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

62–454 2010

BUILDING U.S. RESILIENCE TO GLOBAL WARMING 

IMPACTS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SELECT COMMITTEE ON 

ENERGY INDEPENDENCE 

AND GLOBAL WARMING 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

OCTOBER 22, 2009 

Serial No. 111–11 

( 

Printed for the use of the Select Committee on 

Energy Independence and Global Warming 

globalwarming.house.gov 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD 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

GERARD J. WALDRON, Staff Director 

ALIYA BRODSKY, Chief Clerk 

BART FORSYTH, Minority Staff Director 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD 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 Hall, a Representative in Congress from the State of New York, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 5 

WITNESSES

John Stephenson, Director, National Resources and Environment, U.S. Government Accountability Office ............................................................................. 6 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 9 

Eric Schwaab, Deputy Secretary, Maryland Department of Natural Resources 20 

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

Stephen Seidel, Vice President for Policy Analysis, Pew Center on Global 

Climate Change .................................................................................................... 28 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 30 

Kenneth P. Green, Ph.D., Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute ..... 39 

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

SUBMITTED MATERIALS

Hon. Edward J. Markey, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, a letter from Nancy Sutley, Chair of the Council 

on Environmental Quality ................................................................................... 19 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARING

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARING

(1) 

BUILDING U.S. RESILIENCE TO GLOBAL 

WARMING IMPACTS 

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 22, 2009 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ENERGY INDEPENDENCE

AND GLOBAL WARMING, 

Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to call, at 9:35 a.m., in Room 2175, 

Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Edward J. Markey [chairman 

of the committee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Markey, Blumenauer, Inslee, Cleaver, 

Hall, Speier, and Sensenbrenner. 

Staff present: Jonah Steinbuck and Ana Unruh Cohen. 

The CHAIRMAN. This hearing is called to order. 

This is the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global 

Warming. We welcome you all here this morning. 

We all remember the tragic consequences of Hurricane Katrina: 

the breached levies, water-filled streets and families seeking shelter in the Superdome. While many individuals courageously responded to this disaster, government leadership failed the people 

of New Orleans when they needed help the most. Katrina foreshadows the consequences of climate change if we do not make the 

necessary preparations. 

Since then, scientists have shown that the warming of our climate system from emissions of heat-trapping gases, from our tailpipes and smokestacks, is unequivocal. We face not only an increasing number of strong storms but also many permanent alterations that will affect people throughout the country. Coastal cities 

like Boston will be at risk of inundation from sea-level rise, which 

is accelerating as our oceans warm and our polar icecaps melt. 

Alaskan villages are finding the land they call home literally melting out from underneath them as the permafrost thaws. In the 

West our shrinking mountain snow pack strains our water resource 

system. Throughout this country our farms are threatened by rising temperatures, water scarcity, and pests. 

For projected 2.2 degree Fahrenheit rise in temperatures over 

the next 30 years, we can expect significant declines in the crops 

that make up the base of our food system. The past is no longer 

a predictor of the future. We need to develop our resilience in order 

to safeguard our health, our environment, our economy and our national security. We need to develop a comprehensive strategy to 

adapt, conduct world-class climate research, and coordinate Federal, State and local action. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARING

2 

Now some will argue that we should not address the root of the 

problem and only address its symptoms—that we should only adapt 

to climate change and not address global warming pollution. We 

cannot just address the symptoms. When someone has a heart attack, the doctor prescribes medication to help prevent another attack and puts the patient on a low-fat diet to improve long-term 

health. Our country experienced a heart attack in New Orleans, 

and we must now develop both the institutional medication to manage the impacts of warming and also shift society to a low-carbon 

energy regiment for a healthy climate. Just as we cannot medicate 

our way out of a heart problem, we cannot adapt our way out of 

global warming. 

We have taken the first steps to cut carbon pollution and build 

resilience to global warming impacts. Earlier this year, the House 

passed the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security 

Act, which will set us on a pollution-cutting path and at the same 

time create millions of new jobs making America the global leader 

of the clean-energy economy. The act will also create a national climate service that will provide decision-makers with the very best 

climate information and help Federal agencies and States adapt to 

the dangerous consequences of climate change. 

In a new report that I requested, the Government Accountability 

Office assesses the current steps our country is taking to address 

the impacts of global warming. They find that Federal efforts thus 

far have been largely ad hoc. To effectively address the impacts, we 

need a strategic plan that sets out priorities, improves the information available to decision-makers and clarifies the roles and responsibilities of Federal, State and local governments. I look forward to 

the testimony of our witnesses and hearing from them how Congress can help build our resilience to global warming. 

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

[The prepared statement of Mr. Markey follows:] 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARING

3 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 8 62454A.001
4 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 9 62454A.002
5 

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

Adaptation is an important but overlooked facet of the global 

warming debate. That is probably why the GAO has concluded that 

Federal, State and local governments need better coordination on 

climate change adaptation strategies. 

It is a popular misconception that there is scientific consensus 

about the future impacts of global warming. And there is little 

agreement in the scientific community about what the specific effects of climate change will be. That is why a strategy that focuses 

on adaptation and not taxes makes more sense. 

Congressional Democrats believe a cap-and-tax plan will cure 

global warming, but there is little reason to believe that that is 

true. Unless China and India make similar emission cuts, there 

won’t be any reduction in global temperatures. 

Cap-and-tax may not have much impact on global temperatures, 

but it will have a big impact on the American economy. The Waxman-Markey cap-and-tax bill calls for an 83 percent cut from 

greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. But a study by the National Association of Manufacturers and the American Council for Capital 

Formation shows that, by 2030, the economy will already feel the 

pressure. 

Come 2030, cap-and-tax will have shaved as much as 2.4 percent or $571 billion off the U.S. gross domestic product. That is nearly 

as much as the government spent on Social Security last year. Cumulative GDP lost during the coming decades would be enormous, 

with projections of more than $3 billion in lost economic output. 

This isn’t just a problem for business and industry because the 

government will also be shortchanged. In 2030 alone, Federal and 

State governments would see nearly $170 billion less in revenue. 

That is money that would be more wisely spent on adaptation. The 

GAO report shows that local and State government managers are 

finding it hard to fit global warming adaptation into their budgets 

as more pressing concerns over jobs, infrastructure, security and 

other issues are taking precedent, as they should. By enacting capand-tax and reducing economic growth Congress risks cutting the 

revenues the State and local governments will eventually need to 

fund climate adaptation projects. 

Proponents of the legislation argue that the bill will raise new 

tax revenues that can be used for adaptation. I would rather not 

reduce growth in the first place. 

The written testimony of one of today’s witnesses emphasizes the 

importance of resilience to climate variability regardless of the cost. 

Dr. Kenneth Green, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise 

Institute, will submit testimony that highlights many important 

decisions for policymakers, such as faulty wisdom behind rapid development in areas prone to natural disaster, the need for investment in new climate technology, and the benefits market-pricing 

could bring to adaptation preparation. 

I welcome his perspectives as part of today’s record and yield 

back the balance of my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time is expired. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr. Hall. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Sensenbrenner. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARING

6 

And I share the ranking member’s concern about development in 

areas that are prone to natural disasters. I also congratulate him 

on getting the word ‘‘tax’’ in a record number of times in his opening statement. 

I think it is a very important hearing and look forward to our 

witnesses’ testimony. 

Climate change adaptation has been a serious concern of mine 

for many years. My district is bisected by the Hudson River, one 

of America’s national treasures, which is tidal all the way to Troy, 

New York, north of Albany. Along each side of the river, nearly at 

the water level, runs two rail lines; on the west side, a CSX freight 

line, and on the east side, the Amtrak and metro north passenger 

lines. Sea-level rise will imperil these lines, which will be incredibly expensive to move or to replace, as will the other infrastructure that we have counted on for years which are threatened along 

our coast. 

Many of the riverside communities in the counties I represent 

and other Hudson Valley counties have spent a fortune on urban 

renewal and revitalizing their waterfronts with boardwalks and 

restaurants and shops that are just barely above the level of the 

Hudson as it is today, and as a tidal estuary, obviously if the sea 

level rises, these beautiful new additions to our waterfronts will be 

possibly under water. Not to mention Hilton Head, Cape Hatteras, 

Key West and other places that some of us like to at least think 

about going to. 

Duchess County, my home county, has the third highest number 

of new cases of Lyme Disease of any county in the country. There 

has been serious speculation that the spread of these diseases, like 

Lyme and West Nile Virus, are linked to changes in temperature 

and the increasing range of the insects that carry those diseases. 

I will submit the rest of my statement for the record and, Mr. 

Chairman, yield back the balance of my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the gentleman very much. 

STATEMENTS OF JOHN STEPHENSON, DIRECTOR, NATIONAL 

RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, U.S. GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE; ERIC SCHWAAB, DEPUTY SECRETARY, MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES; STEPHEN SEIDEL, VICE PRESIDENT FOR POLICY 

ANALYSIS, PEW CENTER ON GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE; AND 

KENNETH P. GREEN, PH.D., RESIDENT SCHOLAR, AMERICAN 

ENTERPRISE INSTITUTE 

The CHAIRMAN. Now we are going to turn to our first witness, 

Mr. John Stephenson, who is the Director of Natural Resources and 

Environmental Issues for the U.S. Government Accountability Office. He has testified many times before Congress, and he always 

produces excellent work. 

So we thank you, sir. Welcome back. Whenever you are ready, 

please begin. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN STEPHENSON 

Mr. STEPHENSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Sensenbrenner, 

Mr. Hall. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARING

7 

I am pleased to be here today to discuss our report on climate 

change adaptation and the role of the Federal Government. 

The world’s leading scientists predict that increased concentrations of greenhouse gases could, among other things, threaten 

coastal areas with rising sea levels; alter agriculture productivity; 

and increase the intensity and frequency of tropical storms and 

floods. In recent years, climate change adaptation has begun to receive more attention because the greenhouse gases already in the 

atmosphere are expected to continue altering the climate system in 

the future, regardless of efforts to control emissions. However, individuals and institutions whose futures will be affected by climate 

change are at present unprepared both conceptually and practically 

for meeting the challenges it presents. 

Our report for this committee, which is being publicly released 

today, addresses three issues: One, what actions Federal, State and 

local and international authorities are currently taking to adapt to 

climate change; the challenges that Federal, State and local officials face in their efforts to adapt; and three, actions that Congress 

and Federal agencies could take to help address these challenges. 

In summary, we found that many Federal agencies had begun to 

take action but that these actions are largely ad hoc and fall into 

categories, such as information for decision-making and Federal 

land and natural resource management, among others. There is 

currently no coordinated or overarching national approach to adaptation, but certain Federal entities have started to fill this gap. 

The President’s Council on Environmental Quality is leading a 

new initiative to coordinate the Federal response to climate change 

in conjunction with the Office of Science and Technology Policy, 

NOAA and other agencies. Similarly, the U.S. Global Change Research Program, which coordinates and integrates Federal research 

on climate change, has developed a series of building blocks that 

outline options for future climate change work, including science to 

inform adaptation. 

While most government authorities have not yet begun to adapt 

to climate change, there are some shining examples at the State 

and local level where planning has begun in earnest. We visited 

three such locales; New York City; King County, Washington; and 

the State of Maryland, where government officials are making good 

progress. 

Our analysis of these sites suggest key factors that have led 

these governments to act: First, natural disasters, such as floods, 

heat waves, droughts or hurricanes, raise public awareness of the 

cost of potential climate change impacts. Second, leaders in all 

three sites use legislation, executive orders, local ordinance or action plans to focus attention and resources on climate change adaptation. Third, each of these governments had access to relevant 

site-specific information through partnerships with local universities and other entities that provided a basis for planning efforts. 

Based on our site visits and the results of the survey we sent to 

over 270 Federal, State and local officials, the challenges faced by 

adaptation planners fall into three categories: First, attention and 

available resources are focused on more immediate needs, making 

it difficult for adaptation efforts to compete for limited funds. Second, insufficient site-specific data, such as local projections of exWReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARING

8 

pected changes, makes it hard to predict the impacts of climate 

change and, thus, hard for local officials to justify spending resources now for benefits that may be derived in the distant future. 

Third, adaptation efforts are constrained by a lack of clearly defined roles and responsibilities for Federal, State and local agencies. 

Finally, our survey respondents suggested specific Federal actions that are needed to overcome these challenges. First, training 

and education efforts are needed to increase awareness among government officials and the public about the impacts of climate 

change and available adaptation strategies. Second, assistance is 

needed to interpret and develop site-specific information to help officials understand the impacts of climate change at a scale that 

would enable them to develop response plans. And third, there is 

a need to clarify roles and responsibilities across Federal agencies 

and with State and local governments. 

Our work suggests that a more coordinated Federal response 

would demonstrate a Federal commitment to adaptation. To that 

end, our report recommends the development of a national strategic plan that will guide the Nation’s efforts to adapt to a changing climate, one that defines priorities, clarifies roles and responsibilities, facilitates the exchange of information, identifies resource 

needs and builds on existing adaptation planning efforts. 

Mr. Chairman, that concludes the summary of my statement. I 

will be happy to answer questions at the appropriate time. 

[The statement of Mr. Stephenson follows:] 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARING

9 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 19 62454A.003
10 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 20 62454A.004
11 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 21 62454A.005
12 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 22 62454A.006
13 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 23 62454A.007
14 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 24 62454A.008
15 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 25 62454A.009
16 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 26 62454A.010
17 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 27 62454A.011
18 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir, very much. 

At this time, I would like to ask unanimous consent to include 

in the record a letter from Nancy Sutley, who is the Chair of the 

Council on Environmental Quality, in which she agrees with the 

recommendations of the GAO report and lays out some of the steps 

they have already initiated to coordinate Federal adaptation efforts. 

Without objection, it will be included in the record. 

[The information follows:] 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARING

19 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 29 here 62454A.012
20 

The CHAIRMAN. Our next witness is Mr. Eric Schwaab, who is 

the Deputy Secretary of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources. He is going to help us to understand what Maryland is 

doing and what their ongoing work is in dealing with these issues. 

Welcome, sir. 

STATEMENT OF ERIC SCHWAAB 

Mr. SCHWAAB. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. It is a pleasure to be with you here today to share some 

perspectives regarding Maryland’s success in planning for climate 

change, as well as our ideas with respect to how we might improve 

the Federal presence and coordination of those activities. 

I would also like to mention how pleased we were to work with 

the GAO in the development of their report and to be featured as 

one of the local—as one of the States, the State, working on this 

issue. 

Maryland has in fact already recognized that the forces of climate change, particularly with respect to rising sea levels, have 

been set in motion irreversibly to a large degree; and that, in addition to enhanced focus on mitigation, we must take steps now to 

plan for implications of climate change as they affect us socially, 

economically and environmentally. We must fully integrate climate 

change adaptation planning into many existing State programs and 

practices. The same, of course, can be done at the Federal level. 

We cannot continue to plan and implement programs as if our 

environment was static from a climate perspective. From efforts to 

restore Chesapeake Bay, conserve forests, enhance wildlife habitats 

to local land-use decisions, every one of our actions must be taken 

with our best understanding of the realities of climate change at 

the forefront. 

This is of particular interest to Maryland. Chesapeake Bay is 

ranked the third most vulnerable region in the Nation to impact 

of sea-level rise. This has already been apparent in the loss of land 

along the Atlantic Coast and the Bay shoreline over the last 100 

years. And due to climate change, we expect an acceleration of sealevel rise at least twice as fast as that which occurred during the 

20th Century, resulting in potentially 2.7 to 3.4 feet of sea-level 

rise by the year 2100. Such a rise will cause increased vulnerability 

to storm events; more frequent and severe coastal flooding; inundation of low-lying lands; submergence of tidal marshes; more shore 

erosion and salt water intrusion of salt water wells. 

Maryland is, of course, equally concerned with other consequences of change in climate. The State’s agriculture industry, 

our forest resources, fisheries, fresh water supply and other aquatic 

and terrestrial ecosystems and, in addition to that, human health 

will all be impacted by increasing temperature and changes in precipitation patterns. 

All of these caused Maryland to initiate action. In April of 2007, 

Governor O’Malley signed an executive order establishing the 

Maryland Climate Change Commission. A year after its formation, 

the commission released Maryland’s climate action plan, setting 

forth a course of action to stem not only the drivers of climate 

change but also for how to adapt to those inevitable consequences 

already set in motion. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARING

21 

Maryland remains one of the few States that have included an 

adaptation component in State-level climate change action planning. Let me just highlight a few elements of our plan that have 

already been undertaken. We have made significant progress in acquiring new technology to look at historic shore-line change data 

and utilize this change data to undertake state-of-the-art sea-level 

rise mapping and research. We have developed and enacted a Living Shore Line Protection Act and amendments to our Chesapeake 

and Coastal Bay’s Critical Area Act, which will increase shore-line 

resiliency and limit building in the most vulnerable areas. 

Sea-level rise technical planning guidance was crafted for three 

of our most vulnerable coastal counties. In April of 2009, with the 

help of our Coastal Zone Program, we hosted the Coast Smart 

Event, an interactive event to discuss and evaluate local planning 

strategies for communities to improve their ability to adapt to sealevel rise. 

Our transportation department is assessing impacts related to 

highway system planning. And our wildlife division is assessing climate change vulnerability as it relates to specific species of concern. 

We have already kicked off Phase II of development of our strategies, which will be focused on identifying further impacts in six 

issue-based areas, including water resources, agriculture, aquatic 

and terrestrial ecosystems, forestry, agriculture, human health and 

transportation and land use. 

We would like to offer just a couple of perspectives with respect 

to what the Federal Government we think in particular can do. 

There is much more detail of this in my written testimony. 

First, the Nation needs a clear national strategy. This strategy 

should provide an integrated approach to these challenges. Many 

programs undertaken in partnership by the State at the Federal 

level would benefit substantially by building in climate change assessments into program implementation. 

Secondly, the key role of the States in climate change adaptation 

planning must be clearly integrated into a national program. 

And finally, action at the Federal level to provide dedicated funding for adaptation is imperative to protect communities, natural resources, and the national interests from the impacts of climate 

change. 

There are additional suggestions in my testimony, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate, again, the opportunity to be here. 

[The statement of Mr. Schwaab follows:] 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARING

22 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 35 here 62454A.013
23 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 36 here 62454A.014
24 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 37 here 62454A.015
25 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 38 here 62454A.016
26 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 39 here 62454A.017
27 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 40 here 62454A.018
28 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir. I appreciate it. 

Our next witness is Mr. Stephen Seidel. He is the Vice President 

for Policy Analysis at the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. 

We welcome you, sir. 

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN SEIDEL 

Mr. SEIDEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am delighted to be here today and pleased that you have focused this hearing on what we need to do to adapt to climate 

change. Adapting to climate change is clearly necessary but should 

not in any way detract from efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Such reductions are the first and best line of defense against 

the risks of climate change. 

Why, then, should we also be focusing on adaptation? Because 

the science community has made it clear that our climate has already begun to change. We have experienced warmer temperatures, more extreme weather events and sea-level rise. Even with 

our best efforts to reduce future emissions, substantial amounts of 

climate change are unavoidable. Confronted with that reality, it no 

longer makes sense to assume that future climate will be the same 

as that of the past. We should be making every effort to adapt to 

these unavoidable changes in climate as we redouble our efforts to 

reduce future greenhouse gas emissions. 

The title of a recent U.N. report aptly captures what we need to 

do: Avoid the Unmanageable and Manage the Unavoidable. My 

written testimony provides some concrete examples of how the Federal Government can and must lead this effort to build greater resiliency into our economy. 

I want to focus on three ways this can be accomplished. First, adaptation must be mainstreamed across all relevant Federal programs. As the Nation’s largest landholder, and the Federal Government owns about 29 percent of our Nation’s lands. Many Federal 

assets are at risk from changes in climate. DOD alone has thousands of facilities located in coastal areas. Throughout our government and its programs, climate change impacts will be pervasive. 

To begin addressing the Federal role in adaptation, we recommend that all relevant Federal agencies undertake a strategic 

plan. This plan should identify an agency’s programs, regulations 

and facilities that are affected by climate change; identify barriers 

to making these more climate resilient; and develop a plan of action and priorities for implementation. Our work on adaptation 

suggests that this strategic planning process can most effectively 

be coordinated through the Council on Environmental Quality, and 

we are encouraged that they have recently taken steps down this 

path by creating an interagency working group. 

We would recommend agency strategies as a first step, followed 

by sector plans to address critical crosscutting issues and to assure 

coordination among agencies. Once an initial round of agency and 

sector plans have been completed, we would then recommend a national strategy that was informed by these efforts and that sets priorities and goals. 

As part of mainstreaming adaptation, we also recommend that 

CEQ amend its existing regulations to clarify that climate change 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARING

29 

impacts and possible adaptation measures should be evaluated for 

all major Federal actions. 

Our second recommendation is the creation, through legislation, 

of a national climate change adaptation program. This would be a 

sister program to the two existing interagency climate change programs; the Global Change Research Program and the Climate 

Change Technology Program. Both have been established through 

legislation. The national climate change adaptation program could 

be created as an interagency program along the lines of GCRP, but 

its goal would be to facilitate development of high-level policy direction, coordinate Federal activities, and ensure proper integration 

across agencies. 

Our third suggestion relates to the need for the Federal Government to play a critical role in providing technical support to help 

State and local governments and the private sector to meet their 

adaptation challenges. Before any entity can respond to climate 

change, they first need information on what those changes are likely to be. We suggest the creation of a national climate service to 

fill this function and recommend that NOAA lead this effort. But 

we also recommend that other Federal agencies have important 

roles to play as sector leads for the purpose of effectively engaging 

State and local stakeholders. 

Finally, we are pleased that the House bill includes a substantial 

section on adaptation. We believe that what is in the bill can be 

improved though in three ways: First, by requiring all Federal 

agencies to undertake comprehensive adaptation plans rather than 

by limiting the scope of those plans to natural resources and public 

health issues, as is currently in the bill. It is critically important 

that other agencies, like the Department of Transportation, Department of Energy, Department of Defense, also undertake strategic 

plans. 

Second, while the bill creates a national adaptation program, it 

locates it within the Global Change Research Program and focuses 

its activities on research. We believe that, as currently drafted and 

passed by the House, it places too great an emphasis on the research side and shortchanges the critical needs to mainstream adaptation across all Federal programs. 

And finally, we believe the bill could clarify the structure of a national climate service and make it more focused on the needs of the 

users by identifying a critical role for other agencies to play. 

I would be glad to answer questions at the appropriate time. 

[The statement of Mr. Seidel follows:] 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARING

30 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 46 here 62454A.019
31 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 47 here 62454A.020
32 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 48 here 62454A.021
33 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 49 here 62454A.022
34 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 50 here 62454A.023
35 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 51 here 62454A.024
36 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 52 here 62454A.025
37 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 53 here 62454A.026
38 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 54 here 62454A.027
39 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Seidel, very much. 

And our final witness is Dr. Kenneth Green, who is Resident 

Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. 

We welcome you, sir. Whenever you are ready, please begin. 

STATEMENT OF KENNETH P. GREEN, Ph.D. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Chairman Markey, Mr. Sensenbrenner, 

members of the committee. 

Thank you for inviting me to testify today on this important 

topic. 

Along with these remarks, I have submitted for the record a policy study that I recently completed, entitled ‘‘Climate Change: The 

Resilience Option.’’ 

My testimony here today represents my personal views and 

should not be construed as the official position of any other institution or people. 

Before I get into the meat of my remarks, I would like to start 

with my three Bs; the background, biases and beliefs. 

As to background, I am a biologist and environmental scientist 

by training, an economist by exposure, and a policy analyst by vocation. I have been doing environmental policy analysis for 15 

years now in the U.S. and Canada. 

My bias is for solving environmental problems wherever possible 

with more instruments that maximize freedom, opportunity, enterprise and personal responsibility. Thus, I strongly favor true market-based remedies for environmental problems over command-andcontrol regulation. I will observe here, with no offense intended, 

that cap-and-trade is not a true market-based instrument, as the 

government sets a limit on emissions rather than having the limit, 

quantity or price set by voluntary consumers in a free marketplace. 

Finally, my scientific beliefs are based on reading the literature 

as well as the IPCC climate science reports. And while I do believe 

greenhouse gases retain heat in the atmosphere, or we would not 

have a habitable planet, the heat retention ability of additional anthropogenic gases, I believe, is modest. 

I certainly do not believe in predictive modeling. And anyone who 

has looked at their 401(k) lately should take predictive models with 

a huge grain of salt. 

That said, I do believe climate science has taught us something 

very important, which is we have learned the earth climate system 

is not the plastic thing we had originally thought it was. It is prone 

to sharp shifts in temperature that can last between years to decades. So we should be changing the way we do things with regard 

to responding to our climate. 

How best can we ensure resilience? First, I believe we should 

shift our focus for mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions. Toward 

that adaptation agenda, we don’t at present have the technologies 

needed to significantly curb greenhouse gas emissions without 

causing major economic disruption and without preventing the developing countries from developing, lifting their billions out of poverty and squalor. Even if we were to shut the United States and 

the EU off, the emissions from China and India would undo any 

environmental benefit in a matter of years. All that jacking up enWReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARING

40 

ergy prices will do is deprive us of economic productivity, which is 

the ultimate wellspring of our resilience and well-being. 

Second, I believe we should stop making things worse. That is, 

we should remove the misguided incentives that have people living 

in climatically fragile areas, such as the water’s edge, droughtprone locations, flood-prone locations and so on. 

Currently our Federal and State governments exacerbate this 

risk-taking by acting as the insurer of last resort. When people who 

live at the water’s edge or in a flood plain are hit by storms and 

floods, governments intervene not only to rescue them but also to 

allow them to build right back where they were, so that they can 

be rescued again. We are doing this in New Orleans, and we will 

probably do this in California, putting people right back in the area 

they were burned out of this year. 

As Charles Perrow observes in his book ‘‘Our Next Catastrophe,’’ 

State-mandated pools have been established to serve as the market 

of last resort for those unable to get insurance, but the premiums 

are low, and thus, those have the perverse effect of subsidizing people who choose to live in risky areas, imposing excessive costs on 

people living elsewhere. Programs that subsidize climatic risk-taking should be phased out as quickly as possible in favor of fully 

priced insurance regimes. 

Rebuilding after disasters in climatically fragile areas should be 

discouraged. Eliminating risk subsidies would show people some of 

the true cost of living in climatically risky areas and would, over 

time, lead them to move to climatically safer places where they can 

afford to insure their property and safety. 

Third, we must look to our infrastructure. Another government 

action that leaves people to live in harm’s way is the failure to 

build and price infrastructure so that it is sustainable and resilient 

to change. Governments build highways but generally without pricing mechanisms, thus no revenue stream is created to allow for the 

highway to be elevated or levies built if local flooding becomes a 

problem. There is also no price signal related to the users of the 

highway that reflect the climatic risk that their transportation 

choices face. 

The same is true of freshwater infrastructure, wastewater infrastructure, electricity and other infrastructure. Politicians enjoy cutting ribbons on new free infrastructure. They are less prone toward 

having the cost of that infrastructure show up in terms of tolls or 

user fees. Establishing market pricing of infrastructure would 

quickly steer people away from fragile areas, dramatically reducing 

the cost of dealing with climate variability. 

For example, consider our electricity supply, as long as governments distort the prices consumers pay for energy with subsidies, 

fuel mandates, renewable power mandates and the like, electricity 

markets cannot effectively adapt to change in climate conditions. If 

the markets were deregulated and the full cost passed along, price 

signals would be created for electricity providers to expand or reduce capacity in areas prone to heat waves or cold snaps and would 

also encourage consumers to adopt more efficient ways of using 

electricity. 

Finally, I would suggest we trust in resilience but tie up our 

camel. In the event that climate change does tend toward higher 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARING

41 

estimates put out by the United Nations and other groups, it is 

reasonable to consider insurance options that might help deal with 

such changes, including government R&D into geoengineering research and the removal of greenhouse gases directly from the atmosphere. Climate variability poses a risk to our population, and 

we should take steps to face that. 

Thank you for allowing me to speak. I look forward to your questions. 

[The statement of Mr. Green follows:] 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARING

42 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 60 here 62454A.028
43 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 61 here 62454A.029
44 


WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 62/125 here 62454A.030
45 

The CHAIRMAN. If we ever need a speed reader, we are bringing 

you back. You got a 7-minute statement in 5 minutes. 

Mr. GREEN. When you have one of those 800-page bills. 

The CHAIRMAN. 1,500 pages, Thank you. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr. Hall. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you to all of our witnesses. 

I gather there is some rough consensus that there needs to be a 

Federal strategy for dealing with the effects of climate change. And 

several of you have talked about the need for strategy to coordinate 

Federal efforts with government-wide strategic planning or perhaps 

a working group akin to or under the auspices of the Council on 

Environmental Quality. 

In my relatively brief time here in Congress, I have seen problems that have been studied to death or seem to have been, shelves 

and shelves of reports from commissions and Blue Ribbon Panels, 

studies upon studies, studies of studies, that are gathering dust in 

offices around the Capitol with no enforcement mechanisms in 

place. Working groups rarely have a parent agency that is going to 

enforce implementation once the consensus, assuming that consensus, is reached. 

So my first question is, to each of you, is, what are your recommendations for making sure that whatever strategy is developed 

at the Federal level to coordinate these resources and efforts of the 

Federal Government will be effectively implemented and enforced, 

and what can we in Congress do to assist in that effort? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. I will start out. We think that is part of the 

reason that there needs to be an overarching strategy to decide 

where best to put that. We agree that it may not work within an 

existing agency. Many agencies can fulfill viable functions as part 

of that overarching strategy. However, we haven’t looked at the 

need, for example, for an independent climate program officer or an 

independent agency or anything like that. But I agree with your 

concern that if there isn’t a central authority to guide this and to 

enforce this, it may not work. 

Mr. SEIDEL. If I may just add to that, and I think I have had 

the misfortune of writing one or two of those reports that sat on 

a shelf. What we have seen in the case studies that we looked at 

was executive leadership is really critical. So when you have Governor Schwarzenegger, when you have Mayor Bloomberg, when you 

have Governor O’Malley saying through executive order this will be 

done and really charging the political leadership of those organizations to carry forward, it has gone a long way to ensuring followup action. But I wouldn’t stop there. And that is in part why we 

also recommend changes to regulations requiring adaptation be 

taken into consideration in all major Federal actions through the 

NEPA EIS process. 

Mr. HALL. I notice in Mr. Schwaab’s testimony that Maryland 

has already lost a number of islands in the Chesapeake that used 

to be islands and now are under water. We have seen changes in 

the acidification of the ocean due to absorption of carbon dioxide 

and so on. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARING

46 

I am just curious, Dr. Green, whether you can tell me of any 

market forces so far that you are aware of that have come into play 

to stop those kinds of things from happening. 

Mr. GREEN. Well, thank you very much. 

I agree the acidification of the ocean is a potentially troubling 

side-effect of greenhouse gas emissions. It remains to be seen exactly how troubling. 

In the past periods, when shell animals actually ruled the 

oceans, CO2 levels were considerably higher than they are today. 

So the idea that we will not have shell areas because CO2 levels 

increase the acidification of the ocean has yet to be demonstrated. 

Will market mechanisms fix that, the acidification question? 

Probably not. The localization or the adjacency to water areas, yes. 

You could move people away from areas that are very highly prone 

to flooding. As my hydrology teacher used to tell us, you know why 

they call them flood plains, don’t you? Because they flood, and so 

people should not be living in them. And to the extent that we subsidize their living there, we should cease doing so. 

Mr. HALL. I am in agreement. 

The question is how to get from here to there. For instance, people living on the barrier islands anywhere along the East Coast or 

the Gulf Coast. 

But to change the subject slightly, in the Hudson River, the salt 

wedge at high tide is drawn up to just south of the Chelsea Pumping Station, which is just south of Poughkeepsie. That is the 

backup water intake for New York City’s drinking water in case 

the reservoirs fail or are sabotaged or in case the aqueduct fails. 

There is already concern that sea-level rise is projected, even just 

from the greenhouse gases that have already been emitted, may be 

sufficient to push that salt wedge up high enough to require desalinization of the water supply to New York City if they need to rely 

on the Chelsea Pumping Station. 

That is another question where, you know, I have yet to see a 

market force or hear one described that would either prevent that 

from happening by restraining the emissions that seem to be causing it, according to many scientists, or that would solve the problem. I think it is going to take, in my opinion, a governmental action or actions either to mitigate or to try to restrain the scenario. 

And with that question, I will yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. A brief answer. 

Mr. HALL. It could be a comment. 

Mr. SEIDEL. It may be a comment, but if I may respond. Just 

classic markets work when all the cost and benefits are taken into 

consideration. When there are externalities, when external costs 

are not taken into consideration, markets don’t work. And that is 

when government needs to step in and make those markets work 

more effectively. I think that is the classic case that you are describing. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Green. 

Mr. GREEN. Yes, in fact, I agree with my colleague here. The 

right thing to do if you have an externality is to internalize the externality. There are indeed economic approaches that would solve 

the problem, such as instead of relying only on that water as your 

back-up, there could be other back-up systems established. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARING

47 

Through the full cost pricing of water, people could use much less 

water, putting less strain on your existing water infrastructure. 

There are any number of things you could do to make your water 

system more resilient to change. 

If I believed we could actually take control of the global climate 

and push sea levels at whichever way we directed without going 

economically into complete disruption, I wouldn’t have a problem 

with it. But I don’t believe we have the technology to take over control of the global climate, and therefore, we have to adapt. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time is expired. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin. 

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

I think we all know that the computerized projections on what 

is going to happen to climate can result in widely varying results 

10, 15, 20, 50 years out if there is almost an infinitesimal change 

in the data which is put into the computer. 

Now, since 2000, according to Dr. Green’s paper, which I believe 

to be scientifically valid, it has determined that the rate of our 

planet’s warming has flattened out and begun to decline. And as 

a result, what has been talked about at the time of Kyoto before 

this flattening out of the temperatures and the slight declining of 

the temperatures will probably be significantly different by 2020, 

2030 and definitely by 2050. 

When we are talking about resiliency and adaptation, if the 

premises upon which decisions are to be made are off and will result in the wide variation what the projections will be, how do we 

do it? I am going to start with you, Mr. Seidel. 

Mr. SEIDEL. Thank you, Mr. Sensenbrenner. 

Basically we are seeing this experiment unfold before our very 

eyes. We have seen temperatures rise. We have seen sea-level rise. 

We have seen the loss of islands in Maryland so we are not just 

basing this on projections of computer models. 

The second point you raise is about the recent changes, the recent sort of flattening out of the temperature record since the year 

2000. And every analysis I have seen expects that there will be— 

there is still natural variability in the climate system, there will be 

years that are warmer; there will be years that are colder. And the 

last couple of years have been relatively warm compared to the 

record. In fact, last year was the coldest year of this century, but 

the tenth warmest year I believe in the 150-year record. This decade, which you are referring to as climate has stabilized, will still 

be the warmest decade on the 150-year record. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Well, using the language of the left, I 

think, Mr. Seidel, that answer makes you a denier. Because if you 

look at the trend, there has been an at least flattening out of the 

warming trend or maybe a slight cooling trend since the year 2000. 

And I guess what I am saying is that the inconvenient truth of 2 

years ago might not be either inconvenient or truthful today because of these types of changes. 

Now, what we are talking about here is an adaptation policy that 

is supposed to last for a while. And there will be certain economic 

and financial commitments that will have to be made in order to 

implement the adaptation policy. Given the fact that the projections of a decade ago that the temperatures will continue to rise 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARING

48 

and maybe even increase, how as policymakers are we to be able 

to decide in a manner that we won’t be embarrassed later on by 

saying we were wrong in what the prescription was to deal with 

this issue? 

Mr. SEIDEL. In terms of adaptation itself, I think it is critical 

that the types of changes that we can make to our economic systems that are dependent on climate will create benefits. And those 

benefits are true whether there is rapid climate change, as the vast 

majority of scientists predict, or because of the climate variability, 

as my colleague here would suggest. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. With all due respect, what I am saying is 

that you all are saying we ought to adapt, but you, Mr. Seidel, 

aren’t adapting to new figures. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms. Speier. 

Ms. SPEIER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Regardless of whether we believe climate change is real or not, 

it appears that the panelists agree that adaptation is a key component. So let’s start there. 

Director Stephenson, in your GAO report, your third point was 

that basically, of the respondents, 71 percent of them believed it 

was the national role to come up with adaptation policies. Could 

you explore that with us a little bit more? What are the States 

looking for? What are the counties and cities looking for? What 

kind of direction are they expecting to come from the Federal Government? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. I think the biggest single need is probably localized information. Everybody has read the IPCC and what they 

think is going to happen in general as a result of climate change. 

But there needs to be a body of research and scientists that can 

help people translate those into what it means to my local community. And irregardless if you believe whether sea level is going to 

rise 2 feet or 8 feet, it is not an excuse for not planning an adaptation policy. 

For example, one of the case studies we looked at in King County, Washington, they are looking at the effects on our wastewater 

facility that is close to the Puget Sound. If they ignored the fact 

that sea level may rise 2 feet and inundate some of the pumps associated with that wastewater facility, they would be negligent. 

And planning is not going to be static either. You have to—the 

adaptation plan is going to be a moving target as the science gets 

better and better. It is just like anything else. 

So I think the localized information will be the starting point for 

local communities beginning to plan an adaptation program but 

has to be anchored in some sort of statistics on what will happen 

with the rivers and the oceans and et cetera. 

Ms. SPEIER. So knowing how strapped localities are right now, 

are you suggesting that the Federal Government should offer 

grants to localities to do this evaluation? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. We haven’t looked at that specifically, but that 

is always a good incentive. And I believe, in the current House bill, 

that is proposed, to give States adaptation money. Nobody knows 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARING

49 

how much revenue the sale of carbon is going to produce, but that 

would be a good use of the money certainly. 

Ms. SPEIER. Does anyone else have comments on that? 

In California, and particularly in my district, there are some 

alarming statistics already and data that suggest San Francisco 

International Airport would be flooded, many of my communities 

would have tens of thousands of people that would be no longer— 

would be homeless, in effect. 

I, frankly, don’t think insurance is the answer, Mr. Green—Dr. 

Green, excuse me, because I have seen all too well in California in 

terms of earthquake insurance that, at a point, the insurers no 

longer have enough money to respond to claims, and the State, in 

the case of North Ridge, was left holding the bag. 

So I guess my question to all of you, and Dr. Green, you could 

comment as well, is—I am not a fan of more studies as my colleague from New York has already stated. One of the things in 

California they are looking at is something called coastal armor, 

which I presume is levies. Why not take that kind of attack where 

you don’t have to study anymore, you can just—on the coastal regions in this country—just incentivize localities to build up these 

levies? 

Mr. GREEN. May I comment? 

I also grew up in Los Angeles, by the way. I had the privilege 

of being there for the Elmore quake and the Northridge quake, so 

I understand the fragility of that particular part of the world. 

With regard to whether insurance works, I mean, if you reach a 

point where you have people living in an area that cannot be privately insured, that is a de facto problem by itself. I mean, that 

shows you that people are not willing to pay the full cost of living 

in the area, based on its fragility or its particular tendencies toward disruption. 

But I agree with you, there is no reason why, and I mentioned 

this in my paper, there is no reason why you can’t install coastal 

armor, why you can’t build sea walls as well. My suggestion though 

is rather than make the mistakes of the past by having the State 

governments build them, those should be done in public-private 

partnerships and based on the utility where people pay a certain 

share of the protective aspect of that levy. 

And again, the price signal will determine whether or not people 

are really willing to live there and how they want to protect themselves or if they need to move inland a bit. And we are talking— 

let’s not forget, sea level is not simply going to go up 2 feet tomorrow. We are talking over 100 years, assuming it continues to rise 

at the rate it has since the last Ice Age. That is a lot of time for 

people to be able to creep back and adapt and build. We built systems much more quickly than that. We built the entire National 

Highway System in only 50 years. So there is time to adapt, and 

it is worth the effort of thinking through how to do it sustainably. 

Thank you. 

Ms. SPEIER. I see my time has expired, Mr. Chairman. 

I yield back. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. 

Blumenauer. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARING

50 

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Thank you. 

I cringe a little bit thinking about armoring the sea coast. I 

mean, you have a third of your—of coastal areas in southern California already armored. And we are watching what happens. As we 

deflect tidal action, we make it possible—impossible to renourish 

beaches. We accelerate erosion elsewhere. And ultimately, we are 

ending up—I mean, it is a finger in the dike. 

So I know that there are some communities that do this repeatedly with artificial beach construction. But it brings me to an area 

where I actually agree with Dr. Green about the Federal Government subsidizing people living in places where nature indicates 

that it is really not a good idea. 

I have been extraordinarily frustrated having spent 7 years 

working on flood insurance reform, watching how hard it is to 

make that happen. 

Our colleague, the ranking minority member, Mr. Sensenbrenner, was concerned about our not being embarrassed in the future. Well, putting aside for a moment the scientific consensus 

about what is likely to be happening over 20 and 40 and 60 years, 

I think the likelihood of embarrassment is much greater if we don’t 

act than if we do. 

But it seems to me, for reasons that the panel has been touching 

on, this is something we should be doing even if we didn’t believe 

that climate change was upon us, that sea levels were rising, that 

we were going to have more extreme weather events. 

We have already seen an increase in wildfires, in flooding, in 

storm events, insurance losses. And it would seem to me that we 

ought to listen to you and make our Federal policies consistent 

with strengthening these partnerships. Flood insurance reform, I 

think, would be one. The Coastal Barriers Protection Act, CBPA, 

resources, since I have been here, people come in and they try and 

nibble away at it because they want another area to be added. And 

there was a mapping error; there was new evidence. Basically, this 

was one of the most profound environmental pieces of legislation of 

the Reagan administration and something that we ought all to get 

behind and expand rather than minimize. 

I would just make an observation about market-driven solutions 

that Dr. Green is interested in, which I am very interested in pursuing. But I think, at core, our climate change legislation that a 

number of our colleagues here have been working on so heavily is 

a market-based solution. Cap-and-trade injects an opportunity to 

create a market for carbon pollution and be able to make adjustments in a variety of markets at home and around the world. I am 

particularly interested, though, in some specific areas where we 

might be able to do a better job. 

Mr. Schwaab, you talked about what Maryland has done to try 

and protect development in sensitive areas. I come from a State 

that has a comprehensive plan that actually mandates that they 

be—that we are sensitive to natural hazards. And as our statewide 

land-use planning has taken effect over the course of the last 20 

years, we are actually seeing a reduction in flood damage, for instance, at a time when we are seeing more of it nationally. Do you 

have a sense of what Federal policies we ought to be implementing 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARING

51 

that could strengthen Maryland’s ability and other States to be 

able to protect these vulnerable places? 

Mr. SCHWAAB. Thank you. 

Let me just first say, generally, I think there are two levels of— 

two ways that we need to coordinate. One is better horizontally 

across the agencies. An example of that that I think has been very 

successful recently is in President Obama’s executive order relating 

to coordination amongst Federal agencies in implementing the 

Chesapeake Restoration Program. And we have seen tremendous 

progress in a very short time as a result of that executive leadership and mandating horizontal coordination across the Federal 

agencies. 

The other way is what I would term perhaps more vertically oriented, and that is where there would be coordination, recognition, 

and implementation of adaptation perspectives in the implementation of programs that the States enact in partnership with the Federal Government. And that ranges from—you know, that runs the 

gamut from highway planning and resource deployment to things 

like wildlife habitat action planning and forest conservation. And 

there are a number of sort of vertical opportunities where coordination down from the Federal agency with a specific implementation 

responsibility in cooperation with the State can do a better job. 

I think both of those generally have a lot to offer. There are some 

specific recommendations that are included in my testimony. I will 

give—the Coastal Zone Program has been an incredibly important 

force for us in allowing us to study and implement some of these 

adaptation strategies. And reauthorization of the Coastal Zone Act 

with a more explicit climate adaptation responsibility and role is 

something in particular that we highlighted in our testimony. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time is expired. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Cleaver. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you for being here. 

Editorially, in my real life, I am a Methodist minister, and one 

of the least joyful parts of what I do is sitting by beds as people 

are dying. And one of the strangest things is that, in all the years 

I have been doing it, 30 years, I have never heard anyone say to 

me as they are moving toward sunset, you know, I really regret 

having taken such good care of my body. I have never heard anybody say, you know, I am embarrassed because I didn’t smoke and 

I didn’t get cancer; it is just so embarrassing, I don’t know what 

to do. Maybe in the future, somebody will do it, but so far, I have 

never heard it. 

The testimony of Mr. Stephenson and Mr. Schwaab, if I understand it correctly, both of you are I think suggesting that we need 

this national strategy adaptation, whereas it seems, Mr. Seidel, 

that you are saying, you are suggesting that we ought to begin in 

the departments and develop the strategy. So there is—I think 

there is a difference here. 

I am on the housing committee. HUD, for example, is essentially 

doing that. But the impact won’t be as great because there are instances where HUD, the activities of the Department of HUD interact with the Department—you know HHS or the Department of 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARING

52 

Justice. I am trying to reconcile the differences. Can you help me 

please? 

Mr. SEIDEL. I think it is a question of timing and staging. I think 

we all agree there needs to be a Federal-wide program and strategy. But we thought, based on our discussions with experts and 

what we have seen done in the past, that the agencies need to take 

it on first. And I would say the Department of the Interior is a 

great example of moving forward and looking through each of their 

program areas and coming up with what needs to be done to deal 

with the types of changes that have been discussed this morning. 

Then that, we believe, feeds into a national strategy. It is sort of 

the classic bottom-up/top-down type of, but in the end, you sort of 

want to end up in the same place. 

Mr. STEPHENSON. If I can comment. I think what we have seen 

is there has been a lot of activity at the individual agency level 

with climate change adaptation planning. In our report we are 

going to appendicize a summary of all the 15 or so agencies that 

have undertaken this. But what we are seeing and what we mean 

by ad hoc is there is no overarching national strategy. As part of 

that development of that strategy, we would see what the government structure would look like to implement that. Interagency task 

forces don’t often work for the same reasons you have mentioned. 

If it is not the Department of Labor’s issue, they don’t worry about 

it. So they are of limited effectiveness. 

So we think that the part that needs to be studied in developing 

an overarching strategy is, who is going to do what assigning roles 

and responsibilities, certainly to get the Federal agencies coordinated but also to look downwards at the State and local governments as well. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Mr. Schwaab. 

Mr. SCHWAAB. Thank you. 

We also don’t believe it is an either/or circumstance. And I think 

Mr. Seidel is exactly right; there are some sequencing questions at 

play here. We have already seen some very important efforts come 

out of the Federal agencies. The Corps of Engineers in July of this 

year issued a report on sea-level change considerations for civil 

works projects. We have seen similar work in the Department of 

the Interior with the Fish and Wildlife Service, as was mentioned. 

Those things have been very important to us as a State. 

Thank you. 

Mr. CLEAVER. This may be more philosophical, but in a free society, do you think people have the right to do bad things to themselves? Anybody. 

Mr. GREEN. May I? To themselves? 

Mr. CLEAVER. Yes. 

Mr. GREEN. Generally speaking, yes. As long as they are not exporting the cost of their action to other people, I believe they have 

the right to do things that others may consider a bad tradeoff. I 

have heard people express regrets for not having traveled more as 

they get later in their life, or not having experienced things such 

as skydiving and taking risks. So I do believe that that is the case. 

I would also just like to contribute that what hasn’t been mentioned here is the role that the military can play in looking at adaptation responses. And I know they are very interested in this. I 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARING

53 

have spoken at a military forum before where they need to plan for 

the adaptation of their bases. They need to plan for the adaptation 

of their structures, and they need to do that in conjunction with 

the other agencies, as well as the discussion of establishment of the 

north-south wilderness corridors and changing the way that we establish protective areas in the United States. 

Right now we do it by drawing circles on a map and putting 

someone’s name on there as a park, which is not how the animals 

are going to need to respond if the climate changes and they need 

to move north and south. So those are the kind of changes that 

agencies can look at right away, agencies of the Federal Government can look at right away to increase our adaptivity, both ours 

and the ecosystems adapting to this. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Washington State, Mr. Inslee. 

Mr. INSLEE. I want to express a little concern about the subject 

we are talking about, which is how we respond to this problem. 

And I have a little bit of concern that talking about the problem 

of climate change and ocean acidification in these terms could 

somehow siphon off energy for trying to stop the disease in the first 

place. 

You see a little bit tone of that in this book Freakonomics that 

came out the other day, Freakonomics 2. And the author sort of 

said, well, you know, we don’t have to stop CO2 going into the atmosphere; we will just mitigate it somehow by putting a shield of 

sulfur dioxide. Now, in the book, I am told they have grievously 

misstated the scientists’ positions, who now are absolutely in open 

rebellion against the two authors, who think they were grievously 

quoted wrong. But it shows this kind of syphoning off of energy if 

we start saying, we will just solve the problem by putting a big 

wall around us, you know, we will just isolate ourself from this 

problem, and that is how we will deal with it rather than really 

putting our energies into stopping CO2 pollution. 

Should that be a concern at all, and if so, how do we make sure 

that while we are thinking about how to prevent or respond to the 

change that is already baked into the system, doesn’t syphon off 

any of our energy, political or financial, to stop CO2 pollution? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. From our perspective, all aspects are important. Emission reduction is important. We can’t just expect to work 

our way out of this problem with just looking at an adaptation 

alone or emission reduction alone. Energy efficiency is a huge component as is renewables. The whole arsenal of things that we need 

to do to address this problem are important. 

Mr. SEIDEL. Congressman Inslee, my feeling is that the people 

who are on the ground experiencing the climate change that we are 

already having, the land managers, the coastal zone planners, they 

are the group that know what is happening, know the dangers that 

climate change is creating. And we need to enlist their support in 

efforts to mitigate and that mitigation is our first and best line of 

defense. But they can become allies in this effort, and it is not an 

either/or situation. 

Mr. GREEN. I believe that we have in fact—this attitude that you 

expressed has in fact kept adaptation off of the agenda for about 

10 years or more since Kyoto to the detriment of these places that 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARING

54 

have experienced harms from climate variability. Having had a 

heart attack, I can tell you that we can’t actually cure them. They 

don’t know the causes of all of them. Even if you follow their advice, you still have them and you do treat the symptoms. And if 

you don’t treat the symptoms, they get progressively worse. So you 

can’t simply say, well, we are not going to treat your symptoms 

until we know every cause of coronary artery disease; you treat the 

symptoms while you look. 

Mr. INSLEE. Well, we are doing that in my neck of the woods. 

King County, as you may have read in the GAO reports, have done 

some great work trying to respond to this problem. But I have— 

in talking to Federal agencies, I have been impressed by the lack 

of sort of institutional structure to make sure we do plan for the 

climate change that is already baked into the system. 

I was talking to someone in the Army Corps of Engineers whose 

responsibility is flood control. And I asked him, do you have a specific change in hydrological cycles that you build in your planning 

process? And the answer was uncertain at best. What should we 

do to try to make sure Federal agencies make this part of their regular planning process that hasn’t been done? 

Mr. SEIDEL. We certainly think that it needs to be incorporated. 

And the first step is really for agencies to go back in and analyze 

what programs and activities they are responsible for where climate needs to be factored in and hasn’t been up until now. 

Mr. INSLEE. So, institutionally, how do we do that? I mean, do 

we have a climate change box they have got to check on every contract, that they have looked at those numbers? I mean, how do we 

institutionally do it? I am particularly thinking of the Corps at the 

moment I guess. 

Mr. SEIDEL. I think the executive order that was recently issued 

by the Secretary of the Department of the Interior mandates this 

requirement throughout Interior. And I think that is an important 

first step, but clearly, it needs to be followed up on, and it needs 

to be done, not just in Interior but in Department of Defense, as 

you suggested, and across many other agencies where climate impacts are going to be critical to the well being of their programs 

and activities. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

And by the way, if members want to ask additional questions, 

they can do so. 

What I have done, and perhaps members—I wish that Congressman Cleaver was here because he actually gave me a tour of the 

Negro Baseball Hall of Fame that he actually helped to establish 

out in Kansas City. So what I decided to do is just to deal with this 

question. 

You already responded to it, Mr. Seidel. 

It is the question of where are we in the history of temperatures 

in terms of the planet and in terms of the United States. So I don’t 

know if you can see this, but I have got a—and I probably should 

put this in higher—in a larger form. But this is a picture of the 

world, and it is temperature differences from the average 1880 to 

2008. And you can see that the temperature just continues to rise 

as industrialization really starts to hit in 1970, 1992, 2008. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARING

55 

But for about a 10-year period, as you are saying, there is a new 

normal. And the new normal is way up here. And you are right, 

it hasn’t really spiked higher than the new normal, but it is very, 

very, very high. And so what I did was I asked them to compare 

that to the number of 40 home-run hitters per season in the Major 

League Baseball. And as you can see, it tracks very, very closely 

to the temperature for the planet, except you get, as you do with 

a dramatic increase in CO2 in the atmosphere, as soon as steroids 

starts getting injected into the system the number of home-run hitters of 40 or more spikes dramatically beginning in about 1996, 

1997 until testing for steroids begins about 3 years ago. And then 

there is a dramatic decline in the number of 40 home-run hitters. 

Now we have yet to have, as we know, an interjection of public policy to deal with CO2 in the atmosphere. So the average temperature kind of mirrors the height of 40 home-run hitters did before 

we had a new regime put in to test for artificial substances being 

put kind of an anthropogenic impact on the number of 40 homerun hitters. But once it is taken out of the system, it is amazing 

how it returned to the norm that existed before steroids were introduced. 

So I just believe that this artificial substance correlation is almost undeniable. And unless you want to believe, which I think 

Major League Baseball did, that when people started hitting 72 

and 73 home runs, that that was the new normal, and then we adjust to the new normal in the same way that people want to adjust 

to the new normal for temperatures. 

Well, it hasn’t gone any higher. That is okay. It has leveled off, 

and so why don’t we just live with that? Kind of like saying to a 

kid, well, you have had 102 degree temperature for the last 10 

days; that is the new normal. Don’t worry about 98.6, Mrs. O’Brien, 

you know, your boy will be okay; that is the new normal for Joey. 

Well, it is hard for parents or baseball fans or fans of the planet 

to kind of get used to having dramatic changes that are recurring 

that you are being told by doctors of the planet or of individuals 

or of baseball that there is nothing to worry about because that is 

the new normal. But then you begin to see changes in the physiology of baseball players. And originally—and there can be contrary 

theories, too. You can say, well, you know, maybe the bats are better. Maybe the ball parks are smaller. Maybe the baseball players 

are doing more weightlifting than they used to do. And you keep 

trying to find other reasons. But yet that new normal is so much 

higher than Babe Ruth or Hank Aaron or Willie Mays or Ted Williams that you kind of wonder, can they be that much better? Can 

it just be kind of, you know, all these other circumstances and not 

the artificial substances going in? 

So it is kind of the rise of science here as used by man, mankind, 

to affect important systems. So I just thought I would throw that 

in and hope that maybe we could—you know, Major League Baseball at its highest level was kind of in denial because they really 

loved all the fans that were coming into the ballpark to see these 

home runs, you know. It was almost like using a baseball bat to 

hit a golf ball, it went so far. But it was normal, you know, all of 

a sudden. And then it stopped being normal again, and we went 

back down to the average that existed in 1964 and 1953. And that 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARING

56 

is what happened this year, you know, the home run leader only 

has like 39 home runs, 40 home runs. I wonder why? I wonder if 

the bats aren’t as good or the balls aren’t tied together as tight or 

the players aren’t lifting weights as much. But I think most baseball fans kind of get what went on. 

And that is what the polling kind of says about CO2. They kind 

of get it, you know. They know that there is something going on 

that is being created by man. 

So let me ask you this, Mr. Schwaab, when you were looking at 

Maryland in the same way that we look at Massachusetts—and as 

you know, the Supreme Court case of Massachusetts v. EPA was 

based upon the impact that CO2 had upon our coastline. Why did 

you look at the coastline? Do you have a feeling that that is the 

most serious danger to the State of Maryland and, as a consequence, perhaps to Massachusetts as well? 

Mr. SCHWAAB. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I think there were probably two factors at play. One was that 

heightened awareness of our threat. And I have spoken already 

about some of the evidence of vulnerabilities in Maryland, obviously, both on the Atlantic Coast as well as both sides of the 

Chesapeake Bay. But in addition to that, I think it is important to 

note that, while there was a heightened sense of awareness of that 

vulnerability, that our positioning to address this issue first was 

aided substantially by the availability of coastal zone, Federal 

coastal zone management funding. So, in fact, when Governor 

O’Malley tasked the climate commission, we had 10 years worth of 

data that had been gathered largely through the support of our 

Coastal Zone Program and through Federal funding that came in 

that way. 

By way of contrast, some of the other areas that we have concern 

about, that I mentioned that we will be dealing with in Phase II, 

impacts on rainfall patterns, agriculture, some of the forest concerns, were not areas where we had the wealth of data, so that we 

were positioned to make immediate changes. So Phase II is now to 

spend the time, the energy and the money to get the data related 

to some of those other issue areas so that we can be better positioned to make some, to develop some action plans. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Schwaab. 

Mr. Stephenson, in Mr. Schwaab’s written testimony, he mentioned that three separate climate change adaptation strategies in 

the Chesapeake Bay region in the last year and a half have been 

put in place. From your experience with other complex environmental issues, do you have suggestions for the coordination efforts 

across Federal, State and local governments? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. Well, specifically, the overarching strategy is 

the starting point for pulling all that together. But what we noticed 

when we did our nationwide survey is that there is a huge lack of 

information out there about what is available. There is a lot of climate change information, adaptation information, scientific information about what could happen, but there are no information 

clearinghouses, for example, where all that resides. We had trouble 

finding people out in the State and local governments that were 

even aware of what was possible at adaptation, how to get started. 

So there is an information need out there as well. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARING

57 

The CHAIRMAN. How would you address, what recommendations 

would you make in terms of balancing the short term versus the 

long term in dealing with climate change? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. Well, there just needs to be an organizational 

construct. I mean, there doesn’t have to be a big bureaucracy to address Mr. Hall’s concern, on the one hand. But right now, all the 

agencies are sort of doing their own thing. There is not this integration across the government; there is not good coordination from 

the Federal to the State and the local government. And that is the 

thinking that we think needs to go into this overarching strategy 

that hasn’t happened yet. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Seidel, it is clear that we need more resources to support site-specific data so that policymakers can plan 

for the impacts of global warming, and we are never going to get 

perfect information. How do we optimize our efforts, absent perfect 

information, which, of course, ultimately is unachievable? 

Mr. SEIDEL. And in fact, decisions now are being made on the 

basis of the one thing that we know is not true, and that is that 

the climate will not change. So any better information in terms of 

the direction the climate will change will improve those decisions. 

I want to come back to just the costs that are involved here, because the costs of not adapting, the costs of not making land-use 

decisions based on a changing climate, the costs of not designing 

bridges, intake valves for wastewater treatment plants or waterquality treatment plants, the cost of not doing that now is going 

to come back and really knock our society for a loop down the road. 

So that is why it is critical that this starts sooner rather than 

later. 

The CHAIRMAN. Can you give me your numbers again in terms 

of the 10 hottest days in history, 10 hottest years in history for the 

planet? 

Mr. SEIDEL. I don’t have those right off the top of my head, but 

I will get them and put them on the record. 

The CHAIRMAN. But you said something like the last—— 

Mr. SEIDEL. What I said was this last year was the coolest year 

of this century but I believe was the 10th warmest year among the 

record that dates back to the 1880s. 

The CHAIRMAN. And weren’t the other nine since 1998? 

Mr. SEIDEL. I believe that is correct, yes. 

The CHAIRMAN. And so you heard my correlation in terms of 

years in which baseball players hit more than 40 home runs and 

the number of them. Do you think that there is any validity to the 

comparison I am making with steroids and CO2. 

Mr. SEIDEL. I think it is a wonderful analogy. The one aspect of 

it that I am concerned about is that when the players stopped taking steroids, you had an immediate drop-off. Unfortunately, one of 

the aspects of our climate system is that climate will continue to 

warm even once—if it were possible to reduce CO2 emissions completely. So, unfortunately, we are committed to the not only increase we have seen but further increase, and not just for years but 

for decades and even centuries. 

The CHAIRMAN. That is actually very helpful, so it makes it even 

more urgent because the steroids in the planet system don’t wash 

out. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARING

58 

Mr. SEIDEL. They don’t wash out, exactly. 

The CHAIRMAN. In a 6-month period. It takes a lot longer to get 

it out of the system and to begin to return it to some semblance 

of normality. 

Let me turn again and recognize the gentleman from New York. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I just wanted to ask one more question. First of all, talk about 

the new normal, for a second, that you mentioned. Orange County, 

one of the five counties I represent, has some wonderful onion 

farmers who work the black dirt, as they call it. And they have 

been hit with repeated storms that are three 50-year storms in the 

last 5 years. There have been several days this year alone when 

there have been tornadoes in Orange County, New York and other 

Hudson Valley counties. The Hudson valley isn’t usually thought of 

as tornado alley. 

Last year, Cedar Rapids, Ohio—the city slogan was ‘‘the city that 

never floods’’—was under 12 feet of water, I believe. Three hundred 

miles of the Mississippi River were closed to shipping because the 

water level, the flood level, was higher than the locks and the 

mechanism had to be removed from the locks to keep permanent 

damage from being done to them. The boring beetles in the western—the Rockies and Sierras have been moving forward and drying 

out the trees by boring into them. And satellite photographs, aerial 

photographs, show brown swaths of forest just waiting for a lightning strike to set off one of these increasingly common and disastrous wildfires. 

So the question is, as far as this new normal is concerned, A, 

how hard are we as a country or as a society among other societies 

in the world willing to work to keep it from getting worse, to keep 

from the worst-case scenario? And B, how bad is that, and how 

hard should we be working to prepare for middle case or worst 

case? I don’t think we can, that we can achieve the best-case scenario based on what I have seen so far. I spent a bunch of time 

last year at NOAA in Boulder and at the NREL and NCAR laboratories out there. And the predictions of NOAA, of the scientists, 

these aren’t political people, they are scientists out there, show the 

growing latitudes for grain and other crops moving north. And I 

said, well, are we in danger of becoming a net importer of food 

rather than a net exporter of food? And they said, yes, that is possible. And the problem is that the alluvial plain in Canada doesn’t 

allow for soil depth to, if it gets—you know, if you push the growing latitude for corn and soy and other grains, wheat and so on, 

far enough north, you run out of top soil to do it on. So more than 

or as much as coastal preservation or any of the other infrastructure and so on adaptations that we might look at, I am curious, 

maybe starting with Mr. Stephenson, what you foresee in terms of 

what we need to do to preserve our agricultural productivity and 

the land and climate necessary to have it. 

Mr. STEPHENSON. Well, let me just say, we are not a scientific 

organization, but the IPCC certainly is a symbol of the world’s 

leading scientist in this area. And you are right, I think sea-level 

rise is the most talked about and the probably best understood of 

climate change impacts. But I don’t think we fully understand the 

effect on storms, the effect on migration strategies, droughts. And 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARING

59 

as all that is crystalized, I think we will come up with different 

kinds of adaptation strategies for those. But I certainly don’t have 

a silver bullet or a solution as to what we might do about that. 

Mr. HALL. Mr. Seidel, do you have a comment? 

Mr. SEIDEL. In terms of the range of impacts that we face, sealevel rise does get a lot of the attention, but it just really depends 

on where you are. Someone mentioned earlier melting of the permafrost in Alaska is critically important and something that is already being experienced. Droughts throughout the Southwest, I 

think, are critically important and certainly are what these projections would forecast. So it is really a wide range of issues. 

It is possible, though, to begin to plan for these now. Making 

more efficient use of water makes sense. It made sense yesterday. 

It makes sense tomorrow. It is going to make even more sense in 

the future. And we really can’t waste any time in getting better 

programs in place to begin doing those things. 

Mr. HALL. Dr. Green, you looked like you wanted to comment. 

Mr. GREEN. Two things. One I wanted to talk about is the 

science element. We talked about a new normal. There is no such 

thing as a climate normal. We have got a climate that is billions 

of years old. It goes up, and it goes down in temperatures. Climate 

is, in fact, an average of 30 years of weather. Each individual dot, 

we would call a climate block. When you talk about climate, you 

are talking about 30 years of average weather. 

So 10 years, the fact that it has leveled off I don’t construe to 

mean things are changing direction. However, the models at a certain point don’t allow for that to continue, and so it does cast doubt 

on the forecasting ability. 

But with regard to your specific question, again, water subsidies 

and farm subsidies, obstacles to the deployment and development 

of genetically modified crops, these are all things that the Federal 

Government can affect that can make our agricultural base more 

resilient to climate variability, whether it is natural or anthropogenic. Thank you. 

Mr. HALL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you so much. 

The importance of this hearing cannot be overstated, and we 

thank you so much for being here. There is an old saying: Sometimes you can be right but too soon. A lot of people just don’t want 

to deal with the facts yet. And it can happen in a lot of things, including if a player on your team happens to jump from a 20 home 

run average to 50 all of a sudden, you don’t want to ask too many 

questions. So it is kind of the same thing is true here. 

We have this conference that is going to occur in Copenhagen in 

December. The world has basically accepted the science. The National Academy of Sciences of every country in the world has 

signed off on the science. The world is waiting for the United 

States to be the leader and not the lagger. The consequences are 

obviously greater in the short run for developing countries around 

the world in terms of the impact of global warming. But inevitably, 

inextricably, it will hit us as well. 

And the Chesapeake Bay is a good example of warning to us that 

we are not immune. And adaptation will be very costly and, in 

some instances, very difficult to implement, but nonetheless, we 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARING

60 

have to start thinking about it. Otherwise, we will just be engaging 

in the kind of denial that ultimately turns the problem into something much worse. A stitch in time saves nine, so I think it is important for us to have this hearing because the GAO report, and 

we thank you so much, Mr. Stephenson, for it, will be a working 

document for the Select Committee on Global Warming as we make 

our recommendations to the Speaker and to the administration and 

to the American people. 

And all of the rest of your testimony is very helpful to us, including yours, Mr. Green. 

So why don’t we give everybody a 1-minute summary, opportunity to make a 1-minute summary to us of what it is that you 

want us to keep in our minds six weeks out from Copenhagen as 

the world gathers and what the implications are of the GAO report 

and the testimony that we heard today? So we will give each one 

of you 1 minute to make your summary. 

We will begin with you, Mr. Green, which under the Green formula actually turns out to be 2 minutes worth of written testimony 

delivered in 1 minute. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you. I will try not to rush through this. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I think the key point I would raise for this is that, first of all, 

the technologies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the near 

term are very, very expensive and very limited. Unilateral action 

by the United States would lead to serious economic disruption. 

Nonetheless, the fact that we know the climate is a variable system leads us—should lead us to take actions to make ourselves 

more resilient to the face of change, whether that change is natural 

or anthropogenic. 

Therefore, I would suggest then refocusing our attention on finding ways to make ourselves more resilient at the Federal and State 

level. And I think a great deal of that involves removing incentives 

we have currently in place that lead people to live in harm’s way 

in climatically fragile areas, in areas prone to drought, flood, fire, 

sea-level rise and salt-water intrusion. And if we address those 

things first, we would find the cost of adapting down the road to 

be considerably less than if we don’t adapt—than if we don’t address those things right up front. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Dr. Green. 

Mr. Seidel. 

Mr. SEIDEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I do hope you are 

going to enter your graphs into the official record. 

The CHAIRMAN. It will be entered. It has to be perfected. This 

won’t come out of your time. I am still working on completing the 

analogy. And I like the fact that I came up with a temperature for 

children analogy as well in terms of what is normal that the family 

has to adjust to. It is just too difficult for a doctor to figure out 

what is causing it, so we will just accept a new normal. So I am 

working on all of these analogies to deal with the preposterousness 

of saying that 10 of the warmest years in history have occurred 

since 1998, but that is the new normal, and so just get used to it, 

and it won’t go any higher than that ever again in the future. It 

just doesn’t really make a lot of sense to me. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARING

61 

So your 1 minute begins now. 

Mr. SEIDEL. Thank you. 

I think it is critical to look at adaptation policy as good economic 

policy and that these are costs that society is going to incur down 

the road. We heard about the San Francisco airport, the railroad 

lines in your district. 

I mean, if we don’t begin adjusting our thinking, adjusting the 

way we plan, taking the types of actions that Maryland has begun 

to take, the economic costs are going to be so severe down the road 

that we will rue the day that we did not start adapting sooner. 

Thank you, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Schwaab. 

Mr. SCHWAAB. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Let me just first emphasize some discussion about the concept of 

adaptation versus mitigation. While we are focused here today on 

adaptation, the concept of mitigation has also been prominent in 

Maryland. I wanted to emphasize that as sort of a two-pronged approach. 

The second thing that I wanted to emphasize is, again, the need 

for national coordination. And very specifically, that includes both 

Federal coordination among the agencies as well as leadership at 

the Federal level, but coordination between the Federal agencies 

and the State and local governments. So when we speak of national 

coordination, we speak implicitly about inclusion of the States and 

the local governments prominently in that discussion. 

We think it is absolutely imperative that government lead by example. We are doing that in Maryland. We see some of the Federal 

agencies doing that already, and we just need to build on that and 

get more strategic from a broader perspective. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Schwaab. 

And Mr. Stephenson. 

Mr. STEPHENSON. Mr. Chairman, I think that our biggest contribution in our report is the survey that we did of State and local 

officials. Those are the folks that are out there on the front lines 

of trying to do adaptation planning. And so I would just reiterate 

what they pointed out to us, that the need for training and education to increase awareness, they need more site-specific information. They need to know where to go to get that information, and 

they believe in clarifying roles and responsibilities. 

We think that strategic planning is needed to better integrate 

the Federal response to adaptation, and that is why we are recommending this need for a national framework or strategy in order 

to do that. We think CEQ and OSTP, who are leading those efforts 

right now, are off to a good start, and we will be watching anxiously to see how they proceed towards the development of that national strategy. 

Thanks. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir. 

And what we would like, if it would be possible, is for our staff 

to work with you in terms of what a national framework should 

look like so that we can receive your expert advice on what makes 

the most sense for doing that. And we would appreciate that continued cooperation with us moving forward. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARING

62 

Mr. STEPHENSON. I would be happy to do that. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. And we thank each of our witnesses 

for your testimony today. And with that, unless there are any questions, this hearing is adjourned. 

Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 11:12 a.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

Æ 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with HEARING