the local level, the 

residents of 164 cities and towns all across the State went to their 

town meetings and passed a climate change resolution. The resolution in part calls on the President and the Congress to take action 

to set up a national program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 

At the State level in August of 2006, Governor John Lynch endorsed the goal of producing 25 percent of New Hampshire’s energy 

from clean renewable sources by the year 2025 and last month 

signed the Renewable Energy Act to set the renewable energy 

standards for electric utilities in the State. 

New Hampshire is also an inaugural member of the Regional 

Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a landmark bipartisan agreement between the Governors of 10 Northeastern and mid-Atlantic States to 

reduce emissions of carbon dioxide from power plants 10 percent 

below current levels by 2019. 

Being in New Hampshire today further highlights the economic 

risk of global warming and the growing public support around the 

country for taking bold action. The Congress now needs to catch up 

to the American people who are calling for national mandatory programs to reduce our heat-trapping emissions. 

And now I would like to recognize the ranking member of the select committee, the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. Sensenbrenner. 

[The statement of Mr. Markey follows:] 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
3 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 7 here 57968A.001
4 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 8 here 57968A.002
5 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

This is the first of many expected field hearings with the Select 

Committee and with the possible exception of Holy Hill in my 

southeastern Wisconsin district, I can’t imagine a more beautiful 

location for this committee to begin its road show than here at 

Cannon Mountain and Franconia, New Hampshire. 

The chairman has said this committee will travel to several locations in an effort to get a firsthand look at climate change, although I doubt we will go to anywhere with a more potential scenic 

view than the one that we have. I would hope that our friends in 

the press would not put a headline saying, Global Warming Committee Starts Out with Heads in Clouds, because that is where we 

are here. 

With these field hearings, we will get a closer look at how warming temperatures specifically affect some regions. Undoubtedly, 

there will be an emphasis caused by climate change and greenhouse gas emissions, and in some respects perhaps not every effect 

is all bad. For example, Mr. Perkins, the Director of the University 

of Vermont’s Proctor Maple Research Center, will tell us today that 

the maple syrup season is getting shorter. But he also knows that 

the shorter season has not yet resulted in lower syrup harvests. 

Not only that, Dr. Perkins points out that increased carbon dioxide 

concentrations also lead to higher sugar production in maples. 

It is no stretch of the imagination to say that a warming climate 

will reduce days that one can ski or harvest sap from maple trees. 

There is little doubt that these kind of changes would also have 

negative effects on New England’s economy and culture. But it will 

take the imagination to develop solutions that will help protect ski 

seasons and maple sap harvest without hurting the economy any 

even more. For that, the solution will have to include ways to 

adapt to the changing climate. 

Dr. Perkins notes that the growth potential of maples in the 

Northeast is limited because of marginal soil nutrition and longterm nitrogen saturation, among other reasons. We know that 

healthy forests can help take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere 

and that smart forest management should be a component of any 

climate change policy. 

I believe healthy forests management policies that help encourage maple tree growth are more likely to have a positive effect on 

those trees than greenhouse gas regulations whose effect may 

never be seen. 

When considering climate change policy, most of the important 

principles Republicans will insist on is that the policy actually 

leads to measurable, tangible improvements to the environment. 

Republicans will insist that any policy that puts an emphasis on 

advancements in energy technology while also making sure that 

the policy doesn’t hurt the economy or cost us jobs. And I would 

point out that some of the Kyoto compliance proposals that have 

been out there will result in an increase in the price of gasoline by 

over a dollar a gallon over and above the high prices that we are 

already paying, and that is certainly going to have an impact on 

any economy that is heavily dependent upon the tourist trade. 

While this magnificent mountain provides a great vantage point 

to see the surrounding countryside when the clouds are gone, I am 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
6 

not sure this location will help bring realistic solutions into view. 

We need a mountain high enough to see to India and China, but 

I doubt that the summit of Mount Everest is one of the designations that Mr. Markey has on our agenda. 

It may seem hard to believe that these faraway nations could 

have an effect on this beautiful mountain a half a world away, but 

the scientific consensus appears to tell us just that. Already, China 

is expected to surpass the U.S. in carbon dioxide emissions this 

year. That is why Republican Members of congress will insist that 

any policy addressing greenhouse gas reduction also includes China 

and India. 

I do salute President Bush last week in announcing a policy that 

engages both China and India which have walked away from the 

Kyoto Policy beginning in 1995 and thus the Kyoto Treaty and the 

mechanism that is set up only apply to countries which are in the 

developed world, rather than the 134 countries which are not. 

When talking about global warming, there is a lot to think about 

locally, but if we act, we must do so globally. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from our 

neighboring State of Connecticut, the gentleman who is the vice 

chairman of the Democratic Caucus, Mr. John Larson. 

Mr. LARSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for holding 

this hearing in our distinguished colleague Paul Hodes’ district, 

and it is great to be up here in New Hampshire. 

We have just come from a trip with the Speaker and the chairman of this committee to Greenland, then on to Germany to meet 

with Chancellor Merkel, then on to the U.K. To meet with a number of MPs whose top priority is climate change as well, and then 

on to the European Union and back home. And our first stop, of 

course, was here in New Hampshire. It is good to be here with my 

colleague, Carol Shea-Porter as well. 

They are an outstanding addition who, I think, understand intuitively, as do the 164 communities in New Hampshire, what we 

face. It is a sense of urgency, and to that sense of urgency the 

worst thing I think any elected official or any person can utter was 

‘‘we were too late.’’ we will be if we don’t respond in the kind of 

manner that we need to do. Making sure, as Mr. Sensenbrenner 

said, that the science is right. 

In Greenland, we also relied on the Inuit Indians, who actually 

fish in that area and hunt in that area, so there was firsthand, anecdotal proof of what is going on, something that your eyes could 

not deny in terms of the glacial melt that is occurring there. 

I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. Walden. 

Mr. WALDEN. I am Congressman Greg Walden. I represent the 

people of Oregon’s Second Congressional District. It is great to be 

here on your mountaintop in New Hampshire. The one in my district rises 11,232 feet; and the base of our ski run, 45 minutes from 

where I live, starts at 4,000 feet. So we are no strangers to these 

issues and the importance of having a good snow pack for our winter recreation. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
7 

I, too, just returned from a week overseas meeting with leaders 

in places like Denmark and Belgium and in Germany and in London; and we talked a lot about the issues related to greenhouse gas 

emissions, what we can do about them, what has worked over there 

in terms of their cap and trade system and how we can learn from 

mistakes that they made as we look at legislation that works for 

our country. 

The chairman of our subcommittee, Rick Boucher, who is a Democrat from Virginia, laid out a timeline that he thought that Congress might work on to produce a bill for first consideration as 

early as this September. But he also said it should be bipartisan, 

industry supported, supported bicamerally between the Senate and 

the House and the President and that it wouldn’t put an adverse 

burden on America’s economy and consumers. 

For example, we learned in Germany, when they did the initial 

allocations in credit in their carbon and cap system, they overallocated; and the utilities took that opportunity cost and passed it on 

to their rate payers, resulting in electricity price increases of up to 

20 percent in some cases. So, as they move into the next phase, 

they are trying to figure out how not to repeat that. 

These are lessons we are trying to learn here as we look at what 

works for New Hampshire may be different than what may work 

in Oregon or a southern State. How do we pull together as a country to address this very important issue as an environment and 

then internationally? How do we pull everybody in to do the right 

thing? 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much. 

Now I turn to recognize the Congressman who represents this 

district, the host congressional district for our first field hearing 

here in the United States. I consider our trip to Greenland to be 

a field trip of historic import as well. The gentleman from New 

Hampshire, Paul Hodes. 

Mr. HODES. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to welcome everyone to the Second Congressional District 

of New Hampshire and to Cannon Mountain where the steep trails 

and challenging conditions challenge old knees like mine. 

This is a very important hearing. We are all aware of the scientific reports outlining the dangerous environmental impacts of 

global warming. In New England and in New Hampshire, however, 

global warming also poses a threat to our economic well-being and 

our way of life. An increase in the average temperature by even a 

few degrees would be disastrous to the agriculture, forestry, and 

tourism industries here. 

Previous Congresses and the Bush administration, frankly, have 

ignored the growing crisis of global warming. Now we, as Members 

of the 110th Congress, must enact a solution that meets the challenges posed to both our environment and our economy. 

The issues of energy, climate change, environment, and national 

security are absolutely intertwined; and it will be up to us as we 

move forward to redefine what real security for this country means. 

We have got to bring predictability to businesses who are waiting 

to go green. Many businesses are starting to act voluntarily, but 

many are sitting on the sidelines waiting for Federal regulations 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
8 

that will provide a predictable set of standards. We have got to 

help revitalize our economy and keep us competitive in a global 

economy, and going green with the right energy policies will bring 

new jobs to this country. 

We have got to unhook from energy produced by unfriendly countries. We need to make America number one in the world in energy 

efficiency, conservation, and the development of new energy technologies so that we can export goods and services to the world that 

help the world and earn us a respect as world leader. 

Granite staters have led the Nation to action on environmental 

issues before. In 1983, over 100 New Hampshire towns passed a 

resolution calling on Congress to curb acid rain, and today we have 

reduced sulfur dioxide emissions from power plants by 40 percent 

compared to 1980 levels. 

One hundred and sixty-four New Hampshire towns, including 

our hosts here today in Franconia, have passed a resolution urging 

Congress and the President to establish a national program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to initiate more aggressive research to develop sustainable energy technologies in ways that will 

strengthen our domestic economy. 

But this hearing today is vital to understanding the economic implications of global warming policy in New Hampshire, New England, and the United States. 

I thank you for coming to New Hampshire. I thank you for coming to the Second District, and we look forward to the testimony 

of our witnesses. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

And the Chair recognizes the gentlelady from New Hampshire, 

Carol Shea-Porter, who represents the other half of this great 

State. 

Ms. SHEA PORTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; and good morning 

to everybody. It is a great honor to be here. 

On the way up—and I have been on this car more times than I 

want to tell because I do get a little nervous riding up—but I saw 

damage to the trees. The person who brought us up told us it is 

from the sulfuric clouds, and that just absolutely pains me to think 

that we are continuing the degradation of our forests and our economy. But it is not hopeless. 

I was talking to some kids from high school, 17, 18 years old. If 

you are here, raise your hand, because I am so proud of all of them. 

They hiked up here so they could have their input, and they were 

carrying a flag that was designed that said ‘‘patriotism is green,’’ 

and that is true. And that is what I wanted to address, that patriotism is green, and we need to educate our young and ourselves to 

do this. 

We are now at the point where Congress has to go in overtime 

and in overdrive if we are going to beat this back and change the 

warming, but we can do this. You know, we have it in our genes 

to succeed. We are the children and the grandchildren of that generation that fought that world war and that sent us to the moon 

and did all of these other great things. We need our self-confidence 

back, but we also need the political will to do this, and I am 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
9 

pleased to say that we are now seeing in Congress a bipartisan effort to make that change. 

I myself think we could go faster and that we must go faster. I 

think that if we go ahead and put an Apollo-like plan in—and I 

have spoken to a number of people, scientists who say it can be 

done—we could achieve independence from energy from outside energy sources that are not friendly to us; and, of course, I am speaking specifically about some countries in the Middle East. We could 

do this in the next decade, and we could create jobs while we do 

that. 

And we owe it to these kids. I look at their faces, and I know 

they are looking at us the way we looked at our parents. I looked 

at my parents and their generation as just awesome people that 

could take on the problems of the world and succeed. They are 

looking at us with the same kind of hope, and we owe it to them, 

and we owe it to the children around the world to do this. 

It is okay if not every country signs on board to do this. We still 

have the responsibility to be the moral leaders and the scientific 

leaders and we have the talent. Look who is sitting in front of us 

at this panel. We have everything we need as long as we pull together and believe that we can and we must and we will succeed. 

So I thank all of you for coming today. I have high hopes for Congress, and I have high hopes that the President will start to move 

forward and that we will see the change that we owe the next generation. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Time for opening remarks from Members of Congress has expired, and we will now turn to hear from our expert 

witnesses. 

Our first witness is Alice Chamberlin. She is testifying on behalf 

of Governor John Lynch who is now a recognized national leader 

on this issue. 

We welcome you, Ms. Chamberlin. Whenever you are ready, 

please begin. 

STATEMENT OF ALICE CHAMBERLIN, SPECIAL ASSISTANT 

FOR POLICY, ENERGY, ENVIRONMENT AND TRANSPORTATION, OFFICE OF GOVERNOR JOHN LYNCH 

Ms. CHAMBERLIN. I don’t know if my mike is on. 

Mr. Chairman, Congressman Sensenbrenner, members of the 

committee, welcome, and particularly to our congressional delegation, welcome. On behalf of Governor Lynch, it is my privilege to 

welcome you here today at Cannon. 

We wish the weather was better. I know that the Governor 

would want me to invite you back when the weather is beautiful; 

and if it clears behind you, I will let you know. 

But we are here today because Cannon is an appropriate place 

that you have chosen very well to talk about global warming and 

the impacts of global warming. 

All of the activities that we depend on as a State to bring recreation and tourism, our traditional values and lifestyles of maple 

sugaring, hiking, skiing, snowmobiling, they are things that we 

rely on; and those are the activities that are threatened by global 

warming. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
10 

You are going to hear a lot about the details of the impacts of 

global warming. But I want to focus on the Governor’s behalf on 

a couple of things that have been very important to his administration. 

In 3 years, we have had 300-year flood events in New Hampshire; and those flood events have had consequences of loss of life, 

tragic loss of life, and tremendous damage to the infrastructure, 

somewhere upwards of $35 million to roads, bridges, and private 

property. These are all costs that are literally borne locally by the 

State and by the Federal Government. FEMA has been a great assistance in helping the State recover from floods. 

We are also in the process of studying our flood management regime in New Hampshire to understand if we are really doing it in 

the way that it is necessary in light of changed circumstances and 

the unpredictable effects of climate change, and that is another 

drain on State and Federal resources. 

So these impacts are already very real in New Hampshire, and 

we are concerned that they will be catastrophic if the impacts that 

are predicted from the Northeast Climate Impacts Assessment 

start to come to fruition. Those predict late in the century that the 

Northeast will see winter snow season cut in half, sea level rise up 

to nearly three feet and more than 60 days of temperatures above 

90 degrees in many of our cities. For New Hampshire, those consequences would be catastrophic. 

You have come to Cannon Mountain. One example is the importance of our ski industry. That industry alone is about 8.6 percent 

of the State’s total direct spending from tourists and visitors and 

translates into something like $420 million of indirect spending 

and 17,000 jobs. We can’t predict global warming, but we know the 

asset that we have now with that industry, and New Hampshire 

depends on it, relies on it and promotes it and will continue to. 

We need to address global warming to protect our ski industry 

as well as many other industries, and you will hear more about 

those from other witnesses. 

But, you know, New Hampshire has a proud tradition for practical and bipartisan problem solving; and we approach and Governor Lynch approaches the problem of global warming with that 

in mind. He works with a multitude of stakeholders, multitude of 

opinions. He seeks consensus, and he keeps an eye on the bottom 

line. 

And, Chairman Markey, you mentioned some of the initiatives 

that the Governor has undertaken to address climate change, and 

they have a lot of indirect benefits in terms of the economy of the 

State as well: reducing energy use, improving energy efficiency. It 

is good for the environment. It is a critical step in addressing global warming, but by reducing costs to State government, to industry, 

to residents, we keep an eye on the bottom line as well; and we 

they think, as you said, Congressman Sensenbrenner, that is really 

a critical part of the solution to global warming. 

I want to speak particularly just to two initiatives that the Governor has undertaken, and I see that I am out of time. 

The CHAIRMAN. If you could summarize. Each witness has 5 minutes. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
11 

Ms. CHAMBERLIN. The renewable energy portfolio that we just 

passed, passed our Senate 24 to 0, so I think bipartisan cooperation 

is possible on these; and we will find that support among New 

Hampshire residents as well as people from all across the country 

to address global warming. 

And, finally, I just want to say that the initiative the towns and 

cities took across New Hampshire at their town meetings really 

represent the leadership that we look to in New Hampshire. So I 

advise all of us in our work in New Hampshire and across the 

country to keep in mind that citizens will lead on this issue. 

Thank you very much. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

Our next witness is Dr. Timothy Perkins. Dr. Perkins is the Director of the Proctor Maple Research Center, a field research station of the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at the University of Vermont. The Proctor Maple Research Center is the Nation’s 

oldest and largest facility dedicated to the study of the maple trees. 

STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY PERKINS, PH.D., DIRECTOR, PROCTOR MAPLE RESEARCH CENTER, UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT 

Mr. PERKINS. Mr. Chairman, thank you for inviting me to address you today. 

This location atop Cannon mountain has significance in today’s 

discussion because nearly 75 percent of the maple syrup that is 

made in the U.S. is produced within about 150 miles of this location. In addition, tens of thousands of visitors from around the 

world converge upon New England and New York each year to witness the spectacular autumn foliage. In both cases, these gifts derive from the northern hardwood forests. 

Global warming poses a threat to the maple resource and, thus, 

the way of life of many of the residents of the north country. It 

does so in two major ways: 

First, because maple sap flow in trees occurs in response to free 

saw conditions, any change which occurs in the temperature patterns will affect the flow of sap from maple trees. 

Maple producers exploit the sap-flow phenomenon by drilling a 

small hole in the stems of trees collecting the sap which exudes 

and boiling it into maple syrup. The process is very long and labor 

intensive. It requires nearly 40 gallons of sap to be collected and 

boiled to produce one gallon of pure maple syrup. 

The maple sugaring season is very short, lasting only about 4 to 

6 weeks each season, but it is eagerly anticipated by thousands of 

maple producers in New England and New York and by the many 

visitors to sugarhouses each spring. 

Recent evidence has shown that global warming has shifted the 

timing and the duration of the maple sap flow season in the Northeast over the past 40 years. Although research is ongoing to project 

the impact of global warming over the next 50 years, we expect 

these trends to persist with continued warming. 

It is important to recognize that it is not necessary for the proper 

sap flow conditions to cease entirely but merely just to diminish to 

the point where maple syrup yields are not high enough to justify 

the cost of production. We do not know yet at what point the ecoVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:17 Aug 31, 2010 Jkt 057968 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A968.XXX A968

pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
12 

nomics of maple production will fail, only that a continued reduction in seasonal length will have a negative impact. 

If global warming continues, the existence of the U.S. maple industry beyond the next 50 to 100 years is jeopardized. 

Maple producers tend to be careful stewards of the land. Sugaring is a proud tradition which is often passed from generation to 

generation. I am a native Vermonter. I learned about maple sugaring from my father, who learned from his father. I taught my 

daughter how to tap maple trees, how to boil sap into maple syrup, 

and I hope that some day she will be able to share that gift with 

her children and grandchildren. 

The second way in which global warming will impact the region 

is by affecting the maple resource itself. Several studies predict the 

widespread migration of trees species northward with the current 

maple, beech, birch forest being eventually supplanted by oak, 

hickory and pine. Maple in particular is predicted to be greatly reduced in importance if not largely extubated from much of New 

England. 

Recent and ongoing research suggests that this change may already be under way, with natural environmental stresses combined 

with acidic disposition hastening the change particularly in some 

of our high-elevation forests. 

The long-term effects of forest migration will be felt most heavily 

by the tourist industry of New England which generates billions of 

dollars in economic activity in this region annually. Without maple 

trees contributing their bright red and orange hues to our fall landscape, the foliage season will be much less attractive to tourists. 

The changes that we are seeing in our northern forest communities that I have mentioned are not merely academic what-ifs. The 

change in timing and duration of the springtime maple season and 

the longer growing seasons have already been demonstrated. Research is beginning to point toward early signs of forest migration. 

Climate change predictions tell us that warming and the accompanying effects will continue for some time and perhaps accelerate 

over the next several decades. 

If we agree that the beautiful natural northern landscape that 

we have dominated by maples is valuable and the maple sugar industry and culture in New England is important and we wish to 

protect it and the way of lives of the people who live here, the time 

to act is now. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Dr. Perkins. 

[The statement of Mr. Perkins follows:] 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
13 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 17 here 57968A.003
14 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 18 here 57968A.004
15 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 19 here 57968A.005
16 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 20 here 57968A.006
17 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 21 here 57968A.007
18 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 22 here 57968A.008
19 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 23 here 57968A.009
20 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 24 here 57968A.010
21 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 25 here 57968A.011
22 

The CHAIRMAN. Our next witness is Dr. Cameron Wake, who is 

a Research Associate Professor at the Climate Change Research 

Center at the University of New Hampshire. He was a co-lead author on two papers in a series of reports detailing past and future 

climate change in the Northeast as part of the Northeast Climate 

Impacts Assessment. 

Welcome, Doctor. 

STATEMENT OF CAMERON WAKE, PH.D., RESEARCH ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, CLIMATE CHANGE RESEARCH CENTER 

AND DEPARTMENT OF EARTH SCIENCES, UNIVERSITY OF 

NEW HAMPSHIRE 

Mr. WAKE. I would like to thank the chairman and the committee for the opportunity to offer testimony on the impact of global warming on New Hampshire and New England. 

The focus of this hearing on regional impacts of global climate 

change is timely and important. Changes in regional climate will 

affect many aspects of our lives and our communities, including our 

health and welfare, agriculture and natural ecosystems, water and 

air quality, and our economy. 

In addition, much of the adaptations to ongoing climate change 

and the mitigation of the future of climate change will ultimately 

be driven by actions at the local and regional scales. This regional 

focus is very important. 

Let me start by reiterating some of the statistics that Chairman 

Markey started with. 

We have been looking at climate change with a group of scientists across the Northeast. Perhaps the most striking statistic is 

that our winters have increased over the last 30 years by 4.4 degrees Fahrenheit. To put this into perspective, that is the equivalent of taking a Boston wintertime climate and moving it south to 

Philadelphia. This is not climate change in the future. This has already happened, and we have seen the impacts. 

Over the last three decades, there has been a decrease in snowfall on the order of 10 to 30 inches across most of New England. 

A larger portion of our winter precipitation is falling as rain. New 

England stations have also experienced a decrease of 15 to 20 days 

over the entire winter on which there is snow on the ground. 

Extreme participation events have increased. We looked at all of 

the stations for which we could collect data, and we see an increase 

in one to four events over the course of the last 50 years in extreme 

precipitation events, and this doesn’t include the recent four big 

events that we have had in 2000 and 2006 that was previously 

mentioned. 

The timing of high spring flow has changed over the last 35 

years with our spring runoff occurring much earlier. Ice thaw dates 

are occurring much earlier in the spring. Lilacs are blooming 4 to 

5 days earlier, and sea levels continue to rise, and we see the effects of those in the most recent nor’easter with considerable flooding both in Massachusetts and New Hampshire and Maine. So our 

climate is changing. That is clear. 

We looked at climate variability in New Hampshire over the 

course of the last two decades in a study, and what we found was 

that the dazzling uncertainty of New England weather in fact is 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
23 

that we see significant differences in winter to winter. So we looked 

at a series of five what we call cold and snowy winters and a series 

of five and warm and slushy winters and we looked at the receipts 

from ticket sales at alpine areas and Nordic ski areas as well as 

snowmobile registration, and what we found was that warm slushy 

winters result in a decrease in revenue just from ticket sales and 

snowmobile sales of $13 million. And this translates, when you 

think of it, all of the money these people spend elsewhere, this 

number can be multiplied two, three, four, five, six times. Warm 

slushy winters have a significant impact on the economy of the 

north country, and those are the types of winters that we expect 

are going to be coming in the future. 

How will climate change in the future? We looked at this as part 

of the Northeast Climate Impacts Assessment report; and, really, 

what the report shows is that the climate in the Northeast that our 

children and grandchildren inherit depends fundamentally on the 

decisions we make today and over the next few years how we in 

the Northeast and around the globe use and produce energy. The 

choice of emissions pathway we follow in the near future matter 

greatly and will serve to help preserve or fundamentally change 

the natural economic and cultural character of the Northeast. 

Let me jump to the chase here. 

We looked at two different emission scenarios, a high-emission 

scenario and a low-emission scenario. So when we look at the highemission scenarios in which we continue to rely upon fossil fuels 

as our main source of energy, what we see is that our winters could 

warm by 8 to 12 degrees Fahrenheit and our summers by 6 to 14 

degrees Fahrenheit, essentially replacing New Hampshire’s current 

climate with that of South Carolina, except without the water. 

On average, cities across the Northeast under the high-emission 

scenario would experience more than 60 days of temperature over 

90 degrees Fahrenheit, which will not be good for tourism in this 

part of the country. This includes 14 to 28 days of temperatures 

above a hundred degrees Fahrenheit, something that we rarely experience today. 

Under the high-emission scenarios, as winter temperatures rise, 

more precipitation will fall as rain and less as snow. By the end 

of the century, the winter snow season will be cut in half, with only 

small areas in the mountains of New England experiencing more 

snow. 

The frequency of late summer and fall droughts is expected to increase significantly, to the point by the end of the century under 

the high-emission scenario where we would experience a drought 

every summer across much of the Northeast. The character of the 

seasons will also change significantly. 

So although some of these changes are now unavoidable, there 

is some warming that we are going to experience. The extent of 

change and the impact of these changes on the Northeast depends 

to a large degree on the emissions choices we in the Northeast and 

the world make today. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Doctor, very much. 

[The statement of Mr. Wake follows:] 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
24 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 28 here 57968A.012
25 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 29 here 57968A.013
26 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 30 here 57968A.014
27 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 31 here 57968A.015
28 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 32 here 57968A.016
29 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 33 here 57968A.017
30 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 34 here 57968A.018
31 

The CHAIRMAN. Our next witness is Mr. Bill Koury. He has 

served as President of the New Hampshire Wildlife Federation. 

STATEMENT OF BILL KOURY, AVID SPORTSMAN AND FORMER 

PRESIDENT OF THE NEW HAMPSHIRE WILDLIFE FEDERATION 

Mr. KOURY. Thank you. Mr. Markey and other select committee 

members, thank you for allowing me to speak to you today. 

I am here to tell you about the changes I have observed over the 

40 years I have been hunting and fishing in the great State of New 

Hampshire. I am not a scientist, but from my subjective observation walking the woods and being on the rivers and lakes and 

ponds I feel many changes that are occurring that must affect fish, 

wildlife and people. 

Over recent years, I find that during the hunting season in November, I have been out on many more warm days, sometimes in 

the high 60s and low 70s. Instead of snow, I am more concerned 

with rain. Recently, a whole industry has risen for water-proof 

hunting gear. 

I have also been finding more ticks on me and my hunting buddies when those ticks should be resting for the winter; and while 

deer hunting, I have been swatting at mosquitoes when they, too, 

should have been knocked down with the first hard frost. To me 

this is a fairly recent phenomenon. Unfortunately, each of these insects now carries a potentially lethal danger to humans in New 

Hampshire, West Nile virus and Lyme disease. 

Although these right now are just annoyances to me, my major 

concerns are the dynamics behind these changes and the effects 

they will have on their environment, wildlife and people. The scientists have empirical data which they can use to make that determination. I know that I have seen moose beds with blood in them 

due to heavy infestations of moose ticks. When the environment is 

right for them, these ticks can collect by the thousands on a moose 

and place such a heavy blood drain to be fatal. 

I do know that northern wildlife can come under a lot of stress 

when we have longer and longer warm spells at a time when they 

have made necessary changes for cold weather. It is not uncommon 

these days to see white snowshoe hares running around in the 

snowless woods. 

I also see that many of the ponds I hunt near are not as regularly ice covered as they were years ago. In days past, I could walk 

across them during the hunting season but not as much any more. 

I know ice fishermen who tell me they get fewer days out due 

to unreliable ice conditions on the lakes. When the icing does come, 

it comes with winds and low temperatures in the 10s. So ice fishing 

as a sport along with small businesses that support it miss out. 

More streams are warming. The most popular fish in New 

Hampshire is the native brook trout. This fish does poorly in 

warming water, and many more of our streams seem to be warming in the spring. Aquatic insects, which make up much of the 

brook trout’s diet, are also negatively affected by warmer water 

temperatures. No insects, no brook trouts. 

Back in the early to mid-’70s I, along with many others, noted 

we had some turkey vultures appearing around Ashland, New 

Hampshire, just a little south of Cannon Mountain. It was an atVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:17 Aug 31, 2010 Jkt 057968 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A968.XXX A968

pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
32 

traction. These birds seldom ventured north of Connecticut. Now, 

while fishing or hunting, I regularly see turkey vultures over here 

along the New Hampshire/Canada border. 

The other day a friend helped a threatened wood turtle to cross 

the road in New Boston. This turtle was moving from a marsh to 

lay eggs in sandy soil. In the past, this friend has consistently recorded such wood turtle nesting activity in mid-June. 

The American Woodcock season in New Hampshire is from October 1st through October 30th and has been for years. Over the last 

decade, New Hampshire hunters have missed out on quality 

Woodcock hunting as the southerly migration of this game bird has 

occurred much later, from very late October to mid-November. New 

Hampshire fish and game biologists agree that something has 

moved this bird’s migration to a later date. 

We now have bluefish coming into New Hampshire in Maine waters. When I was a youngster, they didn’t venture north of Cape 

Cod. It is something of a boon to anglers, but I am concerned about 

the secondary effects of their presence on species that developed 

without them and why we have the warmer water that they follow. 

To me, these are observations and obvious signs of a warming of 

New Hampshire’s climate and currents. But I think the term ‘‘global warming’’ doesn’t do justice to the changes that are occurring. 

Along with the warming trend, we have more weather extremes. A 

popular trout river, the Piscataquog in New Boston, has experienced two consecutive years of so-called hundred-year floods. 

We have had disastrous floods occur within 10 years of each 

other. 

When Congress set its mind to it, we cleaned up the multi-colored textile rivers of the Nashua and the Merrimack, and I am 

looking forward to this select committee getting the ball rolling so 

that we can have actions similar to that to cut down on carbon 

emissions. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

[The statement of Mr. Koury follows:] 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
33 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 37 here 57968A.019
34 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 38 here 57968A.020
35 

The CHAIRMAN. Our final witness is Ms. Betsy Blaisdell, who is 

the Manager of the Timberland Environmental Stewardship Program. The Timberland Environmental Stewardship Program is a 

shining example of ways in which New Hampshire-based businesses are leading the charge in innovating in order to address 

global warming. 

STATEMENT OF BETSY BLAISDELL, MANAGER, 

ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP PROGRAM, TIMBERLAND 

Ms. BLAISDELL. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for 

your leadership on behalf of the critical issue of global warming 

and for convening our first hearing here in New Hampshire. I am 

grateful for the invitation to testify on behalf of the 6,000 men and 

women who design, manufacture and sell premium Timberland 

footwear apparel and gear in 85 countries around the world. 

After 30 years, our company has been driven by dual aspirations 

to exceed the expectations of consumers in the marketplace and to 

lead as accountable corporate citizens. The ethos of our business 

model compels investment and strategy to strengthen our communities, increase civic participation through community service and 

to preserve our planet’s natural resources. 

Inspired by the wisdom of citizens and partners in this room, our 

approach is to lead as a values-based company, thoroughly integrate across our global business and throughout our supply chain 

from source to selling floor. 

Today, it is my privilege to provide some perspective on our commitment to fighting global warming with the hope that it may encourage your further engagement of the private sector as partner, 

thought leader, and accountable citizen. 

Timberland’s passion for our planet is inspired by the natural 

beauty of this State, which you can’t see today sadly, and our heritage is an outdoor brand. Quite simply, our gears are consumers 

gateway to the mountain trail, river rapid or coastal sail. We cherish these outdoor experiences and see global warming as an alarming threat to our way of life, our global enterprise and to the health 

of our employees and consumers. 

The cost to our business includes spikes and dips in product 

sales, rising insurance and health care expenses and costly retrofits 

for adapting our facilities to extreme weather events. Of greatest 

concern is damage to our natural areas, where our consumers 

recreate and many New Hampshire citizens find jobs. 

As a business that uses energy to produce more than 30 million 

pairs of shoes as well as power nearly 300 facilities, we contribute 

to this threat, yet we believe that the private sector can be a market for us for sustainability and environmental innovation as well 

as a source for greater consumer awareness on global warming. 

Like many others in industry, Bank of America, Toyota, Aveda, 

GE, Stonyfield Yogurt here in New Hampshire, HSBC, we are fully 

dedicated to play our part. Leveraging our assets as a business and 

as a community of committed citizens, Timberland will achieve carbon neutrality by 2010 for our facilities and for employee travel 

through a clear set of measurable strategic initiatives. I will just 

list a couple of these. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
36 

One, we will be reducing our energy demands and investing in 

renewable energy with a goal of achieving nearly 50 percent reduction in our corporate greenhouse gas emissions. We will be increasing the use of sustainable materials and improving manufacturing 

and product take-back programs to develop footwear and apparel 

that have a smaller carbon footprint, a couple of examples I have 

brought with me. 

We will be producing industry leading packaging and labeling 

such as eco labels such as the corporate nutritional labels that we 

have on our footwear boxes that talk about our corporate, social 

and environmental footprint and continuing to provide consumers 

with accurate and transparent data on our company’s environmental footprint. Our intent is to promote environmental activism 

through consumer choice. 

We will be partnering with other brands and industry associations to develop tools and resources that will help our supply chain 

partners improve their environmental performance and will continue to engage thousands of employees and consumers in environmental service worldwide to plant trees and protect our wild 

spaces. 

Fortunately, we are not alone in these efforts. As I mentioned, 

our industry has been aggressively leading change with launch of 

environmentally conscious product lines and hosts of cross-brand 

working groups aimed at solving environmental challenges in the 

supply chain. 

This commitment is driven by growing consumer demand for sustainable products made by environmentally responsible companies. 

Locally, we are grateful to Clean Up Our Planet and the New 

Hampshire Sustainable Energy Association, who support businesses, campuses and communities in their efforts to combat global 

warming. Over the past 5 years, these partners have helped reduce 

our region’s carbon emissions by over a million tons annually. 

We are humbled and encouraged by these voluntary efforts, but 

the scale of the challenge is too great and requires a greater level 

of leadership, investment and accountability. We join many in our 

industry and sector in respectfully asking the President and Congress to create a comprehensive national framework to address 

global warming, one with benchmarks, transparency and aggressive evaluation of impact. 

For your consideration, we recommend the following central tenets for a national strategy: one, legislation for economy wide emission reductions; two, aggressive R&D for low-carbon technology; 

three, Federal planning for global warming impacts and response; 

four, a strategy to mobilize support and re-engage international 

partners; five, reallocation of budget priorities; and six, programs 

to enable and encourage citizens to build efficiency and conservation in their homes and communities. 

Timberland is honored by the opportunity to raise our collective 

voice in unison with those in the room who have been leading in 

this effort for decades, and we want to thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. 

Thank you. 

[The statement of Ms. Blaisdell follows:] 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
37 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 41 here 57968A.021
38 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 42 here 57968A.022
39 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 43 here 57968A.023
40 

The CHAIRMAN. Now we will turn to the questions for the panel. 

Let me begin with you, Dr. Wake. 

If I may, you mentioned, Dr. Wake, that you have identified an 

intensification in the rise in temperatures here in New England 

over the last 38 years, this 4.4 degree Fahrenheit increase. Mr. 

Larson and I, we just returned from Greenland. They are finding 

the same thing. The computer models have to be continually updated. The reality is outstripping what past experience was demonstrating to be the pace of the advance of this problem. Could you 

talk for a second about how quickly this is moving and what it 

might lead you to conclude in terms of predictions about the future? 

Mr. WAKE. I would like to, I think, reiterate something that you 

have mentioned. On the broader side of the community, as we look 

back, the predictions that we developed over the course of the last 

decade, things are happening much more rapidly than we thought 

they would. And if you look back at those predictions, many of 

them were published in scientific papers. Things are happening 

much faster. Our predictions of figures were too low. 

In terms of the Northeast, this was a real shocking development. 

When I first found out, I have got to tell you me and my graduate 

students turned over our numbers many times, because I did not 

believe it. But what is happening in Greenland and what is happening across the Northeast I think is the same thing. 

As we have had warmer winter temperatures, temperatures driven by an increase in greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, that is 

trapping more heat at the surface and melting the snow more rapidly. When that snow melts, that ground becomes darker, which 

melts more snow, which allows more ground to be open. So this 

change in snow cover we think is actually driving this rapid increase in temperature; and as we look in the future, I expect this 

positive feedback will continue until we have lost the snow in the 

Northeast. I see our winter temperatures increase more rapidly. 

The CHAIRMAN. So this positive feedback loop that we are talking 

about is a snowball effect in reverse. It accelerates the pace at 

which the snow melts, that the whole area becomes warmer because there is more exposed ground to absorb the heat and so, as 

well as being attacked from above, it is also now coming from 

below the snow, from the ice in a way that otherwise would not 

have been able to happen. 

Mr. WAKE. This is a fundamental characteristic of the earth’s climate system, is that we have these external changes that cause the 

system to change. We have these feedbacks within the system 

itself. So positive feedbacks cause the system to change even more 

rapidly, and that snow cover change that we have tracked in the 

Northeast is actually occurring across much of North America. So 

we are seeing that snow cover retreat more dramatically. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, they were talking about this whole phenomenon of the feedback effect up in Greenland as well, the very 

same phenomenon which accelerates, intensifies the pace, and 

there it is really at large. Because Mr. Larson and I were standing 

on top of an ice cap that was seven-tenths of a mile high, and 

across much of Greenland it is 1.7 miles high. In other words, Mr. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
41 

Larson and I were standing on an ice cap about the height of this 

mountain, about 4,000 feet; and it is melting and melting rapidly. 

But that is not just something that is this size, but you have to 

think about it all across Greenland in terms of ultimately the consequences. That is where people start to talk about a rise of 10 to 

20 feet in sea level. 

If this positive feedback loop continues to accelerate at the rate 

at which it has, then there are really long-term catastrophic consequences for the planet. 

Let me turn and recognize the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. 

Sensenbrenner. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

One of the problems that we have in Congress is to go through 

the mass of figures that are presented to us not only on this issue 

but on most of the other issues that we have to make decisions on 

as representatives of the people; and in this area, there has certainly been a mass of figures, and I would like to try to cut through 

some of them. 

Dr. Wake, in your testimony you consistently used 1970 as your 

baseline for statistics such as the ice outdate in the lakes. Considering that 1970 was the end of a documented cooling period, how 

would your numbers be changed if you use 1930 as the baseline? 

Mr. WAKE. If we use 1930 as a baseline, what you would actually 

see is there would be two different trends, as you mentioned. So 

from about 1940 to 1970, there was actually a global cooling trend, 

and we also see that trend across much of the Northeast. It has 

really been since 1970 that we have seen this dramatic rise in temperature that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has 

identified as a human influence on our climate. So when we look 

at the global figures, we see there really has been a shift right 

around 1970. 

We actually did do a detailed sensitivity analysis that is in one 

of the papers I provided you, and we go back to 1965 and up to 

1975. 

So it is not our choice of one year that makes a difference in the 

trend. It is actually very—— 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. But you concede the point that what you 

have done with your figures is basically used about the time when 

the cooling trend ended and the temperature bottomed and started 

climbing up; is that correct? 

Mr. WAKE. Absolutely. The period which we know that has that 

human fingerprint of climate change. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. There was a warming trend that was documented between 1920 and 1940, and that was before all of the CO2

emissions caused by the post-World War II economic boom occurred. How do you account for the fact that there was rapid warming between 1920 and 1940 during half of which there was a worldwide depression and the economy slowed down? 

Mr. WAKE. I think we have to think very carefully about the climate, and we have to think about the entire climate system. So we 

know there are lots of reasons that climate changes. It is something I tell my class all the time, is the climate changes, it always 

has, and it always will. What we know is that humans are causing 

that change today. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
42 

So, in the past, we know that climate has changed because of 

changes in solar output, changes in volcanic eruptions, changes in 

orbital parameters. Humans are not the only thing driving the climate change. 

So in the early part of the century, we know that there was an 

increase in solar output that actually caused warming; and those 

models that we have, the GCM models that are detailed in the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, have detailed that 

warming clearly. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I am happy that you stated that. Because 

a lot of the chatter that is going around both political circles and 

other circles is that climate change is almost exclusively caused by 

human activity. And there is a natural climatic cycle of warming 

and cooling trends which I think you stated in your testimony and 

in the answer to my questions. 

I guess, you know, one of our problems as Representatives is to 

try to figure out what to do where we can make a difference in the 

climate without wrecking the economy. And the second part is 

probably the most difficult way of doing it, given some of the testimony that we heard almost 10 years ago from the Energy Information Administration which was a part of the Clinton administration. 

Now I have one other observation. We have got a similar climate 

in Wisconsin as you do in New Hampshire. We kind of think New 

Hampshire is the Wisconsin of the Northeast. My State’s Department of Tourism stated that the winter months account for only 18 

percent of annual travel and tourism expenditures, which are significantly less than the other three seasons—21 percent for spring, 

24 percent for summer and 37 percent for fall. And our leaves are 

beautiful in Wisconsin, too. Some of you folks ought to come and 

look at it, rather than going in the other direction. 

If that is the case, you know, what is so wrong about having a 

shorter winter season when people don’t like to drive on icy roads 

and perhaps a longer spring and fall season when people want to 

get out of the house and get out of doors and to enjoy the outdoors 

a little more? 

Mr. WAKE. I think your question is a good one. It goes right to 

the heart of the matter. 

What is at stake here is the very nature of what it means to live 

and work and be from New Hampshire and New England. It is central about our quality of life. 

We have been brought up in this region to experience the seasons, and you can love them or you can hate them, but it is an essential aspect of the life that we have here, and our culture and 

our economy are grounded in it. So a much shorter winter will 

have significant implications not only for our economy but also for 

our quality of life and for our cultural heritage from this region. 

One other point I would like to make just to clarify the warming 

we have seen over the last 30 years cannot be explained by any 

natural cycle in our climate system. It has the distinct fingerprint 

of anthropogenic warming caused by human emissions of greenhouse gasses. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. Larson. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
43 

Mr. LARSON. Continuing on that same line of questioning, Doctor, 

if we could, because I think it is important because the question 

remains, and I think Mr. Sensenbrenner rightly points this out, so 

what have human beings contributed in terms of this global warming? And we are looking at specific points in history. How long does 

the accumulation of carbon stay within the atmosphere and in the 

environment, and what is the expediential ramifications of the tonnage, and can you explain how much exists and what kind of impact that has? 

Mr. WAKE. Well, the carbon dioxide that we emitted as we drove 

up to Cannon Mountain today is going to last in the atmosphere 

on average for about a hundred years. Some of those molecules will 

be in the atmosphere for about as long as 500 years. So what that 

means is, even if we stop emitting carbon dioxide globally today, 

we would continue to see a warming over the course of the next 

one to two decades because of the lifetime of those greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere and because of the thermal inertia in our climate system. 

Mr. LARSON. Isn’t the urgency therefore then with the nations 

like India and China with enormous populations and on the verge 

of industrial takeoff whose main source of power is coal that, experientially, this amount of carbon within the atmosphere could be a 

near calamity? Is that what scientists believe or are we just postulating? 

Mr. WAKE. I think if we continue on a business-as-usual scenario, much of the scientific community agrees that we are headed 

toward catastrophic climate change or, in the words of the ITCC, 

dangerous anthropogenic interference. 

Mr. LARSON. Could you explain anthropogenic? 

Mr. WAKE. Human derived. 

So we are on that pathway now. So if we continue on this business-as-usual, we might expect by the end of the century we will 

see carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere on the order of 600, 

700, 800, 900 parts per million by volume, which is two to three 

times above natural background levels which in fact would lead to 

dangerous anthropogenic interference of the climate system and, in 

particular to the comments of Chairman Markey, the potential 

meltdown of the Greenland and west Antarctic ice sheets. 

Mr. LARSON. Shifting quickly from Greenland and the scientific 

results and then moving to the anecdotal evidence that we heard 

from the Inuit Indians who were the natives that were there on the 

island and to look at the rapid pace at which glaciers are melting 

and how they have receded over time and just in the last several 

years, is this the same kind of experience that you are seeing, Mr. 

Koury, here in New Hampshire? 

Mr. KOURY. The experience that I have had is that the recent 

years—and I say recent, probably from 1980s on—are things that 

you are able to observe. What I have made are observations. 

Mr. LARSON. Mr. Sensenbrenner was saying what is wrong with 

having a warmer climate up here. You know, South Carolina is not 

a bad State; and there are many in my State that say, hey, that 

is not a bad thing. But when it is accompanied by ticks and mosquitoes and the brook trout are no longer here, what kind of qualVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:17 Aug 31, 2010 Jkt 057968 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A968.XXX A968

pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
44 

ity of life do you have and how can you go out and enjoy those 

areas that you are accustomed to? 

Ms. CHAMBERLIN. It goes right to the quality of life. 

When the issues become that the trends you see, that the things 

that annoy you the most are growing, the things that give you the 

most pleasure are going away, it is a trend that I have seen over 

the past 20 years or so, and it does have an effect, and I know that 

folks are moving and changing their habits because of it. Friends 

of mine are now hunting up in Canada and New Brunswick to get 

the more traditional experience of a snow season. So it does have 

that effect. 

Mr. LARSON. Thank you, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair intends on having two rounds of questions from the panel, if that is of any help to the members. 

Now let me turn and recognize the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. 

Walden. 

Mr. WALDEN. As you see, we are conserving on microphones 

today. As a radio guy, that is always difficult for me. 

I fully appreciate all of your testimony. It has been most helpful 

as we try to find solutions to this issue. I am not here to dispute 

whether the planet is getting warmer. I happen to believe it is, and 

we have had thermometers for 300 years. I think we can measure 

these things. What I want to figure out is what can we do about 

it, what the costs are to doing something about it and what is reasonable and effective. 

One of the issues that I have—perhaps we can start with Ms. 

Chamberlin. Your State has implemented a renewable portfolio 

standard. I am one of the co-Chairs of the Renewable Energy Caucus. My district is home to an enormous amount of wind energy, 

hydro/geothermal and we are actually developing a solar site. I am 

curious about your renewable energy portfolio, and 23 other States 

have passed them, I understand. 

The Federal Government is being asked to put one in place. 

Would you want a national portfolio standard that perhaps preempted yours? 

Ms. CHAMBERLIN. Thank you very much for the question. I have 

some concerns, and I would like to express them to this committee 

in that regard. 

The negotiation of the RPS was—well, it has actually been an ongoing 6-year negotiation, but since Governor Lynch has been in 

place, it has been about a 2-and-a-half year negotiation. And it 

really did involve looking at who was going to receive the benefits 

and the incentives from an RPS, and it was important to include 

our historic renewable resources of virgin wood and hydro but also 

important to—— 

Mr. WALDEN. Did you set a date on a hydro or was it whatever 

was in place was included in that RPS? 

Ms. CHAMBERLIN. Not everything is included. It is based on certain size and hydro. But there is potential for new hydro to come 

in as a new renewable. 

Mr. WALDEN. Would new low-head hydro count? 

Ms. CHAMBERLIN. It could count. 

Mr. WALDEN. But some of the hydro that is there today, does it 

count? 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
45 

Ms. CHAMBERLIN. Some of the hydro, it could benefit. We were 

very sensitive to scale when we looked at every source of renewables, and some of the larger hydro would not be eligible. 

Mr. WALDEN. But the long and the short of it is you would not 

support a Federal preemption of what you worked out here. 

Ms. CHAMBERLIN. I think that is what—in general, the statement 

I would like to make. 

As we worked on our RPS, as we worked with the RGGI States, 

as we have worked on the climate change registry, we think that 

there is a lot of experience that the States have. We really welcome 

the leadership of the Federal Government on this issue and our 

partnership, but we do feel we have some resources to draw on and 

some expertise. 

Mr. WALDEN. Since I only get 5 minutes, I am trying—— 

Ms. CHAMBERLIN. I am trying to remember that, too. 

Mr. WALDEN. This region of the United States relies a lot on 

home heating oil to heat in the winter. I am wondering under a cap 

and trade system where your State might come down in terms of 

trying to reduce the reliance on hydrocarbons for heating, especially fuel oil for heating, which has to be a large emitter of greenhouse gasses. 

Ms. CHAMBERLIN. Well, I don’t think that I have an answer on 

that. What we have found is, as you said, that home heating is 

going to be a substantial issue, as is the transportation sector. And 

the Governor’s approach on these things is to look very carefully 

at the economic impacts and what the trade and benefit cost and 

benefit is over time. And when we have to make decisions that are 

going to—— 

Mr. WALDEN. These are the issues that we ran into in Europe on 

a cap and trade system. You could be talking about much higher 

energy bills for individual consumers as we shift out of certain energy production to others that have far less greenhouse gas emitted. 

Ms. CHAMBERLIN. I think we have to take the steps we can to 

address the issues, and we have to have measurable results. I 

think that would be an important part. 

Mr. WALDEN. I want to go to Ms. Blaisdell. 

In terms of Timberland’s involvement—and I commend you for 

your company’s involvement in this important environmental 

issue—is your company trading on the carbon exchange in Chicago? 

Ms. BLAISDELL. No, we are not trading on the Chicago Climate 

Exchange. We are retiring any benefits we create through our own 

renewable energy systems. 

Mr. WALDEN. Do you do any manufacturing offshore? 

Ms. BLAISDELL. We do. 

Mr. WALDEN. Do you do it in places like China? 

Ms. BLAISDELL. We do. 

Mr. WALDEN. How do you get containment of carbon emissions 

from production of electricity in China? I am curious, because we 

are trying to figure out how to deal with China, India, other countries. 

Ms. BLAISDELL. Yeah. Certainly, what we are looking to do is create a model factory with the one factory that we do own in the Dominican Republic. So we have been installing renewable energy 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
46 

systems there, putting environmental management system in place 

to understand what the true costs and benefits are associated with 

making aggressive reductions in greenhouse gas emissions at a 

manufacturing setting. At the same time, partnering with other 

brands to understand what we can do to incentivize our factory 

partners in China, southeast Asia, to help reduce their carbon 

emissions. 

We think there is a great opportunity to help invest in renewable 

energy systems onsite for those manufacturing facilities for an increase in power reliability. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Hampshire, Mr. 

Hodes. 

Mr. HODES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Chamberlin, in the absence of meaningful action by the Federal Government, the States have really taken the lead on the 

issues we are talking about today. New Hampshire has joined 34 

other States, two tribes and two Canadian provinces endorsing the 

Climate Registry. The Governor has announced participation of a 

renewable portfolio standard with 23 other States, and New Hampshire is also participating in RGGI. 

Why is it important for the Federal Government to work with the 

States and what are the potential consequences for New Hampshire and New England if the Federal Government does not act 

and instead forces individual States to create a patchwork of different rules regulating greenhouse gasses? 

Ms. CHAMBERLIN. Let me start with an example I mentioned before. 

I think the transportation sector is one where clearly the Federal 

Government has an important role in taking leadership on this 

issue. That is one that we look forward to input but really hope 

that there can be leadership from the Federal Government. 

On RGGI, we are very proud of the work that we have accomplished, and we plan to bring RGGI before the legislature in New 

Hampshire. Because we can’t implement it by executive order, so 

that will require that kind of bipartisan cooperation and consensus 

building that I talked about earlier. But, as a cap and trade plan, 

that would certainly benefit from a Federal program. 

When you get into dealing with the technical issues like leakage, 

which there are people here much more qualified to talk about 

than I can, a Federal program will create consistency and fairness 

across the country. We hope that it won’t disadvantage the work 

that the early States have already done, but we are confident that 

it would improve a cap and trade program that we intend to push 

forward on a regional basis in any case. 

Mr. HODES. So you favor Federal action? 

Ms. CHAMBERLIN. We think Federal action can be an important 

part of cap and trade. Absolutely. 

Mr. HODES. Ms. Blaisdell, my good friend from Wisconsin expressed the concern that we needed to deal with the global climate 

change issues without wrecking our economy. Has going green been 

bad for Timberland business? 

Ms. BLAISDELL. No. In fact, I would say it has offered several advantages to our business, and I believe that this is going to be a 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
47 

basis for competition in the future, developing green products and 

green technologies. 

We have also seen the savings from things like improving the energy efficiency of our building and investing in on-site renewable 

energy. For example, our 400kW solar ray in California is providing us with tremendous benefits currently right now. 

Mr. HODES. In analyzing the risk and rewards from your program, did folks look at payback time for the technology as well as 

things like the good will generated for your company by going 

green? 

Ms. BLAISDELL. Yeah. I still have a CFO that I have to report 

in to, and so I do have to do traditional capital expenditure reports 

and show competitive payback times. Harder to measure what the 

additional benefits are, but we found by taking a leap of faith that 

the payback has been much better than we ever expected from traditional measurements. 

Mr. HODES. Thank you. I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes Congresswoman Shea-Porter. 

Ms. SHEA PORTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I, too, have been concerned about a lot of the phrases about 

wrecking our economy if we make changes, and so it is very heartening to hear what you have to say about your own company. 

First, I want to speak to Ms. Chamberlin about this. Can you 

please tell us, without putting you too much on the spot, what the 

floods have cost New Hampshire’s economy? What do you think we 

have lost because of these floods over the past couple of years, 

which have been absolutely devastating? 

Ms. CHAMBERLIN. I think the latest figure is approximately $35 

million just from three floods. I think there are costs associated 

with that that aren’t in that figure. Certainly there are, but that 

would be direct costs to bridges, roads, and private property. 

And I really want to remind people of the costs of displacement 

that people have experienced from losing their homes. We are going 

to be looking at, you know, the appropriate location of some of 

these communities in our flood plane. I think every town and city 

in New Hampshire is planning differently because of these floods 

and looking ahead differently; and, sadly, we have lost life in some 

of these floods. 

So it is really—it is really the cost that is hard to measure. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. You haven’t even talked about the tourism, 

the impact on tourism. Do you have any idea on what we have lost 

on that? 

Ms. CHAMBERLIN. Because of global warming? 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Because of the flooding and just rainy weather, the lack of snow or for our ski industry. 

Ms. CHAMBERLIN. What I can tell you, the good news, this was 

the first good Memorial Day we have had in 5 days. We are very 

excited about that. I don’t know what to attribute it to. And certainly anytime that there is an increase in rain you have less tourism, and that is going to impact our economy; and, as you know, 

tourism is a significant part of our economy here in New Hampshire. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
48 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. So rain instead of snow is very bad news for 

people, small businesses; and, of course, New Hampshire is built 

with small business, and we need that. 

Thank you. 

Ms. CHAMBERLIN. I think the snowmobile registration decreased 

by about 14 percent in the off-years, and that is a significant loss 

of revenue to the State. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. And the restaurants and all of those who rely 

on people coming into our State. 

Mr. Koury, I wanted to talk to you for a moment, please. 

When I was growing up, I remember hugging that wood stove, 

wishing it could get a little warmer. I am sure that the testimony 

you just gave us tells me that we don’t want it to be warmer. 

New Hampshire gets this on a bipartisan basis, Republicans and 

Democrats. I wanted to ask you, what kind of support do you have 

in your organization among your fellow sportsmen and women? Do 

they acknowledge this? Are they concerned about it? And are they 

willing to make some sacrifices and conserve? 

Mr. KOURY. I think the folks I know, the hunting folks and the 

hunting community and angling community, somewhat is divided. 

I think they all agree on the effects that we have seen and the 

trends that we have seen. 

The majority of the people that I interact with and I know understand a connection between carbon emissions, the scientific information that we have been receiving and the impacts. There are a 

number of hunters and anglers who don’t see that connection or 

don’t understand or agree on that connection. 

But I think it is difficult for me to say. I am not speaking for 

my group or my majority or anything of that nature. But the 

friends that I know, probably the majority of the friends that I 

know, do support the idea of getting action to reduce emissions, 

carbon emissions, because they feel there is a direct connection. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. And they have noticed it? 

Mr. KOURY. Yes. Through the same friends that I have been seeing, been relating to you, I think that is a common trend. I think 

you find most hunters would agree that these trends are what they 

are seeing. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

Now we will turn to the second round of questions. The Chair 

will recognize himself. 

Let me come back to you again, Dr. Wake. 

You made the stunning statement that Boston now has weather 

that Philadelphia had in 1970; and if it continues at the pace at 

which it has been in recent years, then we could consider—we 

could continue to move right down the eastern seaboard in terms 

of the weather. 

What is the time period that you have identified as that where 

there has been an acceleration which has occurred? In Greenland, 

they are talking to us really in terms of just the last 6 months 

where this cycle has begun to spin much more rapidly. What is the 

time that you have identified? 

Mr. WAKE. The data that we looked at has only been compiled 

by the National Climatic Data Center up to 2002. So when we look 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
49 

at long-term trends across the century we really see this distinct 

change around 1970. 

That said, we now know that certainly the winter of 2006 and 

the first half of this winter were very unique in the fact we had 

no snow and really warm temperatures and a decrease in snowmobile registrations. 

I wanted to tell just one brief story. I have a wood lot 40 miles 

that direction from here. And this winter was really bad because 

of the forest industry, not because of any rapid species change, but 

because the roads haven’t been frozen. And when the roads aren’t 

frozen in the local towns, the logging trucks can’t get in. 

So when I have been around talking to a lot of people, what they 

tell me, I say winter is warming and all of the loggers go, yeah, 

we can’t get into the forest to harvest their wood. 

So while we haven’t done a specific analysis on the recent years, 

it certainly appears that our winters have warmed even more over 

the last 3 or 4 years, and we will include that in our analysis as 

soon as that quality assured data becomes available. 

The CHAIRMAN. Actually, Mr. Larson and I experienced the same 

thing in Greenland, where an entire industry, which is this dogsled 

industry across the frozen ocean that could take tourists from one 

part of Greenland to another, well, the ocean doesn’t freeze anymore. So this entire industry has gone out of business. Because, 

unbelievably, the oceans in Greenland don’t freeze. 

And, in fact, Mr. Larson and I and Speaker Pelosi—Speaker 

Pelosi, she was the highest-ranking American official to ever reach 

Greenland when we went there this past weekend. Ever. We were 

on a boat, went out into the ocean where we saw flotillas of icebergs, 400, 600 feet high, that were just breaking off of the glacier 

and now floating, dozens of them. Which, again, is unprecedented 

in their experience; and it is accelerating. So this is a very significant phenomenon. 

Again, like you are saying, it affects the economy up here in New 

Hampshire as well. Because they just don’t have the conditions 

that historically made it possible for them to be able to conduct 

their profession. 

Could you speak briefly about this issue of where New Hampshire saw hundred-year flooding for the third time in 3 years in 

this State and what that means and where do you think that is all 

coming from? 

Mr. WAKE. I will try to. 

What we have seen is this dramatic increase in extreme precipitation events just in the last 2 years. In fact, it is common now for 

our TV meteorologists to say we are going to have a rainstorm with 

5 inches of rain without having the warning bells going on. So I 

would say over the course of the last 2 years our precipitation regimes have changed dramatically. When we get rain, it comes in 

deluges. 

Can I link that to global warming? It is a tough call. 

But what we are seeing is a continuation of a trend where we 

get more of our precipitation in fewer events. At the same time we 

are developing our ecosystems, we are putting down a lot of pavement, and that is increasing the rate at that time which that water 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
50 

runs off. So it is a perfect storm of more rain and fewer events and 

fewer developments that is leading to an increase in flooding. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Sensenbrenner. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Let me say that, in Wisconsin, we value 

the seasons, too. We like to spend time outdoors here in all four 

seasons. Most people in Wisconsin appreciate the climate that we 

have. They appreciate the recreational opportunities that we have 

outdoors, and I don’t think there is that much difference between 

Wisconsinites and New Hampshirites. 

The one thing I think we ought to look at, however, is actually 

what the trends are relative to the tourism industry. Because the 

tourism industry is a reflection on how people like to enjoy the outdoors. And, granted, they may come from parts other than where 

we live; and that is why I mentioned the statistics that the Wisconsin Department of Tourism has compiled where the most popular tourist season in Wisconsin is the fall and the least popular 

season is the winter. 

Now we do have this thing here in Wisconsin. The mountains 

aren’t quite as good. 

I am wondering, Ms. Chamberlin, what kind of statistics you 

have relative to the economic trends in the ski industry in New 

Hampshire over the last 30 to 35 years? 

Ms. CHAMBERLIN. I can’t give you the data off the top of my 

head, but I will be happy to try to find it for you in terms of the 

growth of the industry. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I am looking at that because, as the climate has warmed since 1970, one would think that the ski industry would have declined rather than grown. 

Ms. CHAMBERLIN. I think one comment I would have is that our 

most successful ski mountains make a lot of snow, and that continues to be an important part of maintaining the recreational 

base. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. It has got to be cold enough. 

Ms. CHAMBERLIN. It does. Because, according to Dr. Wake’s report, a lot of the warming we are seeing actually takes place at 

night. You have probably wanted to elaborate on this, but there is 

a difference in the warming temperatures in the day and the night 

and you make snow generally at night. So that is a concern that 

you don’t even have the degree days, as they call it, to make snow 

at night, and that can affect the ability of the ski area to compete. 

And it also requires a large withdrawal of water. So the more 

water that you take out, the more higher your costs are that you 

have to bear in the ski industry. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. As national legislators, we have to look for 

national solutions. The last winter it was warmer than usual on 

both coasts and colder than usual in the central part of the country. 

I live on a lake. To get to my house, I have to go down a road 

of four rows of maple trees that were planted by my great-grandfather over 100 years ago. It is just beautiful there during the fall, 

as it is up here. But I kept statistics on the ice. And in the last 

couple of years, we have had ice cover over the lake that I live on 

that lasts a lot longer than what normally it does. Three months 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
51 

ago was the first time I can remember where I couldn’t get into my 

house because there was so much snow in front of the front door 

that I had to get in through the garage. 

So given the fact that climate change affects different parts of 

the country in different ways, how do you suggest that we craft national legislation that takes into account of this? 

Ms. CHAMBERLIN. I think you are going to have to bring your regions to the table and really look at the science and the facts and 

get the input from your region about whether you are seeing impacts, whether the economy is experiencing impacts. And all legislation, whether it is Statewide or regional or even, you know, international, negotiations are acts of compromise. And I am afraid to 

suggest it so publicly, but I think that is what it is going to take. 

It is not an easy task, but it is going to require the science as a 

base and working with all of your colleagues to achieve some reasonable balance. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Connecticut, Mr. 

Larson. 

Mr. LARSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

One of the questions that I have and want to follow up with, especially with so many young people here from New Hampshire, to 

get 164 communities to agree, how did that process evolve and 

what were the mechanics behind this obvious grassroots movement? 

Ms. CHAMBERLIN. The mechanics to my knowledge were a growing understanding in communities of the climate change impacts in 

New Hampshire. That has been supported by tremendous educational effort on the part of our nonprofit community, and they 

undertook this initiative based on a similar initiative that was undertaken in the early 1980s on the acid rain issues. 

Mr. LARSON. Was there any specific driving organization? 

Ms. CHAMBERLIN. The Carbon Coalition and Clean Air-Cool Planet were both instrumental in achieving in getting this resolution 

and organizing their communities to put the resolution on their 

town warrants. 

Mr. LARSON. Have other States begun to follow your model? 

Ms. CHAMBERLIN. I am not aware of other States following the 

model. I did introduce a resolution in my town, and I think it was 

interesting to see the response because it did—when you talk to 

people about the economic impacts of global warming on New 

Hampshire, they are very willing to roll up their sleeves and act 

locally. And I think the most significant impact, besides the recommendation to you and as our Federal representatives and legislators, is a willingness to act locally and start up their local energy 

committees and see what they can do to reduce energy—— 

Mr. LARSON. Because of this grassroots movement, do you thing 

the people therefore will be more inclined if they had to sacrifice 

on the questions that have been asked today, whether it is cap and 

trade or whether it was a carbon tax, a polluter’s tax? Do you think 

that people in New Hampshire would be, therefore, more prepared 

or more understanding? And, if so, should we not be doing this all 

over the country? 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
52 

Ms. CHAMBERLIN. I think there is an understanding that individual behavior can make a difference and that people in New 

Hampshire are willing to undertake that. 

You know, we are known in New Hampshire for taking some 

modest steps; and I would think that that approach to really using 

your data, working with all your regions and stakeholders is going 

to be critical nationally in the same way it has been critical locally 

and Statewide. 

Mr. LARSON. Dr. Perkins, you said something earlier that caught 

my attention with respect to forest migration, particularly as it relates to New England. I never viewed the oak or the hickory as an 

invasive species. What is accounting for this and what are the 

trends that you are seeing? I know specifically, as you are looking 

at the maple sugar industry, what is forest migration all about? 

Could you further enlighten us? 

Mr. PERKINS. The distribution of plants is based on a lot of factors, but primarily temperature and precipitation are the main 

components that determine where plant species will be found. 

As the climate warms, then there will be changes in the competitiveness of various species; and oaks, hickories and pines are found 

more commonly in areas where it is warmer. Maples, although they 

will grow, tend not to be able to compete as well with those species. 

So they will, in effect, move northward or establish themselves and 

grow better in Canada then they will here. 

There will be some efforts, most likely by humans, to change 

those patterns somewhat, but it is a very difficult thing to change. 

Mr. LARSON. New Hampshire has certainly pointed to a new direction in the grassroots level that the Nation should be taking, 

and I don’t think it is coincidental that we have two new Members 

to Congress who also speak so ardently of the new direction necessitated for this country and exemplified by what you are doing here 

in New Hampshire. 

I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. Walden. 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman; and I appreciate that. 

Dr. Perkins, do you specialize in forestry? 

Mr. PERKINS. I am a forest physiological ecologist. 

Mr. WALDEN. Can you tell us what is causing the dead needles 

out here? 

Mr. PERKINS. Dead needles in high elevation forests are caused 

by winter injury, and there are a number of different forms, but in 

red Spruce in high elevations, it is—they are predisposed to winter 

injury by acidic deposition. 

Mr. WALDEN. So this wasn’t necessarily a sulfuric cloud that 

caused this? 

Mr. PERKINS. There would be acidic deposition of some sort, nitrogen, sulfur, which, over time, would render the plants more susceptible to cold temperatures. 

Mr. WALDEN. So you think that is what happened here? 

Mr. PERKINS. I haven’t looked closely, but I wouldn’t be surprised. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
53 

Mr. WALDEN. Okay. Because I chaired the Forests and Forest 

Health Subcommittee and, you know, I cover an area that you can 

put New Hampshire in one county in my district. I am not bragging. It is just a huge district out West. We have 70,000 square 

miles in my district alone. I have 10 national forests. I have seen 

damage like this out in the West. It was because of a winter freeze 

at the end of a cycle, kind of early spring that caused similar kind 

of degradation. 

Mr. PERKINS. This actually occurs in the middle of the wintertime, and it is very well related to acidic deposition. 

Mr. WALDEN. I could never go back to Oregon if I didn’t take 

great exception from my colleague from New Hampshire’s comment 

about rain being something that is bad. Or we would have no visitors in Oregon or Washington or up in Alaska, either. I know what 

she meant, though. I understand fully. 

I want to talk a little bit about forest migration north. Because 

my understanding is that the boreal forests, you are moving these 

forests north; and, as a result, I believe the IPCC and others have 

found that actually contributes to global warming because you are 

losing the snow on the ground, replacing that with forests that actually absorb—in the northern environment, absorb and reflect 

heat or absorb the heat, I guess, where the snow would reflect it. 

Isn’t that accurate? I think that is what the IPCC and other scientists have said. 

Mr. WAKE. Correct. As we expand the boreal forest you would expect those dark trees to absorb more of the acidic radiation and especially in the winter. 

Mr. WALDEN. And the converse is true if we lose the rain forests. 

My understanding is, as they are being wiped out, by the way, so 

we can import wood here and other developing countries, we are 

allowing the destruction of the rain forests. We are allowing the 

complete obliteration of the forests in China and Russia and Indonesia. They are not being replaced; and, therefore, we are losing 

that carbon sync. Because don’t forests, in the right environment, 

they contribute heavily, mightily as carbon syncs, do they not? 

Mr. WAKE. I would argue that all forests are carbon syncs, 

whether or not how much short wave radiation—— 

Mr. WALDEN. Right. There is a reflective capacity; and, as they 

change, you can have that. 

So I get to an issue that I have pounded on this in committee. 

About 5 years ago this August, 500,000 acres burned on National 

Federal forest lands; and that contributed enough greenhouse gas 

in the State of Oregon to equal the equivalent of one-sixth of all 

auto emissions for a year. And, ladies and gentlemen, your Federal 

forests out West are horribly mismanaged, overgrown, fire-prone; 

and, according to the Government Accountability Office, when they 

do burn, there is a million acres today of Federal forest land that 

has never been replanted because we don’t go in after—everything 

gets litigated, objected to, and so we don’t get in there, and we 

haven’t allocated the resources necessary to do the thinning, to do 

the stand management. 

You are a forester. You have a wood lot, right? 

Mr. WAKE. I have a wood lot. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
54 

Mr. WALDEN. Now I thought I heard the word ‘‘logging truck’’ 

come out of your mouth. Do you log? 

Mr. WAKE. I don’t log on a commercial scale, no. 

Mr. WALDEN. But you manage your forest, I would assume. You 

are a responsible person. 

Mr. WAKE. I allow my forest to manage itself, because I believe 

in the biodiversity of northern forests. 

Mr. WALDEN. As do I. But does that mean in the West you would 

recognize that if you don’t manage properly and you inhibit nature 

from doing the kind of fire regime that used to occur pre turn of 

the last century, then you end up with very unnatural forest conditions that result in catastrophic fire, greenhouse gas emissions that 

are abnormal and contribute to this whole problem? 

Mr. WAKE. I am no expert on western forests. 

Mr. WALDEN. Dr. Perkins, you are a forestry person? 

Mr. PERKINS. Again, I have no experience in western forests. 

Mr. WALDEN. All right. I don’t know much about maple either, 

but I am trying to learn. 

My point is, if we manage the forests better, we can accomplish 

two goals: carbon sequestration and less emissions due to forest 

fires on your Federal forest lands in the West. 

With that, thank you, Mr. Chairman 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank the gentleman. 

The gentleman from New Hampshire, Mr. Hodes. 

Mr. HODES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

My question is addressed to Ms. Chamberlin and Ms. Blaisdell 

both. 

You have each been involved—Ms. Chamberlin on a State level, 

Ms. Blaisdell on a corporate level—in assessing many different 

strategies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In your experience, which strategies—efficiencies in buildings and transportation, 

increasing renewable energy use, and many others—which strategies stand to be the most economically viable for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and which ones are the most costly to implement? 

Ms. CHAMBERLIN. I am glad you brought up that question, Congressman. I think we have neglected a little bit the issue of energy 

efficiency and conservation. It is a very important point and one 

that Governor Lynch has lead by example. He has asked the State 

government to reduce energy use by 10 percent across government, 

and we think that that is a good standard for the rest of the economy’s private sector and businesses to look at, and indeed greater 

conservation than that can be achieved. 

So I would say, without a doubt, that energy efficiency and conservation need to be at the top of our list for the most cost-effective 

way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 

And, secondly, we focused on the development of renewable energy, and I have talked some about that in New Hampshire. We 

believe that that brings money into our local economy, that it is a 

strong step towards energy independence both for the region and 

the Nation. It is an important tool and one that we hope will be 

economic for the region and indeed bring jobs and improve the 

economy locally. 

So those would be my top two. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
55 

Mr. HODES. Ms. Blaisdell, from the corporate perspective? 

Ms. BLAISDELL. I would agree with Mrs. Chamberlin that energy 

efficiency is by far the most cost-effective way for us to reduce our 

greenhouse gas emissions. I think, on the more costly end, investing in renewable energy has been challenging for us, because there 

has been a patchwork of rebates and incentives over the years for 

renewable energy. So, because of that patchwork, there has been 

no consistency in cost of things like solar panels and wind turbines 

because those industries have had to respond to fluctuations and 

economic incentives. 

Another opportunity for us is to come up with useful tools for 

evaluating the carbon footprints of our product so we can use the 

market to incentivize both factories and raw materials, suppliers 

that produce lower carbon footprints through the manufacturing 

processes. 

Mr. HODES. So I take it from your answer that consistent, clear 

national regulation or incentives as it may happen for the development of renewable and alternative energies would be a big boon. 

Ms. BLAISDELL. And I think it has to last over a period of longer 

than 2 years, which is what we have seen in the past. These things 

come in 2- to 3-year waves. So we really need to encourage that industry to grow and get competitive with longer-term incentives. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady from New Hampshire. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Thank you. 

I have to speak to the colleague from Wisconsin who is talking 

about their season, the winter season being low on tourism; and I 

guess we are hardier here in New England because we do have a 

great winter tourism. We also have a sea coast that he is welcome 

to come see, and we are concerned about the sea coast as well as 

the mountains. 

Having said that, I would like to say that regions do impact one 

another, that we do need a Federal approach. Because, for example, New Hampshire and the Northeast is called the tailpipe of the 

country. We receive a lot of the nasty stuff coming from the Midwest and other areas. And I want you to address that if you would, 

Doctor, please, what the tailpipe is about and what the Federal 

Government can do and what Congress can do to help. 

Mr. WAKE. The tailpipe refers to the fact that there are these 

emissions from the Midwest and we have prevailing westerly winds 

and a lot of that pollution ends up making their way here to the 

Northeast. 

There already has been superb Federal legislation that has actually reduced the amount of sulfur dioxide that is emitted into the 

atmosphere and lead, but that is sort of a different issue. 

But, interestingly enough, back in the 1970s and 1990s when the 

Clean Air Act was passed, industry did come out and say it would 

ruin industry. And what happened is that we had a bunch of engineers that figured out the technology, figured out the cost-effective 

ways to reduce that sulfur dioxide, and now you never hear about 

the fact that sulfur dioxide cost sort of dollars per ton as opposed 

to hundreds of dollars per ton. 

What I think is important there, and we haven’t raised a lot in 

our discussion today, is the cost of doing nothing. We always talk 

about the cost of doing something. But there is a cost to our inacVerDate Mar 15 2010 01:17 Aug 31, 2010 Jkt 057968 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A968.XXX A968

pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
56 

tion. And in the case of reducing sulfur dioxide emissions, we know 

that fine particles and ozone, which is a secondary pollutant that 

gets transported into this region, ends up in the premature mortality of tens of thousands of people across the entire country. 

Many of those are in the Northeast. 

So I think when we talk about reducing our greenhouse gas 

emissions, especially through energy efficiency, we can also talk 

about reducing those other emissions that actually significantly impact human health, and we can reduce those tens of thousands of 

people that die prematurely as a result of air pollution both in New 

England and across the rest of the country. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. We have higher rates of asthma and cancer, 

and we have concerns. It shows that the Federal Government, 

when they work together and Congress, we can actually can pass 

some legislation that helps all of us. So it is good for us to think 

in terms of the Nation instead of just regions. 

Dr. Perkins, I wanted to ask you, the impact—I know that—we 

read your statement—the impact economically on Vermont if we 

don’t address this. 

Mr. PERKINS. The economic impact on Vermont just directly related to the maple industry is about $20 million. However, the total 

economic activity related to maple discounting tourism is closer to 

about $200 million due to jobs, manufacturing, export of maple 

syrup into other areas. So it is a very large impact. 

When we start to count it in tourism, it becomes much, much 

larger. And the two industries really work hand in hand. Many 

tourists who come, even in the fall, will purchase maple syrup and 

visit sugarhouses and contribute to that economic activity. So the 

loss of the maple sugaring industry, the loss of maple trees would 

have a tremendous impact. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Would you say that businesses in Vermont 

look forward to some kind of legislation to slow down this change? 

Mr. PERKINS. I certainly can’t speak for all businesses in 

Vermont related to maple. However, I do think if maple were to not 

exist in Vermont it would be a real tragedy. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. Do most maple syrup producers look at it as 

a result of the change in climate? 

Mr. PERKINS. Many of them are very concerned. They tend to be 

very forward-thinking individuals who look at their business in the 

very long-term sense. So they are concerned. They are unsure yet 

as to what they can do about it and what should be done about it. 

Ms. SHEA-PORTER. So basically everybody is looking for some 

leadership to control this. 

Mr. PERKINS. They certainly are. 

The CHAIRMAN. Great. 

The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

And the way I would like to conclude here is first ask if any of 

the Members have any additional questions which they would like 

to pose to the committee—I mean, to the panel; and I see none. 

What I like to do is ask each of our witnesses if they would to 

give us their one-minute summary of what you want us to remember from our visit here to the summit; and we will begin with you, 

Ms. Blaisdell. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
57 

Ms. BLAISDELL. I hope what I have shown is that the private sector is willing to lead and partner with the Federal Government on 

introducing a national framework for addressing greenhouse gas 

emissions and just to revisit my testimony and say that we want 

to make sure there is a legislation for economy-wide emission reductions. 

I will leave it at that. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Koury. 

Mr. KOURY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I think the one thing I would like to leave with you is that back 

in the early 1970s we talked also about the costs of controlling pollution, and we worried about it. But we went forward. Congress 

went forward and passed the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water 

Act, and we had some tremendous improvements in air quality, 

water quality. We have had new industries that have grown up 

around that. We have had more jobs, and our economy right now 

is prospering very well. 

So as we look forward to this greenhouse gas emissions, it is a 

pollutant, we should reduce pollutants everywhere, regardless of 

what we think may or may not occur anyway. There are tremendous secondary benefits coming from it; and I—again, I hope this 

committee is the first wave to get the ball rolling. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Dr. Wake. 

Mr. WAKE. I would like to talk briefly about this myth about the 

economy versus the environment. It is old news. It is now the economy and the environment. Our economy—our environment is the 

basis of our economy in this region, and we need to protect it. 

I want to take 30 seconds to brag about the University of New 

Hampshire as an example. We have reduced our greenhouse gasses 

significantly because it saves us money by improving our efficiency. 

So we have installed a combined heat and power plant because we 

need a heating load and we need an electricity load. So our greenhouse gas emissions now are about what they were in 1990; and 

if projects in the pipeline continue, we would expect to significantly 

reduce those even further by becoming energy efficient and saving 

the university system and the State money. 

I think it is a wonderful example. You can hear the ones from 

Timberland as well. There are lots of ways we can address this 

problem as well. 

Mr. PERKINS. I think the important thing to recognize is that, 

unless you want to buy your maple syrup on your fall foliage tour 

of Canada, we need to have some action. 

Thank you. 

Ms. CHAMBERLIN. Thank you for the final opportunity to speak. 

I want to again thank the committee for holding your inaugural 

hearing in New Hampshire on Cannon Mountain. I want to take 

just a second to thank our Parks service for making the facility 

available and all of the people who are in attendance today. I want 

to thank the public for coming and their continued interest and 

support; and, finally, with the leadership and partnership of the 

Federal Government, I am confident and the Governor is confident 

that we can address this issue, make a difference for New Hampshire and for the Nation and the world. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
58 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

It has been a great day for us to be up here on Cannon Mountain 

for this summit. There is another summit which is just beginning. 

It is in Germany. It is the G–8. Eight large economic powers coming together, but they have invited the Chinese and the Indians 

and others as well. 

And Chancellor Merkel told us in Germany, the select committee, 

when we met with her last week that she intends on putting climate change and a mandatory cap and trade system at the top of 

her list for resolution. 

Our hope is that President Bush will respond to this challenge 

that is being presented by the G–8 to the United States to be the 

leader and not the laggard. 

We were faced with a similar challenge back in the 1970s and 

1980s with this threat that acid rain posed to New England’s lakes. 

Literally, our lakes were dying, and they were dying from this sulfur dioxide that was blowing our way from the Midwest. And it 

seemed as though—and Canada. It seemed it was an insolvable 

problem. 

But in 1990 we passed legislation. We conceived this idea of a 

cap and trade system. Silvio Conti, who was a congressman from 

western Massachusetts, and I introduced the first piece of legislation in 1981. It took almost a decade to see that legislation passed, 

but we now see that the system works. People no longer talk about 

the burdens to remove this sulfur dioxide as a huge economic burden, and I think we have an enormous opportunity in this area of 

carbon dioxide as well. 

Finally, I would tell you that we had a hearing, our first hearing, 

actually, about 2 months ago with General Gordon Sullivan who, 

along with 10 other three-star generals and admirals, testified as 

to the danger which climate change poses to the world and made 

a reference to Somalia where a drought had led to famine and famine had led to international aid coming in. Ultimately, that international aid was fought over; and we sent in U.S. troops, which led 

to Black Hawk Down. 

He then made reference to Darfur and other parts of the world 

where this climate change issue has tremendous effect upon our 

planet, and it is not these poorest of all people who are emitting 

this CO2. It is the industrialized world that is doing so. 

When I asked him what was the point at which he got interested 

in the issue, he told me that when he retired, he and his wife came 

up to Vermont to rekindle memories of trips that he had taken 

with his wife when they were younger, and it was the experience 

that he was having with the maple trees and this enormous change 

that was taking place and the conversations that he was having 

with people in Vermont that triggered his interest in the issue that 

then led to this report that these 11 three-star and four-star generals have given to Congress. 

And, by the way, inside of the CIA bill now and inside of the defense bill, there is now a requirement that is out of the House of 

Representatives in the last few weeks, a new requirement for a national intelligence estimate to be done of the impact of climate 

change and its effect upon national security in the United States. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
59 

And all of that because of the General’s visit to Vermont to remember the maple trees of his youth. 

So we thank each of our witnesses. 

Again, we thank all of the people of New Hampshire who have 

taken out a good part of your day to come up here on this important issue, and we thank you for your activism. We are here because you are active, because of the incredible energy which you 

have shown on this issue. We feel here that the thermometer, this 

is a thermometer in the sky which is helping us to see how global 

warming is affecting your economy. 

With that, we thank you, and this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:55 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARING
60 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 62 here 57968A.024
61 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 63 here 57968A.025
62 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 64 here 57968A.026
63 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 65 here 57968A.027
64 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 66 here 57968A.028
65 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 67 here 57968A.029
66 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 68 here 57968A.030
67 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 69 here 57968A.031
68 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 70 here 57968A.032
69 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 71 here 57968A.033
70 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 72 here 57968A.034
71 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 73 here 57968A.035
72 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 74 here 57968A.036
73 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 75/150 here 57968A.037