U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

99–882 PDF 2016

S. HRG. 111–1209 

CLIMATE CHANGE AND NATIONAL SECURITY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JULY 30, 2009 

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

( 

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

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

BETTINA POIRIER, Staff Director 

RUTH VAN MARK, Minority Staff Director 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

JULY 30, 2009 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

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

Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma .................... 2 

Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland ................ 8 

Voinovich, Hon. George V., U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio ........................ 10 

Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey ........... 13 

Bond, Hon. Christopher S., U.S. Senator from the State of Missouri ................. 14 

Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware ................... 18 

Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming .......................... 19 

Klobuchar, Hon. Amy, U.S. Senator from the State of Minnesota ...................... 20 

Alexander, Hon. Lamar, U.S. Senator from the State of Tennessee ................... 22 

Udall, Hon. Tom, U.S. Senator from the State of New Mexico ............................ 23 

Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island ......... 25 

WITNESSES 

Warner, Hon. John, Former U.S. Senator ............................................................. 41 

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

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Cardin .......................................................................................... 58 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 60 

Response to an additional question from Senator Barrasso ......................... 60 

McGinn, Dennis, Vice Admiral, U.S. Navy (retired); Member, Military Advisory Board, Center for Naval Analyses .............................................................. 88 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 91 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Cardin .......................................................................................... 97 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 99 

Powers, Jonathan, Captain, U.S. Army (retired); Chief Operating Officer, 

Truman National Security Project ...................................................................... 101 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 103 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Cardin .......................................................................................... 107 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 108 

Rivkin, David B., Jr., Partner, Baker and Hostetler LLP; Co-Chairman, Center for Law and Counterterrorism at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies ..................................................................................................................... 111

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 113 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe ............................... 124 

(1) 

CLIMATE CHANGE AND NATIONAL SECURITY 

THURSDAY, JULY 30, 2009 

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

The full committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in room 

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

Present: Senators Boxer, Inhofe, Carper, Lautenberg, Cardin, 

Klobuchar, Whitehouse, Udall, Voinovich, Barrasso, Bond, and Alexander. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator BOXER. The committee will come to order. 

I am deeply honored at having some many great Americans before us today. We welcome the panel. 

I just want to go through the way we are going to proceed. 

Today, on the floor of the Senate, momentarily maybe, or maybe 

not for a while, is a very important measure to replenish the Highway Trust Fund which, because of a number of reasons, some good 

and some bad, is running out of funds. When I say some good, it 

is because it means people are driving more fuel-efficient vehicles, 

and we are starting to make progress in that regard. 

So, we see that the Trust Fund is running low on funds. So, 

today we have a measure to replenish the Fund. Unfortunately, it 

is a little controversial. So, I will have to leave at some point, and 

Senator Cardin will then take over as the Chair. He is just a great 

member of the committee. He is always there for us if we need 

him. And I thank him very much for that. 

So, I am going to give an opening statement and colleagues will 

as well. After that, Senator Warner has reminded me of a Senate 

rule that says when a former Senator appears before the committee, he or she must be sworn in. 

So, we will do that just for Senator Warner. We will not do that 

for the other members of the panel. And then we will proceed. We 

will go right down the row, and we look forward to hearing all of 

your comments. 

Today’s hearing will give us an opportunity to focus on climate 

change and national security. Again, I want to extend a warm welcome to our panel, and if I might just say, as a point of personal 

privilege, to our former colleague, Senator Warner, who retired just 

last year and whose leadership on this issue has been invaluable. 
2 

For many years, the world’s experts on security have been telling 

us that global warming is a threat to our Nation’s security and a 

danger to peace and stability around the world. Their words of 

warning should not be ignored. In 2003, the Defense Department 

commissioned a study that found the U.S., and I am quoting here, 

‘‘will find itself in a world where Europe will be struggling eternally with large numbers of refugees washing up on its shores and 

Asia in serious crisis over food and water. Destruction and conflict 

will be endemic features of life.’’ That is from the Defense Department in 2003. 

A 2007 report conducted by the Center for Naval Analyses found 

that the United States could more frequently be drawn into situations of conflict ‘‘to help provide stability before conditions worsen 

and are exploited by extremists.’’ 

And just last September, the NATO Secretary General said that 

global warning will, and I quote, ‘‘sharpen the competition over resources, notably water, it will increase the risks to coastal regions, 

it will provoke disputes over territory and farming land, it will 

spur migration, and it will make fragile states even more fragile.’’ 

In addition to the destabilizing impacts that global warming will 

bring, shortages of food production due to drought, shrinking supplies of clean water as glaciers recede, displacement of people from 

low lying areas as sea levels rise, we must also address the ways 

in which our dependence on oil makes us more vulnerable. 

A May 2009 report by retired U.S. Generals and Admirals, including Admiral McGinn, one of our witnesses today, stated that ‘‘a 

business as usual approach to energy security poses an unacceptable high threat level from a series of converging risks.’’ 

I believe we must heed these warnings to protect our Nation’s security, and addressing the threats posed by climate change will 

also bring with it tremendous opportunity. The steps we take to address global warming, including incentives for the development of 

clean energy such as wind, solar, geothermal and algae fuels, developing a fleet of electric and other highly efficient vehicles, will 

help lessen our dependence on foreign oil. 

Clean energy legislation will also create millions of new clean energy jobs. It will build a foundation for long-term economic growth. 

We need to accelerate the process of building a new American 

clean energy economy. Clean energy, I believe, is the U.S. path toward economic leadership, a robust recovery, a healthier life for our 

families and a more secure world. 

So, I look forward to hearing the testimony of witnesses today. 

Now, I have made my statement in about 3 minutes. I would ask 

colleagues to try to hold your opening statements to 4 minutes, just 

given the panel before us. Well, I will ask you to take 4 but if you 

do 5, we will take extra time over here. 

Go right ahead. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Senator INHOFE. All right. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

I welcome back Senator Warner. He and I have been on both 

sides of this issue because we served on the Armed Services Com-
3 

mittee for many years together as well as both of us chairing this 

committee in the past. And on most things I agree with him. 

I want to welcome the other people who are here today. Obviously, we disagree, we differ on the credibility of the science used 

in the reports that we have read. But that is not the focus of today. 

What I would like to do in my focus today, and first of all I have 

to say, Madam Chairman, and you talked a little bit about the 

competition on the floor, I have to leave here at 11:10 a.m., so I 

will be doing it at that time. 

For the sake of this hearing, I am going to stipulate that the central finding in any reports that global warning poses a serious national security threat, I do not think it does, in fact it does not, but 

I will stipulate that it does for the purpose of this meeting, and 

also that the science is there, which I do not agree with. 

Actually, I say to my good friend Senator Warner, so much has 

happened since a year ago when you had your bill on the floor and 

since your retirement, in terms of the scientists that have come 

over who were on the other side of the issue, but let us assume, 

for the sake of this committee hearing, that all of that stuff is true. 

Now, what I am going to focus on is the link between developing 

American resources and American’s national security. And I am 

going to explain why passing a cap-and-trade bill will not solve any 

of the legitimate issues that you identify in your reports. 

Let me be clear. Even if we experience catastrophic changes in 

climate, the Waxman-Markey bill and its soon to be Senate variant 

would do nothing to stop it. EPA Administration Lisa Jackson, and 

I am sure you all read about this, it happened 3 weeks ago in this 

very room, in response to my question as to, you know, well if we 

were to pass the Waxman-Markey bill, would it have an effect of 

reducing CO2 and she said no, it would not. In other words, unilateral action is not going to do it. 

Chip Kappenberger, who used to be with the University of Virginia and is now with New Hope Environmental Services, has recently confirmed Administrator Jackson’s statement. In a quantitative analysis released this morning, he found that using IPC’s 

own science, the Waxman-Markey would reduce global temperatures by less than one-tenth of one degree Fahrenheit by 2050. 

This is kind of interesting because I can remember back when Al 

Gore was Vice President and he hired Tom Wigley, a foremost authority, a scientist, he said if all developed nations were to sign the 

Kyoto Treaty and live by their mission requirements, how much 

would it reduce temperature. His result was seven-one-hundredths 

of one degree Fahrenheit in 50 years. That is almost exactly the 

same thing that Chip Kappenberger said. 

So, if the Waxman-Markey does virtually nothing to affect climate, what would be the impact on energy security? I would say 

to Admiral McGinn and Captain Powers, in your testimony you discuss with compelling force that the United States needs to reduce 

dependence on foreign oil, particularly from hostile regimes. I could 

not agree more. I am with you on that. We have got to do that. 

There is a national security issue there. 

And I have argued for years that, for national security purposes, 

the United States must provide access to all forms of domestic energy supplies including wind, which we have a lot of in Oklahoma, 
4 

one of the leaders in wind energy, but also solar, geothermal, nuclear, clean oil and natural gas. It is clear that we have the resources. 

According to a report by the Utah Mining Association, America’s 

recoverable—this is very significant, I say to you, all three witnesses—America’s recoverable oil shale resources are nearly three 

times as large as those in Saudi Arabia. The study concluded that 

utilizing U.S. oil shale deposits could provide America with the potential to be completely energy self-sufficient with no demands on 

external energy sources. 

So the big problem we have is the people, and many of them are 

right here at this table, who do not want us to go offshore, do not 

want us to exploit our own resources. And so we cannot do that. 

That makes us more dependent. 

I would conclude that if we were to pass something, which we 

are not going to do, but if we were to pass something close to the 

House bill, it would have the effect of making us more, not less, 

dependent upon other countries to run and defend this machine 

called America. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:] 
5 
6 
7 
8 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator, very much. 

Senator Cardin. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND 

Senator CARDIN. Madam Chair, thank you very much, and I will 

ask for unanimous consent to put my entire statement in the 

record. 

Senator BOXER. Without objection. 

Senator CARDIN. I want to welcome our panel. Just for a moment, I want to single out Senator Warner. We have a very distinguished panel, but it is really a pleasure to have Senator Warner 

back before our committee. 

Senator Warner has devoted his life to this topic. His entire life 

has been devoted to helping our national security and dealing with 

the environmental risks. He served with great distinction in the 

U.S. Senate and was our expert leader on national security issues. 

And Senator Warner, you understood the relationship between 

dealing with our environment and dealing with our national security. It is a pleasure to welcome you back to our committee. 

I agree with Senator Inhofe that we do have a security issue because of dependency on foreign oil. There is no question about that. 

We use 25 percent of the world’s fossil fuels and we have 3 percent 

of the world’s reserves of oil. And, quite frankly, we have given the 

oil industry plenty of acreage in order to explore the oil that we 

have. The problem is we do not have enough oil. We need to develop alternative and renewable energy sources, and that needs to 

be a part of our national security strategy. 

But it is also true that the global climate change has a direct impact on the security of America. We know that just a slight change 

in climate has a dramatic impact on the stability of many regions 

in the world. If sea level rise is increasing, we know people that 

live on the coastal areas are going to migrate, and that migration 

will cause instability among other counties. 

We also know that because of the change in the weather conditions, it will bring about droughts, it will bring about real concerns 

about feeding people in different regions in the world. That has a 

security concern about those regions. So we know about those concerns. 

And then perhaps the one area that I hope we all could agree 

on is the availability of drinking water, and so many areas—they 

are being affected because of the melts of the glaciers and the impact that is going to have on regional security. All of this affects 

the United States’ interests. 

We are interested in stability in these regions for obvious reasons, but it also can put a stress on our own military and the demands of our own military as far as dealing with the potential instability in different regions in the world. 

So, we have a direct interest in dealing with global climate 

change from a national security perspective as it relates to the security of our resources, but also as it relates to the stability internationally and U.S. interests and what we may be called upon as 

far as our military is concerned. 
9 

1Pingzhong Zhang, Hai Cheng, et al. ‘‘A Test of Climate, Sun, and Culture Relationships from 

an 1810-Year Chinese Cave Record,’’ Science 322 (November 7, 2008). 

For all those reasons, Madam Chair, I am pleased that we are 

holding this hearing. I think you have a very distinguished panel 

that can help answer the questions as to why we need to deal with 

global climate change as a national security priority. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Cardin follows:] 

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

Chairman Boxer, thank you for holding this hearing. 

Research has shown an interesting correlation between traumatic climate events 

and political strife around the world. A study published in the November 2008 edition of the journal Science found geological evidence in Chinese caves that show extended droughts occurring right around the time when the Tang, Yuan and Ming 

dynasties were in decline. 1 Even today, drought and famine are at the heart of 

much of the civil and political strife in several sub-Saharan African nations. Similarly, last year’s cyclone in Myanmar killed tens of thousands of people and increased tensions between the ruling military junta and the citizenry. 

Climate scientists have predicted that global climate change could increase the 

frequency and intensity of extreme weather events like tropical storms, floods and 

droughts. Events like this can cause serious food shortages, foster the spread of diseases and lead to civil unrest. 

Food and water shortages in Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan and Pakistan are a 

contributing factor to the civil unrest these countries are experiencing. The combination of humanitarian crises and Islamic extremists creates a growing threat situation for our national security including our troops deployed overseas. The impacts 

of climate change will only exacerbate this problem. 

CLIMATE AND WATER RESOURCES

The common element in the climate crisis is water. Some regions of the world face 

the threat of rising sea levels, more intense storms and flood events. Myanmar is 

a case study of how real this threat is. A similar event in Bangladesh or Indonesia 

could take hundreds of thousands of lives and create millions of ‘‘climate refugees’’ 

seeking asylum in neighboring countries, where they may face persecution as ethnic 

minorities. The U.S. has national security interests to help impacted nations mitigate these threats. 

Separate issues accompany situations where water scarcity results from climatic 

changes. Changes in weather patterns that decrease precipitation cause extended 

drought, expand arid regions, and literally dry up freshwater supplies necessary for 

drinking water and agriculture. Warmer and dryer climates also diminish snowpack 

affecting downstream river flows. Droughts in vulnerable parts of the world can 

have a direct impact on food supplies and public health which can add to local and 

international tensions and increase demands for emergency assistance. 

DOMESTIC ENERGY SECURITY

Our reliance on dirty fossil fuels gives OPEC nations indirect control of our econ- omy. Last summer, the average price for gasoline topped out at more than $4 a gallon, and this was caused by growing global demand for oil from countries like China 

and India and because OPEC nations control the supply. We need to regain control 

of not only our energy sources but also our fuel usage. 

The United States consumes nearly 25 percent of the world’s fossil fuels yet even 

the most liberal estimates say that we control or possess only about a 3 percent of 

the world’s petroleum resources. This is not a problem we can drill our way out of. 

Diversification of our energy sources is critical to American energy and economic security, and the way to get there is to harness the Nation’s abundant renewable energy and invest in abundant domestic alternative energy sources. 

However, we are naı ̈ve to think that industry will move toward cleaner, diversified and domestic energy sources without regulation and incentives to do so. But domestic political leadership will lead to domestic corporate leadership. 

U.S. LEADERSHIP—CONCLUSION

The United States is a global leader in providing humanitarian aid to nations in 

need. Our generosity helps build trust and strength among our allies, and by help-
10 

ing maintain peace and stability in countries wrought by disaster also improves our 

national security. 

We should anticipate more international and domestic disaster situations arising 

from the impacts of climate change. That is why I support both international and 

domestic climate adaptation programs funded through a portion of the allowance 

auction proceeds. 

Reducing our carbon emissions, becoming the world’s leader in renewable technology production and providing international climate adaptation funding to help 

countries plan and protect at risk communities facing the impacts of a changing climate are all policy solutions that demonstrate our commitment to lead the world 

in facing the climate crisis. 

Senator BOXER. Senator, thank you very much. 

Senator Bond. 

Senator BOND. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. But Senator Voinovich, were you here ahead of me? 

Senator VOINOVICH. I think I was. 

Senator BOND. I apologize. 

Senator BOXER. I am so sorry. 

Senator BOND. As much as I want to talk, I believe he was here 

first. 

Senator BOXER. I am so sorry. I had misinformation. We will 

switch you two around and put back the 5 minutes. Thank you. 

Senator Voinovich. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OHIO 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you very much. 

First of all, I would like to welcome my good friend, John Warner, back here to the Senate. John, you and I have to sit down and 

talk about how it is on the outside once you leave this place because I am contemplating on doing that next year. 

Madam Chairman, I am certainly glad that the committee has 

decided to delay marking up this climate change legislation. The 

hearings that our committee has held on the issue have reinforced 

my concerns with the size and scope of the legislative options that 

Congress is considering. 

Any legislation that passes through the committee should both 

reduce our Nation’s greenhouse gas emissions and make our Nation more energy secure. It should include provisions that allow us 

to fully utilize the domestic resources and responsibly increase our 

domestic production of oil and natural gas to relieve energy costs 

and strengthen our energy security. 

I have long tried to encourage the harmonization of our energy, 

environment, economy and national security. This is my eleventh 

year on this committee. Unfortunately, national security concerns 

have never been prominently considered during my 11 years on 

this committee. I consider what we have been doing a tail wagging 

the dog agenda, driven by the environmental part of this four-part 

harmonization—energy, environment, economy and national security. 

For years the gap in the United States between demand and domestic supply of oil has been widening. U.S. oil production has 

steadily declined since 1970 when it was nearly 10 million barrels 

per day to 4.9 million barrels today. But the U.S. consumed an average of 19.4 million barrels per day in 2008. 
11 

With many of our domestic resources now off limits, we have 

been forced to seek energy abroad. In 1973, the U.S. imported 6 

million barrels per day of crude oil, or 34 percent. By 2008, these 

numbers had risen dramatically. Net oil imports were 9.7 or 61 

percent of our total liquid fuel use. 

In 2006, Hillard Huntington, Executive Director of Stanford University’s Energy Modeling Forum, testified before the Foreign Relations Committee, of which I was a member at that time, and said 

‘‘The odds of a foreign oil disruption over the next 10 years are 

slightly higher than 80 percent.’’ He went on to testify that if global 

production were reduced by merely 2.1 percent, it would have a 

more serious effect on the economy than Hurricanes Katrina and 

Rita. 

These concerns led me to introduce the National Energy Security 

Act, along with Senator Dorgan. This bill expands development of 

domestic oil and natural gas and moves us toward sustainable 

clean energy production and use by streamlining the permitting of 

the most promising areas of the outer Continental Shelf, providing 

$50 billion in Federal loan guaranty authority for low carbon electricity including nuclear and advanced coal, and promoting the 

electrification of our transportation fleets so that by 2050, 80 percent of it would be electrified, and supporting something very important, a robust, reliable national grid. 

This legislation is based on a report created by the Energy Security Leadership Counsel, a group of business and military leaders, 

and I am sure some of the military people know who are on this 

committee, who have committed to developing long-term policies 

that will reduce U.S. oil dependence and improve energy security. 

The preamble of their report reads: Hostile state actors, insurgents and terrorists have made it their intention to use oil as a 

strategic weapon against the United States. Steadily rising global 

oil prices add to the danger by exacerbating tensions among consuming nations. Oil dependence, with its incumbent exporting of 

American wealth, exacts a tremendous financial toll on our country. Excessive reliance on oil constrains U.S. foreign policy and burdens a U.S. military, the protector of last resort for the global economy. 

I would be interested to know if the witnesses here today share 

some of these concerns that were in the preamble of this report 

that this distinguished group of people put together. 

Our problem today is, instead of considering this big picture, we 

are considering an overly complicated and partisan approach that 

would simply exacerbate the situation. Indeed, the financial burden 

that the Waxman bill places on the domestic oil industry will force 

the off shoring of U.S. refining capacity and jobs, leaving us at the 

mercy of foreign nations for refined gasoline supplies. 

I have talked to individual after individual. First of all, we have 

not been building any refineries. Now, we are finally doing it. With 

this legislation, forget any new refineries in the United States. 

They are going to move overseas. Right now, in India, they are 

building the biggest refinery in the world with the idea that we will 

pass this legislation, our guys will be forced overseas and we will 

start getting more oil, more refined oil, from India. 
12 

We should be very, very concerned about this as a Nation. Our 

security is in deep jeopardy today, and we had better wake up. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Voinovich follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

Madam Chairman, I am certainly glad that the committee has decided to delay 

marking up climate change legislation. The hearings that our committee has held 

on the issue have reinforced my concerns with the size and scope of the legislative 

options that Congress is considering. 

Any legislation that passes through the committee should both reduce our Nation’s greenhouse gas emissions and make our Nation more energy secure. It should 

include provisions that allow us to fully utilize the domestic resources and responsibly increase our domestic production of oil and natural gas to relieve energy costs 

and strengthen our energy security. 

I have long tried to encourage the harmonization of our energy, environment, 

economy and national security. Unfortunately, national and security concerns have 

never been prominently considered in this committee: here we have a ‘‘tail wagging 

the dog’’ agenda driven by environmental extremists. As such, our Nation’s reliance 

on foreign sources of energy has steadily increased. 

For years the gap in the United States between demand and domestic supply has 

been widening. U.S. oil production has steadily declined since 1970, when it was 

nearly 10 million barrels per day (BPD), to 4.9 million BPD in 2008. The U.S. consumed an average of 19.4 million BPD in 2008. 

With many of our domestic resources now off limits, we have been forced to seek 

energy abroad. In 1973, the U.S. imported 6 million BPD of crude oil, or 34.8 percent of our total supply. By 2008, these numbers had risen dramatically: net oil imports were 9.7 million BPD, or 61 percent of our total liquid fuel use. 

In 2006, Hillard Huntington, Executive Director of Stanford University’s Energy 

Modeling Forum, testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that ‘‘the 

odds of a foreign oil disruption happening over the next 10 years are slightly higher 

[than] 80 percent.’’ He went on to testify that if global production were reduced by 

merely 2.1 percent, that it would have a more serious effect on the economy than 

hurricanes Katrina and Rita. 

These concerns lead me to introduce the National Energy Security Act along with 

Senator Dorgan. This bill expands development of domestic oil and natural gas and 

moves us toward sustainable clean energy production and use by streamlining the 

permitting of the most promising areas of the Outer Continental Shelf; providing 

$50 billion in Federal loan guarantee authority for low carbon electricity, including 

from nuclear and advanced coal; promoting the electrification of the transportation 

fleet; and supporting a robust, reliable national grid. 

The legislation is based on a report created by the Energy Security Leadership 

Council, a group of business and military leaders committed to developing long-term 

policies that will U.S. oil dependence and improve energy security. The preamble 

of their report reads: 

‘‘Hostile state actors, insurgents, and terrorists have made their intention to use 

oil as a strategic weapon against the United States. Steadily rising global oil prices 

add to the danger by exacerbating tensions among consuming nations . . . [O]il dependence, with its incumbent exporting of American wealth, exacts a tremendous 

financial toll on our country . . . [E]xcessive reliance on oil constrains . . . U.S. foreign 

policy and burdens a U.S. military . . . the protector of last resort for . . . the global 

economy.’’ 

I would be interested to know if any of the witnesses here today share these concerns. I think the threat posed to our national security is real and that the comprehensive bipartisan approach provided by Senator Dorgan and myself is the solution that Congress should be using. 

Instead, we are considering an overly complicated and partisan approach that 

would simply exacerbate the situation. Indeed, the financial burden the Waxman 

bill places on the domestic oil industry will force the off-shoring of U.S. refining capacity and jobs, leaving us at the mercy of foreign nations for refined gasoline supplies. This undercuts our national security interests and our economy. 

During a time when the national unemployment rate is at 9.5 percent and the 

national debt is over $11.5 trillion, we should first do no harm to the economy when 

enacting climate change policy. A 1,400-page job killing ‘‘Ruth Goldberg’’ climate 

proposal is no path to recovery. 
13 

That this bill will do little to address this global environmental issue and much 

to erode our competitive position in the world marketplace, our economy, and our 

national security interests is without dispute. This was confirmed by Administrator 

Jackson’s recent statement before this committee that unilateral U.S. action ‘‘will 

not impact world CO2 levels;’’ in a recent GAO report, which concludes that the bill 

could ‘‘cause output, profits, or employment to decline;’’ and a preliminary report by 

EIA that shows by 2030 annual losses in GDP could be as high as $465 billion, with 

corresponding annual decreases in manufacturing output by as much as $642 billion, and a $272 billion hit to the pocketbooks of working families. 

Madam Chairwoman, I hope that we can work together in examining the true 

costs of any climate change legislation that might come before the Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee before we hamper the U.S. economy with altruistic goals through complicated unachievable mandates. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much. 

Senator Lautenberg. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

If I can personalize for a moment. John, I have not seen you 

around. Where have you been? 

[Laughter.] 

Senator LAUTENBERG. You are one of the few members who are 

left of the venerated generation, and we miss you. We are pleased 

to see you here among the other distinguished colleagues, particularly you. 

Madam Chairman, as we research the consequence of just saying 

no and staying the course that we are on, we hear the alarm ringing loudly across our country. As we research the consequences of 

doing that, we see greenhouse emissions continue to rise at their 

current rates, global temperatures could increase by more than 11 

degrees by the end of this century, sea level rise threatening families and communities who call the coastal areas of their homes; inhabitants of low lying areas in the Pacific are already seeking new 

homes on higher ground because their old homes are threatened 

and will soon be underwater. 

As people are displaced, they will compete for resources, for land, 

fresh water and food, and because of global warming, there will be 

fewer resources to fight over. For example, Himalayan glaciers that 

provide water to billions of people in China, India and Pakistan 

will recede. And with temperatures rising and water declining, 

crops throughout that volatile region and many others will wither 

and die. People around the world could face a terrible choice: fight 

their neighbors for the means to stay alive, or flee their homes and 

become climate refugees. 

According to the CIA’s National Intelligence Counsel, as many as 

800 million people or more will face water or crop scarcity in the 

next 15 years—15 years, setting the stage for conflict and breeding 

the conditions for terrorism. 

This is the future if we continue down the path of relying on 

dirty fuels like coal and oil and ignoring the dangerous consequences. And if we fail to change course, it is our children and 

our grandchildren who are going to suffer most from our negligence. 

Last month, the House of Representatives passed a landmark bill 

that could change these grim forecasts. It would reduce greenhouse 
14 

gas emissions at a low cost and in a way that creates thousands 

of new clean energy jobs. The world’s eyes are now on the Senate, 

and specifically on this committee, to pass a bill that moves our 

country away from the dirty, unstable sources of energy and toward clean, sustainable and efficient ones, and to stave off that 

life-altering 11 degree rise in temperature. 

Clean energy can create jobs, as it has in my home State of New 

Jersey. More than 2,000 clean energy companies now call New Jersey home, employing more than 25,000 people. Clean energy can 

reduce air pollution that causes asthma and cancer, reducing 

healthcare costs for all of us. 

And clean energy can strengthen our national security. As retired General Anthony Zinni has said, we will pay now to reduce 

greenhouse gas emissions today or we will pay the price later in 

military terms and that will involve human lives. 

We cannot afford to wait any longer. We have got to get to work, 

get past the no zone, and pass our clean energy bill. 

I thank you all for being here. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much, Senator Lautenberg. 

And now, it is Senator Bond. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI 

Senator BOND. Thank you, Madam Chair, for holding this hearing. 

I join in welcoming our former colleague, my long-time hero and 

leader, Squire Warner. He does not have to be sworn in for me to 

know that he is telling the truth. Unfortunately, today we see the 

truth in little different forms. But I believe that what he says is 

what he believes to be the truth. It is great to see him back. 

With respect to Waxman-Markey, unfortunately it will do little 

to stop foreign wars overseas. It will do little to help our climate. 

It will do everything to start U.S. trade wars that hurt U.S. workers at home and abroad. 

As our Ranking Member pointed out, the EPA Administrator 

confirmed recently that the Waxman-Markey bill will have no appreciable effect on world temperatures because EPA analysis shows 

that passing a U.S. cap-and-trade bill alone, without China and 

India taking similar action to reduce their own carbon emissions, 

will not halt the worldwide rise in carbon concentrations, and if 

you believe that they create temperature increases, temperatures 

will go up. 

With no halt to rising world temperatures, Waxman-Markey will 

do nothing, nothing, to address the threat to America’s national security that military advisors might see from climate change. Waxman-Markey will do nothing to address climate as a threat multiplier for instability in some of the world’s most volatile regions. 

Waxman-Markey will do nothing to avoid tensions to stable regions, nothing to prevent terrorism from worsening, and nothing to 

avoid dragging the United States into conflicts over water and 

other critical resource shortages. 

I would like to know whether any of the panelists specifically 

support Waxman-Markey that the House passed. We had a group 

of Governors testify last week, and when pressed, they refused to 
15 

support the specifics of Waxman-Markey. I surmise we may have 

an Admiral join them this week. 

It is easy to see why. Waxman-Markey will kill 2.5 million U.S. 

jobs, even after including new green jobs. An Admiral knows that 

cutting off the arm of a sailor does not make the sailor stronger 

or fight better. Cutting off 2.5 million jobs from American’s workers 

will not make America stronger. It will make us weaker and less 

secure. 

Waxman-Markey not only threatens our economic security at 

home with massive job losses, but also threatens our economic security by starting a new international carbon trade war. 

I met with a Chinese delegation, a high level delegation that 

came in town this week. I had conversations directly with the Vice 

Ministers for Commerce and Environment. They are very much 

concerned with carbon tariffs in the Waxman-Markey bill. They 

have no intention of enforcing radical limits on their carbon emission. They want to work with us, as they are, in finding cleaner 

ways to use energy. But they will not limit their ability to use fossil 

fuels to increase the well being of their citizens. 

And I am sure that China will not hesitate to retaliate with their 

own trade tariffs and sanctions in response to any U.S. climate 

sanctions. They already showed that when we put Buy America 

provisions in the misnamed stimulus bill. They had a Buy China 

response to it. 

A carbon trade war will hurt Missouri farmers who could no 

longer export crops overseas and manufacturing workers who could 

no longer export their products. All told, Missouri has nearly $13 

billion in total exports at risk in a carbon trade war, and over $700 

million in agricultural exports that could go unsold. Workers at 

4,000 Missouri businesses that export overseas could face job 

losses, 3,600 of these in small or medium-sized businesses with 

under 500 employees. 

There are better paths to stabilize at-risk nations and reduce significantly our dependence on foreign oil. I am a co-sponsor, with 

Senator Durbin, of the Water for the World Act to increase USAID 

and state capability to improve clean water. I believe this is the 

kind of smart power the United States can employ, putting sandals 

and sneakers on the ground to make life better for millions, avoiding the later need for boots and battleships. 

We support dramatic action to expand clean energy, nuclear, 

clean coal when ready, electric, plug-in and hybrid vehicles, 

biofuels, new cellulosic and algae-based ethanol fuels; even wind 

and solar where they make sense. And we need to expand our use 

of American resources here at home. Clean energy, American energy, not energy taxes, not lost jobs. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. I ask that my full statement be included in the record. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Bond follows:] 
16 
17 
18 

Senator BOXER. Without objection. So ordered. 

Our next would be Senator Carper. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

Senator CARPER. Thanks, Madam Chair. 

To my leader, for the folks on the panel, I used to be a naval 

flight officer back during the Vietnam war, and our Secretary of 

the Navy at the time was John Warner. I have always referred to 

him as my leader. It is great to see you again. When I first came 

to the Senate, I referred to him as Mr. Secretary, and he referred 

to me as Lieutenant Carper. I have always been deferential to him 

and value him very much. He has been a great friend and mentor, 

and I am just delighted to see you back. 

To a real Admiral, not a Rear Admiral, but a real Admiral, Vice 

Admiral Dennis McGinn, it is very nice to see you. And Mr. Powers 

and Mr. Rivkin, thank you for joining us, too. 

I listened to my friend, also a recovering Governor, Senator 

Bond, talk about all the things that we need to do. He said we need 

more nuclear. I think we need more nuclear. He said we need more 

clean coal. We need more clean coal. He said, I think he said, we 

need more solar, we need more wind, we need to create more 

biofuels and maybe turn CO2 emissions into wastes that go to feed 

biofuels, feed algae, stuff like that. We need all of those things. 

The remarkable thing to me is that if we are smart about putting 

together a piece of legislation that not only addresses security concerns that flow out of climate change, not only address the threats 

to our environment and so forth, but are really smart about it, we 

will actually create incentives to do all of those things that Senator 

Bond just talked about. 

Some of my friends like to talk about putting a tax on carbon. 

I do not think there are a lot of people who are going to vote for 

that. Most of the people I hear talk about it would not vote for it. 

But what we do need to do is put a price on carbon. 

I like to quote, and I have repeatedly, John Doerr, who sat right 

where Senator Warner is sitting today. John Doerr is a very successful entrepreneur from California who started a lot of companies, hundreds of companies, made a lot of money, created a lot of 

jobs. His advice to us as we focus on this issue of climate change 

is to No. 1, put a price on carbon, No. 2, put a price on carbon, and 

No. 3, put a price on carbon. 

If we are smart, we will put a price on carbon. And we will put 

together legislation around it and a regulatory structure around it 

that will not create this tale of horribles that we keep hearing 

about, but will provide the ways to address, appropriately, our security needs, our environmental challenges, and most important, 

help us create a whole bunch of new jobs, to put people to work, 

to give us technologies that we can sell around the world. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much. 

Senator Barrasso. 
19 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

I would like to welcome all of those who are coming to share 

their thoughts with us, but a special welcome to my good friend, 

Senator John Warner. Senator, it is great to see you again. Thank 

you for being here. 

Madam Chairman, I agree that climate change is a national security issue, and the evidence that this is the case really is overwhelming. In a recent Reuters article dated May 30, 2009, entitled 

Carbon Credit Schemes Will Draw Organized Crime According to 

Interpol, Peter Younger, an environmental crimes specialist at 

Interpol, was quoted as saying, in the future, if you are running 

a factory and you desperately need credits to offset your emissions, 

there will be someone who can make that happen for you. Absolutely, organized crime will be involved. 

Interpol has partnered with the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency to address this threat. They have created something called 

the Climate Change Crime and Corruption Working Group. The 

group’s stated goal is to explore legislative restraints and potential 

loopholes that may potentially lead to the development of new 

crime areas with result to the issue of climate change. 

They have a Web site for people to go to and get more information and all that. I will put that into the record, Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. Without objection. We will do it. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. As well as the article, if I may, 

Madam Chairman, from Reuters. 

Senator BOXER. Yes. 

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

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

As of now, two investigators with the EPA participated in this 

working group at Interpol. Interpol is the world’s largest international police organization with 187 member countries. It facilitates cross-border police cooperation and supports and assists all 

organizations, authorities and services whose mission is to prevent 

or combat international crime. 

Interpol and the EPA are aware of the potential threat that capand-trade schemes can pose if taken advantage of by these elements. They recognize the dangers that carbon markets can lead 

to funding streams to international organized crime elements. 

These criminal elements are a threat to all nations. They traffic 

in weapons, explosives, fake IDs, passports, drugs, money laundering and human trafficking. Some are designated as terrorist organizations, including organizations in Colombia, the Russian 

mafia and the Mexican drug cartels that threaten our border. Carbon markets created by Waxman-Markey could become a boon to 

these and to fund these organizations. 

We should all be concerned because these groups are a threat to 

U.S. national security. Some even operate within our own borders. 

If we are to endeavor to create a carbon trading scheme here in the 

United States, we have to know the national security implications 

of such an approach. 

We need to know if Interpol’s assessment is shared by other 

members of the intelligence community. How prepared are they to 
20 

deal with this potential new funding stream for international crime 

organizations in the carbon markets? 

And it is for that reason, Madam Chairman, as Ranking Member 

of the Subcommittee of Oversight of this committee, I sent letters 

yesterday to the Director of National Intelligence as well as to the 

agency heads of the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, the Securities Exchange Commission, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Homeland Security 

and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. 

In those letters I ask, given that Congress is considering capand-trade legislation that would create carbon credit markets in 

the United States, whether those agencies agree with Interpol’s assessment about the threats posed by international criminal organizations. 

I also ask what threats to U.S. national security would result if 

criminal or terrorist elements raised funds through carbon markets 

as Interpol has suggested. In the case of the EPA, I asked what are 

the current findings of Interpol’s Climate Change Crime and Corruption Working Group since the organization is being headed by 

EPA investigators? 

To my knowledge, Madam Chairman, our committee has not 

been briefed on the activities of this working group. I believe that 

such a briefing should occur as soon as possible. I believe the committee needs to get the full picture from our intelligence and environmental agencies as to the potential threats posed by the manipulation of carbon markets. 

I have asked that the responses to my letters be provided in the 

next 2 weeks and I will share those responses with the members 

of this committee so that we may get a full picture of this national 

security issue before we vote on legislation to create carbon markets. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. Thanks very much, Senator. 

And now we will go to Senator Klobuchar. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

I listened to my colleague’s remarks with interest because my 

focus, I guess, is a little more basic, and that is first of all, the effects that climate change could have on our national security climate change itself. I was honored to speak with you, Vice Admiral 

McGinn, a bit about this in the last few days and was just struck 

by what I am sure we will hear today. 

Just when you look at—if you believe the scientists, and I do, the 

effect of the melting of the Himalayan glaciers could have on countries like Afghanistan and Pakistan, already incredibly volatile situations, the effect it will have if China starts running out of water. 

Those are real national security threats that we have to look at. 

I am no expert on that. So, in terms of the effect that climate 

change has on national security, I am very much looking forward 

to your testimony and hearing what you have to say about that because I think it is a whole different angle on this. 
21 

Sometimes people can say, well, I do not really care what happens in these other developing nations. They are not mine. When 

I was in Vietnam with Senator McCain and Senator Graham, the 

No. 1 thing the Prime Minister there raised was climate change because they are on the ocean. 

But even if you say you do not care about what happens to those 

countries, we should care from a national security standpoint if 

what happens in those countries is going to affect the national security of the United States of America. So, I care very much about 

hearing about that today. 

The second thing that I care about is the effect that this reliance 

on foreign energy has on our own country. Last year, the National 

Intelligence Counsel completed a classified assessment titled The 

National Security Implications of Global Climate Change Through 

2030. These were consensus findings of key, 16 U.S. intelligence 

agencies. Again, this was during last year, and the last time I 

checked, that was during the Bush administration. 

The assessment explores how climate change could threaten U.S. 

security in the next 20 years. They talk about the political instability, the mass movements of refugees, terrorism, conflicts over 

water, as you mentioned, Vice Admiral McGinn, with China. The 

assessment also indicates that additional stress on resources and 

infrastructure will exacerbate internal state pressures and generate interstate friction through competition for resources or disagreement over responses and responsibility. 

If there is one thing that all Americans, whether they are Republicans or Democrats or Independents, can agree on, is that our Nation relies too much on foreign energy and that this reliance puts 

our Nation at a security risk. 

The 1970s demonstrates our Nation’s vulnerability. I was 10 

years old in 1970, but I remember that decade and the lines of people when OPEC decided to reduce the global oil supplies. Americans were forced to line up their cars at gas stations across the 

country. 

Over 30 years later, Americans import more oil than ever. We 

import nearly 5 billion barrels into this country and send hundreds 

of billions of dollars a year to foreign countries. Now, we know that 

it is OK to have those kinds of relationships with Canada. We 

know it is OK to have them with our allies. We are not going to 

say no to importing all foreign oil. 

But when we look at some to the countries where we rely on our 

energy, countries that we would rather not be dealing with, that 

put us at risk if they cut off our supply, we know that we have to 

be producing our own homegrown energy. 

And we know that it is going to have to be a comprehensive 

strategy. It is going to have to include things like biofuels, which 

have been cutting edge in our State, and we are looking forward 

to developing the next stage of biofuels, which is cellulosic. It is 

going to be nuclear, it is going to be everything from geothermal 

to hydro to the cutting edge work that is being done with wind and 

with solar. We know it should be comprehensive, and I think there 

is bipartisan agreement on that, including some increased drilling 

in our own country. 
22 

But that being said, if we just turn our heads and say, oh, this 

hearing should be about the national security implications of capand-trade, I would like to be a little more basic here and focus on 

what are the national security implications if we start losing glaciers so that these developing countries that we are already trying 

to keep very instable governments in place become ever more instable. 

What are the effects in the Mideast? What are the effects if we 

become more and more dependent on foreign oil? That is what I 

hope this hearing will be about. 

Thank you very much. 

Madam Chair, I yield the floor. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much, Senator. 

Senator Alexander. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LAMAR ALEXANDER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thanks, Madam Chairman. 

Let me welcome Senator Warner, especially, and the entire group 

of witnesses. I look forward to that. 

We have a broad spectrum of opinion here about climate change, 

as Senator Warner will remember. Some do not believe it is much 

of a threat; some are ready to jump off the cliff. My view of it is 

that I am convinced enough that I think we ought to buy some insurance, and we ought to do something about it. 

So, I do not want to argue about climate change today. I want 

to concede the point. The questions that I will have, when my turn 

comes, will be more about if climate change is the inconvenient 

problem, then I want to be talking about what appears to be the 

inconvenient solution—nuclear power. 

Some on the other side have said, well, the Republicans do not 

have any ideas. Well, all 40 Republican Senators have endorsed 

No. 1, building 100 nuclear plants in the next 20 years. Nuclear is 

70 percent of our carbon-free, pollution-free energy, and that is the 

number that we built between 1970 and 1990, and we can do it 

again. 

Two, we endorse the idea of doing all we can to electrify half of 

our cars and trucks, thinking that is our fastest and best way to 

reduce our consumption of foreign oil by about one-third. Three, we 

support offshore natural gas exploration. It is low carbon. And oil, 

we ought to use less of it, but use more of our own. 

And finally, we support doubling energy research and development on a series of mini-Manhattan Projects to try to look at these 

alternatives in renewable energies and see if we can make them 

cost competitive and reliable while we are doing the other things 

that we already know how to do, such things as making solar costs 

competitive. In the TVA region today, it costs four or five times 

what other things do. And making electric batteries better, and 

green buildings, and finding ways to re-use nuclear fuel in the 

safest and best way, even fusion on down the road. 

So, my questions are going to be, we have a distinguished group 

of military people here, a former Secretary of the Navy. What if 

you were assigned, in a strategic session, we have got a problem 
23 

here and we need to build 20 percent of our electricity from pollution-free, carbon-free energy. 

Someone might come up with a plan and say, well, let us use biomass, sort of a controlled bonfire. Since the wind does not blow in 

Tennessee and Virginia, that is what they tell us we can use. You 

might say, well, you would have to forest an area the size of the 

Great Smoky Mountain National Park in order to get the equivalent of one nuclear power plant. 

They say, well, let us use solar. And you might say, well, that 

is very promising, and we hope to use it one day; it has strategic 

advantages, but it is four to five times the cost of other electricity 

in the TVA region, and you know, to equal a 1,000-megawatt nuclear power plant you would have to cover, oh, 30 square miles. 

Then someone will surely say, let us build wind turbines. We, in 

effect, we do not have a clean energy policy in the United States 

or ever a renewable energy policy. We have a national windmill 

policy. We have the President saying we need increased—20 percent of our electricity needs to come from wind turbines. We are 

spending—the Congress has appropriated nearly $30 billion in subsidies over the next 10 years for wind developers. It is considerably 

higher than the subsidies for all other renewable energy. 

The Secretary of the Interior met this week with the wind turbine makers, and they said, let us make it 20 percent of our electricity. Well, if you are thinking about that in a strategic way, A, 

it is more expensive. That is 130,000 to 180,000 wind turbines and 

all the transmission lines that go with them, which would cover an 

area the size of West Virginia and only be available one-third of 

the time. So, would that meet our strategic objectives? 

Then you can say, well, our other option is take the technology 

we invented and that France is using, 80 percent of its electricity 

is nuclear power, and this is attracting jobs from Spain, which has 

more expensive electricity, is has more expensive electricity, it has 

among the lower carbon emissions in the European Union. Or look 

at China, building more nuclear plants than all the rest of the 

world put together with our help, India building them with our 

help, Japan building one every year. We have not built one in 30 

years. 

So, would you not make a military judgment that, while we figure out all of the renewable and alternative energies, which are 

promising and intriguing, why are we not giving the same kind of 

attention to building 100 nuclear power plants in the next 20 

years? We invented the technology, we know how to do it, and 

would it not be the fastest way to deal with, and maybe the only 

way to seriously deal with, global warming in this generation? 

Thank you, Madam Senator. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much, Senator. 

We will hear from Senator Udall, then Senator Whitehouse unless we have an intervening, and then we will move on. 

Senator Udall. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would like to put 

my opening statement in the record and just be very brief. 
24 

Senator BOXER. Without objection. 

Senator UDALL. Senator Warner, it has not changed much, has 

it, in terms of the speeches and you not getting to talk here quickly? I wonder what it feels like on the other side there. 

So, I am going to be very, very brief. I just want to say to you, 

and I am hoping that you being able to speak and me giving up 

my time to you, that you may be able to persuade some of your 

former colleagues on the other side of the importance of doing climate change legislation. 

I know that you were very bold and very courageous when you 

stepped out and you did, with Senator Lieberman, a piece of legislation. And I know from traveling on a river with you and Senator 

Worth in the West that you were interested in climate change a 

long time ago. 

We were with one of the top climatologists, a fellow by the name 

of John Fierer, and we went down a river and he explained to us 

what was going to happen in terms of the Western landscape and 

how it was twice as hot and we would see those pine trees disappear and things like that. 

So, I am going to yield back the rest of my time. I may only be 

able to be here until a little bit before 11 a.m., so hopefully you can 

speak and persuade some of the folks on the other side of the aisle 

that this is important and it is on our national security interest. 

And then, we get it done. 

So, thank you very much, and I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Udall follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

It is well known and often repeated that the U.S. imports nearly 70 percent of 

its oil, consumes 25 percent of global supply, and has only 3 percent of its reserves. 

As a result, our oil dependence is fully recognized as a national security problem. 

However, we are only beginning to realize that we face a fate worse than oil dependence—global oil scarcity. 

Today, global reserves are about 1.2 trillion barrels, and the world uses about 85 

million barrels every day. If consumption and supply stay constant, the world has 

less than 40 years left of supply. With supply peaking and demand accelerating, it 

could be much less than 40 years. Major oil fields are declining, and the International Energy Agency estimates we need to replace more than 50 percent of global 

production—45 million barrels per day, equal to 4 new Saudi Arabias—just to tread 

water. 

Claims of vast oil shale deposits in the U.S. and worldwide do not recognize that 

these are not counted as reserves because the vast amounts of them have proven 

to be unrecoverable economically. In fact, it appears likely that more energy would 

be required to recover the oil shale than contained in the oil shale. It is also a problem that 3 barrels of water are required to recover 1 barrel of oil shale. 

And of course, every new gasoline powered vehicle on the road in China or India 

makes treading water on global oil supplies that much harder. 

Many oil industry experts believe balancing future supply and demand is impossible given the geologically finite supply of oil and the dysfunctional politics and economics of oil-rich nations. More than 75 percent of the 1.2 trillion barrels of global 

reserves are controlled by foreign national oil companies that do not operate under 

market principles. 

In 2008, the U.S. spent $475 billion on foreign oil imports. That works out to 

around $4,000 per American family in 1 year. Most experts expect prices to rise over 

the coming years, increasing this foreign oil tax on U.S. consumers. For comparison, 

that cost is over 20 times more than the estimated cost of the House American 

Clean Energy Security Act. 

Given these figures, and our testimony today, it is clear that legislation to provide 

clean energy incentives to reduce foreign oil dependence does not cost the U.S.—it 

saves both money and lives. The Senate must urgently consider legislation to 
25 

achieve leadership in the next generation of clean energy technology, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and prevent the catastrophic impacts of global warming. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much. 

Senator Whitehouse. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I am going to follow the good example of 

my colleague, Senator Udall, and simply welcome my friend Senator Warner here. We miss you, John. 

Senator Warner and I served together on the Intelligence Committee during the time that we overlapped. He was a very distinguished and senior member of that committee. It was during that 

time that the national intelligence estimates by the then Bush administration national security officials chronicling the hazards and 

risks that we face from climate change came out. I know he was 

instrumental in getting that report done. 

I just want to welcome him back and let him know what a good 

thing it is to see him back in the institution to which he brought 

such luster. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much. 

We are getting to our witnesses. I want to put two, unless there 

is objection, two documents in the record because Senator Bond 

mentioned the study, I think it is the Heritage Foundation, he did 

not mention that, that says there will be a loss of 2.5 million jobs. 

If it is another one, then it is another study. Do you know the 

name of the study? 

Senator BOND. [Remarks off microphone.] 

Senator BOXER. The National Black Chamber of Commerce study 

of 2.5 million jobs lost. And I am putting in the record the Pew 

Charitable Trust Study which shows that the clean energy jobs 

have been the one bright spot in this economic recession, both in 

California and in all 50 States. 

[The referenced Pew study follows:] 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 

Senator BOXER. Then, I wanted to also say to put in the record 

this page 10. This is to Senator Voinovich who said we never talked 

about national security. The very first thing when I was so honored 

to take the gavel of this committee is put together this book called 

Voices of the Senate on Global Warming. In the introduction, on 

page 10, we talk about the U.S. Department of Defense-sponsored 

report and the implications on National Security. So, I am going to 

put that page into the record. 

[The referenced information follows:] 
39 
40 
41 

Senator BOXER. And with that, Senator Warner, let me tell you 

that we have checked with Senate counsel, sir, and, even though 

you have been insisting that you be sworn in, we do not want to 

swear you in, they said it is absolutely unnecessary. 

Senator INHOFE. Madam Chairman—— 

Senator BOXER. So, I want you to please feel comfortable with 

that. 

Senator INHOFE. Let me add this into the record—— 

Senator BOXER. Can I just do this? But we will put that in. 

Senator WARNER. I will abide by the wishes of the Chair and the 

distinguished Ranking Member. The rules require it, but if the 

counsel wants to waive it, that is fine by me and let us get one 

with our—— 

Senator BOXER. Yes, we want you to feel totally comfortable in 

that. Please sir, go right ahead. 

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

Senator WARNER. Well, I would like to observe, and thank you 

for the heartfelt comments by so many of you here as I return to 

this room which I think is, Senator Inhofe, I think I was here 22 

years and you 20 years in this room, and all of the magnificent 

leaders that we had in the course of those years, our beloved 

friend, Mr. Whitehouse, John Chafee, and I could go on and on. 

You bring, the current leadership, you carry on the traditions that 

our forebears, like Pat Moynihan and others had, in the good work 

of this committee. 

I frankly am very impressed with the opening statements that 

have been made. There is a perception that the Senate is not doing 

much on climate change. This hearing dispels that by the opening 

statements. 

Each of you, while you have your strong differences and differences of opinion, you have recognized the magnitude of the problem facing the Congress of the United States, and now in the lap 

of the U.S. Senate, of trying to come to grips with fashioning a 

piece of legislation, if that is achievable, to help alleviate the problems that I think we all agree on. And there are some problems out 

there. 

I will tell you what is the driving motivation for me. I think you 

said it, Senator Lautenberg. You referred to the fact that when I 

left, there were only five of us that had served in World War II. 

You and I served as enlisted men. Here, a half-century later, those 

young men and women in uniform that respond to the orders of the 

Commander in Chief, the President of the United States, to go beyond our shores in the great traditions of this country, 200-plus 

years of tradition in this country, to help those people less fortunate than ourselves who become victims of situations that imperil 

their lives and their freedom. 

This country is going to go on doing that. And I think there is 

a building base of evidence that global warming is contributing to 

much of the instability in the world today, particularly the very 

fragile sovereign nations, which as a consequence of global climatic 

changes, do not have either the water or the energy or the food to 

meet the basic needs of their people. And that sovereignty falls, 
42 

and into that vacuum so often come individuals and groups who 

have views totally antithetical to the free world. 

So I come back, and I am here to speak on behalf of those young 

people and say they are standing at the ready, the same as you and 

I and other generations have throughout the history of this country, to respond to the orders of the Commander in Chief. 

Our mission is to determine, through the legislative process and 

other processes, what we can do to try and lessen the degree to 

which global climatic changes cause situations which require the 

United States and other nations to respond to help others. 

You will find no greater supporter of nuclear energy than this 

humble soul. If I look back on the fortune I have had in my career, 

I was Secretary of the Navy and Undersecretary for over 5 years. 

At that time, we had close to 100 nuclear plants, largely operating 

at sea, but nevertheless some shore installations where we did our 

training and experimentation. 

We are fortunate, and I say this simply because of the safety 

rules that we had, of the technology that we have had, that we did 

not have incidents of any really life threatening nature throughout 

that period or throughout the period of the history of the Navy. 

One submarine is lost. It is still a mystery. We do not know 

whether or not that was occasioned by any malfunctioning as occasioned by a nuclear plant. But certainly, on the shore installations 

and into the ports all across America which welcomed our submarines and ships; we had no problems. 

I think that is a solid precedent for arguing today to return, as 

you have said Senator Alexander, to a greater reliance on nuclear 

energy to resolve the climate change dilemmas. 

I thank you for—I do have to mention that I am here under title 

18 section 207 which expressly allows the committee to have before 

it a retired Senator. I want to comply with the rules because the 

alternative to the rules is not very pleasant. So I wish to do it. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator WARNER. I came to this effort to try and work on climate 

change through the combined work in this committee and in our 

committee, Senator Inhofe, of the Armed Services Committee. 

I do not know if you remember, Senator Inhofe, but in 2008, I 

was Chairman and Senator Clinton—I remember it was right in 

this room—Senator Clinton and I were talking one day, and we decided that we would put something in the Armed Services Committee bill to begin to energize the Department of Defense toward 

looking at the problem occasioned by global climatic changes. 

And so in the 2008 bill, and I would like to submit that statute 

for the record for ease of reference. 

Senator BOXER. Without objection. 

Senator WARNER. I should have appended it to this statement. 

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

Senator WARNER. We put in the legislation saying to the Department, begin to look at this situation, begin to do the planning, and 

see how that might affect the future roles and missions of the men 

and women of the Armed Forces. 

In 2008, Secretary Gates came out with this statement: We also 

know that over the next 20 years and more certain pressures, population, resource, energy, climate, economic and environmental, 
43 

could combine with rapid cultural, social and technological change 

to produce new sources of deprivation, rage and instability. 

He marched off. And what I have put in there in the first few 

pages of my statement, and Madam Chairman, Ranking Member 

and members of this committee, this has given me the best opportunity I have had thus far to alert you to all of the wonderful 

things going on in the Department of Defense toward addressing 

these issues. 

I set it forth in here, by virtue of statements by people from the 

Department that I personally called, spoke with them, and solicited 

those statements for the benefit of this committee. I worked with 

many of them [unintelligible] elsewhere as we discussed, together 

with an enormous number of very competent non-profit organizations who are addressing specifically this issue, the correlation between our national security, our forthcoming new energy programs, 

and the complexities of climate change. 

So, I just want to be brief. I put it all in here for easy reference 

for you to look at. And there it is. I do hope that, I think the wisdom of the Senator leadership, largely Senator Reid, to bring together the confluence, the recommendations of six committees, I 

fervently urge that the Chair and perhaps you, Senator Inhofe, 

could look into whether or not our committee, the old Armed Services Committee on which I served 30 years and as its Chairman on 

several occasions, if that committee could not join with the six and 

put forth the perspective. 

Because it is that young person in uniform that goes out to help 

solve the problem by orders of the Commander in Chief. So I do 

believe the Department should put on the record the many things 

that it is doing now, give it an opportunity to meet this issue, and 

try to work with the Congress of the United States to prepare these 

things. 

So I will close my statement by saying that I do hope that, in 

the course of questions, I can amplify just a little bit on the need 

to being in the Armed Services Committee to be the seventh member of this panel. 

I yield the floor, and I thank you for the courtesy of the committee. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Warner follows:] 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 

Senator BOXER. Well, we are so grateful to you for being here 

with us today, Senator. Everyone sitting up here has such great affection and admiration for you, regardless of where we stand on 

this issue. And I thank you so much. 

I had the honor of hearing Admiral McGinn yesterday speak to 

some of us about this issue. At this point, I have been called to the 

Senate floor for the debate on the Highway Trust Fund. So, I am 

going to hand over the gavel and everything that goes with it to 

Senator Cardin, who will be in charge. 

Thank you to the rest of the panel, and I will see everybody on 

the floor later. 

Senator CARDIN [presiding]. Well, thank you, Madam Chair. 

We will now hear from Vice Admiral Dennis McGinn, USN, Retired, Member, Military Advisory Board, Center for Naval Analyses. 

Senator INHOFE. Mr. Chairman, before you do that, I would like 

to submit for the record from the Fertilizer Institute. I meant to 

do that before. 

Senator CARDIN. Without objection. It will be included in the 

record. 

[The referenced information follows:] 
85 
86 
87 
88 

Senator CARDIN. Admiral McGinn. 

STATEMENT OF DENNIS McGINN, VICE ADMIRAL, U.S. NAVY 

(RETIRED); MEMBER, MILITARY ADVISORY BOARD, CENTER 

FOR NAVAL ANALYSES 

Mr. MCGINN. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Inhofe, ladies and gentlemen, 

distinguished members of the committee, it is an honor to appear 

before you today to discuss this critically important topic of climate 

change and national security. 

Since early last year, I have had the privilege of serving with 

some of our Nation’s most distinguished and senior retired military 

leaders on a CNA Military Advisory Board which produced two reports focused on the very topic of this hearing. The first examined 

the national security threats of climate change, and the most recent analyzed the national security threats of America’s current energy posture. 

To begin, I want to recognize what currently, I believe, weighs 

most heavily on American’s minds. We are in the midst of the most 

serious financial crisis of our lifetimes. After a year of examining 

our Nation’s energy use, it is clear to all members of our Military 

Advisory Board that our economic, energy, climate change and national security challenges are inextricably linked. 

Our past pattern of energy use is responsible in no small measure for our economic situation today. If we do not adequately address our Nation’s growing energy demand and climate change 

now, future financial crises will most certainly make this one look 

like the good old days. 

Our weakened national and global economy has temporarily reduced the demand and cost of oil. However, this recession will end, 

and the volatile cycle of ever higher fuel prices will most surely return. 

Global population growth and projected per capita increase in energy consumption over the next 20 years will make fossil fuel supply and demand curves divergent. Oil is already becoming more difficult and expensive to produce. And as a Nation that uses 25 percent of the world’s oil every year while owning less than 3 percent 

of known reserves, we cannot drill our way to sustained economic 

security and independence. 

Without bold action now to significantly reduce our dependence 

on fossil fuels, our national security will be at greater risk in the 

future. Fierce global competition and conflict over dwindling supplies of fossil fuels will be a major part of the future strategic landscape. Moving toward clean, independent domestic energy choices 

lessens that danger and significantly helps us to confront the serious challenges of global climate change at the same time. Because 

these issues are so closely linked, solutions to one affect the others. 

In 2007, the Military Advisory Board produced a report entitled 

‘‘National Security and the Threat of Climate Change.’’ Its principle 

conclusion was that climate change poses a serious threat to America’s national security by acting as a threat multiplier for instability in some of the most volatile regions of the world, likely dragging, as Senator Warner so ably pointed out, the United States and 
89 

our young men and women into conflicts over water and other critical resource shortages. 

Climate change is different from traditional military threats because it is not defined by a specific enemy or hot spot to which we 

are trying to respond. It is going to affect every country and every 

person in the world in different ways, but all at the same time in 

the future. 

There is a lot of discussion, and we heard some of it here today, 

about whether or not climate change is real, and if it is, can we 

really do anything about it as the United States? 

As military professionals, we were trained and, I must say, 

learned by hard experience, to make decisions when faced with 

threatening situations even when they were defined by ambiguous 

information. We based our decisions on trends, indicators, and 

warnings because waiting for 100 percent certainty during a crisis 

can produce disastrous results. And in carefully considering the 

threat of climate change to our national security, the trends and 

warnings are clear. 

So what should we do as a Nation? First, we need to recognize, 

as I said before, that economics, energy security, climate change 

and our national security are all inextricably linked. Next, we need 

to carefully avoid the temptation to ignore these connections and 

then only take small steps to address narrow issues. That is because large, interconnected security challenges require bold, comprehensive solutions. 

And here I would say that the United States has both the ability 

and the responsibility to lead. If we do not make changes, other nations will not. And they will use our own inaction as an excuse for 

them to continue on a business as usual path. 

The Military Advisory Board at CNA recently examined our national energy posture and released a report this May entitled 

‘‘Powering America’s Defense: Energy and the Risks to National Security.’ This report clearly found that America’s energy posture 

constitutes a serious and urgent threat to national security, militarily, diplomatically and economically. 

Our report finds that not just foreign oil but all oil, and not just 

oil but all fossil fuels, pose significant security threats to the military mission and to the Nation. And most importantly, are exploitable by those who wish to do us harm. 

Our growing fossil fuel reliance jeopardizes our military and 

exacts a huge price tag in dollars and lives, cripples our foreign 

policy, weakens U.S. international leverage and entangles the 

United States with hostile regimes. It also undermines, as I mentioned before, our economic stability. 

The U.S. pattern of energy usage in a business as usual manner 

creates an unacceptably high threat level from a series of converging risks: markets for oil shaped by finite supplies, increasing 

demand and rapidly rising costs, growing competition and conflict 

over diminishing fuel resources, and destabilization driven by climate change in virtually every region of critical importance to the 

United States. 

Unless we take steps now, not later, to prevent, mitigate and 

adapt to these challenges, rising energy demand and accelerating 

climate change will lead to an increase in conflicts and an increase 
90 

in conflict intensity. And most important, will place an avoidable 

and unacceptable burden on our young men and women in uniform, 

now and in generations to come. 

Some may be surprised to hear former Generals and Admirals 

talk about climate change and green, clean energy. But they should 

not be. In the military, we learned early that reducing threats and 

vulnerabilities is essential well before you get into harm’s way. 

That is what this discussion is all about. 

Our Nation requires diversification of energy sources and a serious commitment to energy efficiency and renewable energy of all 

forms. Not simply for environmental reasons, but for national security reasons. 

We call on the President and Congress for visionary leadership 

and a long-term commitment to achieve energy security in a carbon 

constrained world. Without swift and serious action, the United 

States will continue barreling headlong toward a future of conflict, 

less security, and a greatly diminished quality of life. 

The challenges inherent in this suite of issues may be daunting, 

particularly at a time of economic crisis, but our experience informs 

us there is good reason for viewing this moment in history as an 

opportunity for the United States. We need not exchange benefits 

in one dimension for harm in another. In fact, in our analysis, we 

have found in considering these interlinked challenges that the 

best approaches to energy, climate change and national security 

may be, in many cases, one and the same. 

Mr. Chairman, Senator Inhofe and members of the committee, if 

we act with boldness and vision now, future generations of Americans will look back on this as a time when we came together as 

a Nation and transformed a daunting challenge and worry into an 

opportunity for a better quality of life and a much more secure future for our world. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Inhofe, and I look forward to 

your questions. 

I request that my full statement be submitted for the record. 

Senator CARDIN. Without objection, your full statement will be 

included in the record. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. McGinn follows:] 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 

Senator CARDIN. Admiral McGinn, we thank you very much for 

your service and your testimony here today. 

Our next witness is Jonathan Powers, Retired U.S. Army Captain and Chief Operating Officer, Truman National Security 

Project. 

Mr. Powers. 

STATEMENT OF JONATHAN POWERS, CAPTAIN, U.S. ARMY (RETIRED); CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, TRUMAN NATIONAL 

SECURITY PROJECT 

Mr. POWERS. Thank you. 

Chairman, Ranking Member Inhofe, members of the committee, 

ladies and gentlemen, I am honored to appear today with this distinguished panel. 

I am Jon Powers, and I am the Chief Operating Officer of the 

Truman National Security Project. The Truman Project is working 

to raise awareness between the connections of climate change and 

national security. 

As a former U.S. Army Captain and Iraq veteran, I understand 

firsthand the challenges our national security apparatus will face 

when dealing with this growing threat. It is important that Americans understand the threat and ensure our leaders address the 

challenge while setting the standards for others to follow. 

Over the course of my time in the military, I learned incredibly 

valuable lessons. On my first day with my unit, my Platoon Sergeant grabbed me by my lapels, dragged me around to the side of 

the motor pool, and he said, sir, there are two types of leaders in 

the military, those who lead by rank and those who lead by example. The soldiers will follow those who outrank them. But they 

want to follow those that set the standard, set the example. 

For too long, our Nation has been leading on climate change by 

rank, and it is time we begin to lead by example. America is at a 

critical point, and our security relies heavily on how we address 

this growing threat. 

The Center for New American Security points out that climate 

change may not be a threat that soldiers can attack and defeat, but 

it is likely to affect the safety and prosperity of every American. 

The threat to global stability is both serious and urgent. Climate 

change will increase the frequency and intensity of storms and 

droughts and decrease the availability of drinking waters. When 

Indonesia was hit by a massive tsunami in 2004, our military responded with aid, ships, planes, helicopters, costing $5 million per 

day, and only the U.S. military had the capacity to respond. 

If the occurrence of such storms increases, the demand on the 

U.S. to respond will also increase. This matters because Indonesia 

is the world’s most populous Muslim country, and U.S. efforts dramatically improved the U.S. image among Indonesians. This is a 

major accomplishment in America’s fight against Islamic extremism. 

Then there are the dangers of increased drought and decreased 

drinking water. Lake Chad, formerly one of Africa’s largest fresh 

water sources, is shrinking to 5 percent of its original volume. The 

fight over scarce resources such as water is already happening in 
102 

destabilizing states like Sudan and Somalia where extremist 

groups target failing governments. 

Climate change will also hit us here at home. The IPCC estimates that Latin America will see 50 percent of agricultural lands 

undergo desertification and salinization in less than 50 years. You 

can imagine what this will do to immigration challenges in North 

America. 

If we wish to fight climate change, we must attack the problem 

at its source: fossil fuels. America’s reliance on oil is an Achilles 

heel that the enemies use against us. 

Al Qaeda has called on its supporters to attack oil facilities and 

infrastructures throughout the Middle East. According to the Oil 

and Gas Terrorism Monitor, the number of attacks increased from 

less than 50 a year before September 11, 2001, to 344 by 2006. It 

is imperative that we develop energy alternatives that will protect 

us against these threats. 

We are also propping up the economies of some unsavory regimes. Based on Truman Security Fellow’s analysis of 2008 production estimates, for every $5 rise in the price of a barrel of oil, 

Putin’s Russia receives more than $18 billion annually, 

Ahmadinejad’s Iran an additional $7.9 billion annually, and 

Chavez’s Venezuela an additional $4.7 billion annually. 

And we are depleting our own financial resources. DOD is the 

largest energy consumer in the Nation. According to CNA’s most 

recent report, a $10 rise in the price per barrel will cost DOD more 

than the entire annual procurement budget for the Marines. When the price of oil doubled from $30 in December to $65 today, 

this had a tremendous impact on both our military’s bottom line 

and our Nation’s economic security. Goldman Sachs predicts that 

by 2010, crude oil will hit $100 per barrel. Many economic experts 

suggest the continued rise in oil prices may cause a double dip recession. 

OPEC’s leadership has the ability to help relieve this economic 

stress. But do we want to leave our national security in their 

hands? 

I believe the American people want us to take our security in our 

own hands. We must establish policies that will seriously and urgently reduce the threat of climate change, reduce our dependency 

on oil, and provide clean energy incentives. This will allow a recovering economy to focus its investments in clean, domestic and safe 

energy. 

This committee will play a critical role in establishing an America that leads by example in developing domestic legislation that 

will protect our environment and ensure our national security. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Powers follows:] 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 

Senator CARDIN. Captain, thank you very much for your testimony. 

We will now hear from David Rivkin. Mr. Rivkin is a partner at 

Baker & Hostetler and is Co-Chairman of the Center for Law and 

Counterterrorism at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, 

and a Contributing Editor of National Review Magazine. 

Mr. Rivkin. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID B. RIVKIN, JR., PARTNER, BAKER & 

HOSTETLER LLP; CO-CHAIRMAN, CENTER FOR LAW AND 

COUNTERTERRORISM AT THE FOUNDATION FOR DEFENSE 

OF DEMOCRACIES 

Mr. RIVKIN. Chairman Cardin, Ranking Member Inhofe, members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on 

this important subject and particularly to do so on this great panel 

of many distinguished witnesses, including Senator Warner, a true 

American hero. 

We heard a number of times today that there is general consensus that unilateral U.S. cap-and-trade would not have any discernible positive impact on global climate. To me, the question 

then, therefore, is whether or not Waxman-Markey, which features 

the unilateral approach to cap-and-trade in dealing with carbon reductions, would induce other major emitters, especially India and 

China, to follow suit. 

We heard a number of times during the last Presidential campaign and even a little bit today about how the U.S. can lead by 

example by adopting tough carbon-related mandates that other 

emitting nations would follow. This leadership by example argument is buttressed by the claim that it should be possible to use 

carbon tariffs to compel countries that refuse to adopt carbon-related mandates of their own. 

These claims have been swiftly disproved. The results of the recent international climate talks in Bonn and the G8 Summit in 

Italy were not promising. Bilateral exchanges have not budged 

China and India from their adamant refusal to cap emissions. If 

anything, their objections have become more vociferous as the U.S. 

commitment to impose unilateral emissions caps has become more 

palpable. 

To understand why unilateral cap-and-trade will not induce 

emission reductions by other countries, we must call upon our experience in a more traditional diplomatic context. In this regard, 

experience teaches us that unilateral concessions are never a good 

idea. 

For example, the arms control agreements of the interwar and 

cold war period all rested on the principle of reciprocity. This included carefully negotiated undertakings in which parties exchanged measured concessions backed up by careful compromises 

and verification and compliance mechanisms. This general lesson is 

reflected with particular clarity in the area of nuclear arms control. 

The reason I think it is an apropos analogy is that first, arms 

control was a centerpiece of our foreign policy for decades, and second, because many people came to believe that, the logic of nuclear 

deterrence and stability aside, nuclear arms control was a moral 
112 

obligation. This is very much the case with climate change today. 

And yet, even there unilateral concessions never worked. 

Understanding linkage is also important here. Even if we assume 

that our Chinese, Brazilian and Indian interlocutors are as passionately concerned about ameliorating climate change as we are, 

they would be practicing deficient statecraft if they did not seek to 

pursue their goal in a manner that benefits their other economic, 

political and military interests. 

In this regard, changing the world’s security and economic architecture, which they presently see as unduly tilted in favor of the 

West in general and the United States in particular, is their major 

strategic priority. An asymmetrical carbon reduction regime under 

which the United States make the greatest sacrifices, the Europeans do a little bit, and the developing countries do hardly anything at all would advance this goal. Therefore, the passage of 

Waxman-Markey will make emitter states in the developing world 

even less willing to reduce emissions. 

Attempting to reduce greenhouse gas emissions through trade 

penalties would also be highly problematic for a number of reasons. 

First, carbon tariffs are likely to be illegal under WTO rules. Numerous countries, as well as senior U.N. officials, have already denounced them as a violation of WTO principles. Moreover, legal or 

not, carbon tariffs would certainly be challenged repeatedly and 

acrimoniously before the WTO dispute resolution mechanism. 

Some argue that the mere threat of carbon tariffs will sufficiently 

intimidate other countries into doing our bidding on carbon, and 

therefore they really would function as a deterrence or compellance 

mechanism. I do not believe this is credible. Either we have the leverage to lead the rest of the world now into a comprehensive binding global climate change accord where all countries adopt real reduction commitments, or we do not. 

It makes no sense to suggest that we do not have the sufficient 

leverage now, when we are prepared for the first time in years to 

put our own carbon emissions into play but would somehow acquire 

this leverage years from now solely through the threat of difficult 

to implement tariff provisions. 

Unfortunately, this kind of unrealistic thinking about leading by 

example permeates the Waxman-Markey bill. It should not drive 

the Senate’s decisionmaking on what is one of the most important 

foreign policy issues of our time. 

I look forward to your questions. I also request that my written 

statement be put into the record. 

Thank you. 

Senator CARDIN. Without objection, your entire statement will 

put in the record. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rivkin follows:] 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 

Senator CARDIN. Let me again thank our panel for adding greatly 

to this debate. 

As I was listening to Senator Warner and Admiral McGinn and 

Captain Powers make your presentations about the importance of 

the military to take steps to minimize risk, and then I think about 

the investments that the United States has made to try to eliminate safe havens for extremists and terrorists. 

It is a tremendous sacrifice that has been made by our soldiers 

in harm’s way in Afghanistan, to try to bring some semblance of 

order to that region so that terrorist groups do not have a safe 

haven. And our concerns in Pakistan today. It brings up, then Captain Powers, you mentioned the Sudan and Somalia as being risk 

areas for safe havens for terrorist organizations and being very vulnerable to climate change. 

I would just like to get your view as to whether the risks of climate change, the instability, could present additional areas that 

the United States will need to be concerned about as potential for 

safe havens for extremists groups. 

Are we running the risk that we could have regions where governments will not be effective in controlling its region because of 

the instability caused by climate change that may very well present 

additional risks for the United States and our military? 

Senator WARNER. I would say to you, unequivocally, colleague, 

that is very clearly the case. It adds additional roles and missions 

to our armed forces which today are valiantly fighting in two wars 

and undertaking in many other posts in the world to maintain stability. And oftentimes these instances arise very quickly. 

That is why the Department of Defense, pursuant to a law 

which, as I said, Senator Clinton and I put in in 2008, are doing 

the planning and looking forward to how they meet those contingencies so that it would be the decision of the Commander in Chief, 

the President of the United States, to implement our forces. 

Senator CARDIN. Admiral McGinn. 

Mr. MCGINN. I think of climate change as a threat multiplier, almost like taking a large magnifying glass and putting it on top of 

all of the regions of the world where there are presently issues, 

where there are seams, where there is conflict, where there are 

tensions, and that magnifying glass basically makes all of those 

tensions and conflicts larger because of lack of water, in some cases 

too much water, crop failure, and environmentally displaced people 

crossing borders. 

And when you look at those areas of the world that are of strategic importance to the United States now, one that was mentioned 

earlier is that nexus around the Himalayas of China, India, Pakistan, I can imagine a scenario in which, with the diminished water 

availability flowing to the regions and countries that rely on that 

water, in particular India and Pakistan, pressure from the southeast on India due to environmentally displaced Bangladeshis because of coastal flooding and numerous typhoons, that area of the 

world, which already has some daunting issues, having states that 

are fragile become failed states, and in some cases, those failed 

states would have nuclear weapons. 

Senator CARDIN. That is a point I wanted to get to because every 

member of the Senate is very concerned about the stability impact 
127 

a nuclear Iran could have in that region. That is why we have 

made it clear that that is an unacceptable outcome, for Iran to become a nuclear weapons power. 

And of course, we know about North Korea. Well, we also know 

about the historical security issues between India and Pakistan. 

The water issues that you are referring to, we have a hard time 

getting Pakistan to focus on its territories because of its concern 

with its India border. 

Are we running, I guess, additional risks that we have countries 

that currently have stability that have nuclear capacity that could 

very well be at a risk as a result of the impact of climate change? 

Mr. MCGINN. Yes, sir. I think the essence of it is that nations 

that we now know have reasonable levels of stability, certainly not 

as much as we would like, Pakistan is a good example and there 

are others like Egypt, where you bring a whole new dimension of 

problems into those governments, people are not getting the essential needs of life and the governments go from fragile to failed, that 

vacuum is filled by extremism. And those extremist governments 

inherit all of the capabilities that those nations have now, including armed forces, and in the case of Pakistan, nuclear weapons. 

That is a daunting scenario. I am not saying that we are definitely going to see a climate change induced nuclear war in South 

Asia, but we cannot ignore the possibility that there are consequences when nations fail. 

In the Middle East and the Eastern Mediterranean, we have had 

the conflict for millennia. Could we imagine a Nile Delta flooded? 

Can we imagine crop failures in that nation that would cause a stable government, a pro-Western government in Egypt, to go to extremism and thereby be the catalyst for a greatly expanded war in the 

Middle East? This has happened so many times in the past. 

Senator CARDIN. Well, I thank you for that response. 

I am just going to ask the guests that are in the audience to 

please make sure that you do not display signs. That is against our 

committee rules, and we cannot permit that to be done. 

Senator Voinovich. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you. 

Mr. Rivkin, I appreciate your being here today, as well as the 

other witnesses. Your testimony presents a sobering outlook regarding our ability to solve the climate problem on our own. I have 

been all over. The German Marshall Fund, we had a climate special session there to talk about things. 

The thing that puzzles me, if you listen to everyone, and you 

have been eloquent about the problem, but the real issue is, maybe 

I have been around for too long, I was a mayor for 10 years and 

a Governor for 8 years, the old issue is, what can we do from a 

practical point of view to do something about it? 

My frustration is that, from everyone I have talked to, if we shut 

down everything we do, and China and India and Brazil and the 

other countries that have growing economies do not participate, the 

impact we are going to have is going to be very little. 

I would like to get into specifically the issue of the border tariffs 

that we would exercise against someone that does not participate 

in the program. The Chinese have made it very clear, and the Indians, that they are not going to sign on any of these caps. They said, 
128 

you have been polluting the atmosphere for a long time, and it is 

our turn to do it. We do not want to deny our people electricity and 

some of the other things. 

But the issue of the WTO, and my thought is that the only way 

you are really going to have an effective way to deal with this is 

to amend the WTO to take into consideration, when you are considering whether someone is practicing protectionism or unfair trade, 

the issue of climate change and greenhouse gas emissions. Without 

it, when countries do things, and we do not want them to do it, and 

we exercise provisions under this law, they will just take us to the 

WTO, and we will not be successful with it. 

So, I guess the real issue is, how do we get everybody else to participate in this effort? I think one of the reasons why we voted, 

many years ago, against the Kyoto Agreement was that we were 

saying, you know, why should we do it when the rest of the folks 

out there are not going to participate in this? How do we get everybody into the basket and to cooperate? These are real problems. I 

acknowledge them. But from a practical point of view, how to you 

get at them? 

I would like your comment on this whole issue of WTO. 

Mr. RIVKIN. Sure. Thank you, Senator Voinovich. I would say 

that amending the WTO framework in the way you are describing 

would take off the table some issues about the legality of the tariff 

approach. 

I am still quite uncomfortable with going down this path. In part, 

because we have done very well as a country and as a leader of the 

free world by pushing toward greater trade openness. It is very difficult for me to envision a situation where we are able to amend 

the WTO framework in a way that just deals with climate change. 

This will open all the other issues in there, certainly in the kind 

of economic climate where a lot of countries are inclined to do beggar my neighbor policy. 

To me, the best way to proceed here is the same way we proceeded in every other serious national security issue. Let me also 

register my wholehearted concurrence with the proposition that climate change has become a serious national security issue. Well, let 

us treat it in the same way we treated other serious national security issues: arms control, trade, even human rights. 

Let us get everybody at the table. One thing I would certainly 

give credit to the new Administration for is that it has been very 

clear that we are prepared for the first time to go with the binding 

carbon reductions of our own, large scale ones. That is a huge leverage. Let us see how much we are going to get from the rest of 

the major emitting economies. We do not have to have a treaty that 

includes every single country in the world. But we should certainly 

include the major emitting economies. 

And if it takes 2 or 3 years to negotiate, let us keep our emission 

inventory as the club, as the leverage, just the way we have done 

it with arms control. And I know it is very easy, with all due respect, to talk about leading by example, especially if they are moral 

imperatives. But I would submit to you that experience shows that 

in the arms control area, for example, the unilateral measures, nuclear freezes, protestations of no first use, have never worked. So, 
129 

to the extent that we take climate change seriously, let us treat it 

seriously. 

There is some unintended irony here that I will briefly mention. 

The previous Administration got some criticism for approaching 

arms control in Moscow in kind of a casual way. Remember no long 

treaties? The new team has gotten back to the original framework. 

So, the new arms control treaty we are working on with Russia is 

going to run hundreds of pages long. 

And yet we seem to be willing to settle when it comes to carbon 

reduction for some vague generic statements from the major 

emitters in the developing world. That is not a serious way to proceed. 

Senator VOINOVICH. Thank you. 

Mr. POWERS. Sir, on the aspect of leadership by example, and obviously I do not have the expertise to talk about the tariff side, but 

it is also the U.S. military that will be responding to the challenges 

in these destabilizing states where climate change will have its 

most effects. It is not the Indian military. It is not the Chinese 

military. 

So, beginning to move ahead and set the standards for others to 

follow, I think, is incredibly important, especially leading into negotiations coming up in December. I think it is an aspect that—from 

a soldier’s perspective, it is incredibly important to see that Washington is addressing those pieces. 

Mr. RIVKIN. Just let me take 10 seconds and say this: nobody disagrees with this. The real question is, how far ahead of a pack do 

we get? Indicating that are prepared to do A, B and C is fine. Even 

beginning to do things. 

But adopting a totally unilateral long-term cap-and-trade is not 

leading by example. It is jumping off a cliff and providing precious 

little of anything. In my view, it would provide disincentives for the 

rest of the world to do as much because they see us as being locked 

in. There is no example in history that any serious negotiations 

have ever succeeded this way. 

Mr. MCGINN. Senator, there are a lot of smart people in China 

and in India—scientists, economists, industrialists, policymakers 

and legislators. They are starting to realize that business as usual 

is not really appropriate for them. 

If you go back 20 years ago when the wall came down and we 

went into the old Warsaw Pact countries in Eastern Europe, everybody wanted to have a telecommunications business, the ability to 

connect just like the West. 

But instead of laying long lines of copper and putting telephone 

lines and telephone poles everywhere, they said, there is technology 

available to do this better. We can go to a wireless scheme, and we 

can achieve the same end, but by different means, which do not 

have the costs of recreating an infrastructure that is expensive and 

complex. 

I believe that the United States serves as the world’s example in 

areas such as quality of life, economic robustness, technological innovation, political freedom, and we can continue to serve as an example of a better life by taking a leadership role on this issue. 

Other countries do not have to achieve a higher quality of life the 

way the United States did because we did it during the height of 
130 

the oil and fossil fuel age. That age we can see coming to an end. 

Not tomorrow, not in 10 years, perhaps not even in 20 or 30 years. 

But it is inevitable, and there will have to be new ways to maintain 

that economic growth and achieve that quality of life for us. We can 

be a great example of that starting with good legislation that addresses the problems of climate change, energy security, and national security. 

Senator WARNER. Senator, very quickly, I conclude on the last 

page of my statement, with a similar comment. The Admiral and 

I travel together on this issue. The United States has to step out 

and lead. I respect Mr. Rivkin’s—and it is very well written, historical analysis of how—and as you know, I had a minor role myself 

as a negotiator internationally, and I know how its trade for this 

and for that. 

But this situation, if you stop for a moment and decide that the 

world does nothing, I mean does nothing, and we just continue to 

go on the path we are going, the consequences are going to be catastrophic. It is the United States that sends these young people 

abroad and responds. We are the only ones that have the lift capacity, the seed, air, food, and medical to help out. And we are just 

going to end up as a 911 authority for the world unless there is 

some change in our culture. 

I do believe there are some positive signs with China. We were 

disappointed with the Secretary of State’s trip to India and that 

rather abrupt reply. But we have to endure those steps as we go 

along internationally. You served on this Committee of Foreign Relations for many years. So, I am betting that if the United States 

leads, in a very reasonable period of time the others will begin to 

follow and take some positive steps on their own. 

If we do nothing, you can be sure that nothing else is going to 

be done of any consequence. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you. 

Senator Lautenberg. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. 

This has been a very interesting discussion. We are asking a lot 

of questions, and a lot of questions go to Senator Warner. You said, 

Senator, and I am always happy to see you, something Admiral 

McGinn just talked about, copper wiring and telephone poles, well 

that is what I did in the Army while the bombs were falling in Belgium. Thank goodness that is a job I am not doing anymore. 

Senator Warner, you said in your statement, I am a recent convert on the need to address the urgent threat of climate change. 

In the last 3 years I have become—and I have shortened the language a little bit—convinced that the U.S. must take a leading role 

in curbing emission of greenhouse gases. 

What do you say to your former Senate colleagues to convert 

more of them to passing a global warming bill? 

Senator WARNER. Well, I have to say that this hearing this morning exceeded my expectations. No. 1, we know from experience that 

a hearing of this type will attract three or four Senators. I counted 

12 in here at one point. That is an extraordinary turnout of this 

committee at one of the most intense times of the Senate’s work. 

And the opening statements were diverse, but they were constructive and heartfelt. I did not see anyone shake a fist in criticism. 
131 

I think the Senate is going to be the institution that can bring 

together the disparity of thinking on this and put forward its own 

piece of legislation. I think in some respects it will track the Waxman-Markey bill. But we are going to solve this over here ourselves. 

And it seems to me, as I leave here today, I have a sense of satisfaction. This institution is doing a lot of work and we ought to 

bring it to the public’s attention. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you. 

Mr. Rivkin, I find your testimony quite startling, I must say. I 

know that you are a distinguished attorney and represent part of 

a major law firm. I want to ask you, if I might, what kind of a 

practice do you currently conduct? What specifically do you do in 

terms of representation? 

Mr. RIVKIN. Litigation, Senator Lautenberg. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Do you ever find yourself defending oil 

companies, energy companies? 

Mr. RIVKIN. Well, not oil companies. Energy companies, sometimes. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. How much, what part of your practice, 

typically, when you do represent those companies, you are representing them, I assume, as defense counsel? 

Mr. RIVKIN. That is correct. But I am testifying here in my personal capacity, not on anybody’s behalf. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Well, but you do not come without some 

influence of your background. So, come on. The fact of the matter 

is, I do not know what your expertise development’s been, but you 

cannot ignore what you have been doing for a long time—— 

Mr. RIVKIN. If I may, Senator, the thing that was germane, and 

that shaped my testimony and caused me to come here is the fact 

that I was a defense analyst and while not privileged to serve in 

the military, I spent many years doing defense analysis, and to me, 

this climate change has become an area where I have spent many 

years working there—— 

Senator LAUTENBERG. So, you think that the way to resolve this 

is for us to kind of continue along, do what we, I noticed here that 

you said that the United States should approach issues of climate 

change with the same prudence and realism as any other national 

security issue. Does that include armament, stepping up our military? What do we do to deal with these issues? 

Mr. RIVKIN. Thank you for your question. Let me clarify that I 

am most emphatically not suggesting that we do nothing. What I 

am suggesting is that we lead the world the same way in this area 

that we led the world in arms control or human rights area by patiently negotiating, pushing hard, obtaining verifiable commitments 

from our partners. 

And by the way, it does not have to be one size fits all. I take 

note of Admiral McGinn’s point about copper versus wireless communications. What I would like to see is diverse, flexible but real 

commitments on the part of India, China, and Brazil. What I do 

not want to see is a situation where we lock ourselves in—— 

Senator LAUTENBERG. I saw that in your testimony, that you 

want them to respond in better fashion. But while we, well, I think 

the summary really says it all, that we approach it like any other 
132 

national security issue. So, other national security issues include 

intelligence, armament, and a larger presence around the world. 

Admiral McGinn, do you think that we can let the situation 

stand without incurring substantial penalties with the delays that 

will follow? 

Mr. MCGINN. No, sir. I think that if we continue a business as 

usual approach to this problem, every day and every year that goes 

by, the challenges get greater, and unfortunately our options get 

narrower. 

To me, Senator Lautenberg, this discussion is about dealing with 

greenhouse gases. It is yet another new chapter in recognizing 

what the true and full costs of progress are. 

When I first came into the Navy as a young midshipman and 

went to sea, there was a wonderful insulating material called asbestos that was on all of our ships and in many of our industries, 

including our smokestack industries. It really did a good job of insulating by keeping energy inside. However, we found the true and 

full costs of that type of progress. There are some downsides to it. 

We had a wonderful product that saved thousands of lives, back 

in World War II and into the 1950s, a mosquito repellant called 

DDT. It worked great. It saved lives. We needed to do that. Upon 

further scientific examination, however, we found that there was a 

downside. The full and true health-related costs associated with 

DDT needed to be reckoned with. 

We have got Superfund sites all around the Nation that are a 

testimony to the goodness that this Nation has displayed in recognizing when science finds a problem, we deal with it, and we deal 

with it in the proper way. And as we have found, our quality of 

life goes up when we tackle these problems. 

Acid rain is another one. The Clean Air Act was an instance 

when we recognized the role of science. We take what we understand from science. It may not be 100 percent certainty, but we 

have the ability to act on it. I think that, in the case of greenhouse 

gases, that is what we are talking about. We understand there is 

a true and full cost to the use of fossil fuels. We need to come to 

grips with it, and go on a different path. 

Senator CARDIN. Senator Barrasso. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Mr. Chairman, just to equalize the time, 

I made sure that I did not take any more time than anybody else, 

so just one closing thing. First, there are several questions that I 

would like to submit in writing and want this record to be kept 

open. 

And second, to just say to Captain Powers, the little quip that 

you introduced as a commentary, you say, do not lead by rank, lead 

by example. I think that permeates life at its best, and I am surprised that our distinguished attorney friend thinks that we ought 

to wait for the other guys to set the example. That is not like 

America at all. 

Thank you very much. 

Senator CARDIN. Senator Barrasso. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Rivkin, based on your military background, your years as a 

defense analyst, I think Senator Voinovich asked a little bit about 

China and India and what they are doing, and it seems to me that 
133 

they are putting economic growth and economic security over environmental issues. 

Do they view that, would you think, as part of their own national 

security, their economic issues, and then I look at that in terms of 

where we ought to be doing well? 

Mr. RIVKIN. Absolutely different political systems to be sure, but 

they are both, perhaps, for different reasons. India, of course is a 

democracy; China is not. But both see improving the lot of the people, their people, as a must. And frankly, they also, and I do not 

begrudge it to them, they are interested in rebalancing the existing 

international system. 

They think that the economic balance, the military balance, the 

balance of power in the major sinews and institutional sinews of 

our international system is unduly balanced against them. So they 

are looking at it, again, precisely because this is a serious issue. 

You have got to look at linkage. That was the case in trade, that 

was the case in arms control, it is the case in foreign policy in general. I am not saying they do not care about this. They do. But they 

want to do it in a way that advances their other goals across the 

board. 

Senator BARRASSO. When I look at unemployment in this country 

now at 9.5 percent and predicted to climb higher, many studies 

looking at Waxman-Markey say this is going to cost Americans jobs 

in energy, minerals, manufacturing, big issues for Wyoming. 

How would high unemployment in those sectors impact America’s security in terms of us becoming more dependent on foreign 

sources of energy? 

Mr. RIVKIN. Ironically enough, it would do precisely what you are 

suggesting. So, a particularly tough long-term unilateral trading 

cap normally would not elicit the right response from the major developing countries. But it would harm our economy. It would put 

stress on our society, making the situation worse. 

There is one interesting point which I do not think many people 

appreciate. I call it the leakage problem. It will actually make 

things worse because if a large portion of our manufacturing sector 

goes offshore to countries which have no carbon constraints, these 

countries would even today, and will continue to have, less energy 

efficient economies. So, actually the goal of emissions may well go 

up, which is absolutely, let us just say it gently, it is encratic response. That is not what we are seeking here. 

Senator BARRASSO. We got a recent memo that was released by 

the non-partisan Congressional Research Service. It said the intelligence community is not engaged in evaluating scientific judgments concerning global climate change. It makes me wonder 

whose science and assumptions the intelligence community is relying on in making their decisions. Anybody know where that, I do 

not know if Senator Warner or any of you know where that, because I am trying to find out where that is coming from. 

Senator WARNER. I will try to determine that and provide if for 

the record because I was the one that instituted the requirement 

for the intelligence community to come up and give the Congress 

and the President the report. But that is a very good question. 
134 

Mr. POWERS. Sir, according to the testimony on that assessment, 

it was the science of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change. That is the science they used. 

Senator BARRASSO. So, they are using international studies, not 

something done here? 

Mr. POWERS.The IPCC is an international group. 

Mr. RIVKIN. If I could just add one point. If we are talking about 

intelligence assessments, again in the past, not to always harp on 

arms control, but when we did arms control you always wanted to 

understand what the goals of the other side are before you get to 

the negotiating table. 

It would be interesting to see if our intelligence community is 

analyzing what the Chinese and Brazilians and Indians really 

think about climate change, which may be something quite different from their public statements. That would be a worthwhile 

endeavor. 

Senator BARRASSO. The thing that struck me in this memo released by the Congressional Research Service, it said that in assessing the implications of climate change, the intelligence community is devoting certain existing resources, both budgetary as well 

as personnel resources, to the effort and drawing on existing expertise of various intelligence community agencies. 

The memo also stated that the budget and personnel commitments associated with this effort were classified. So, I think the 

Committee, Mr. Chairman, ought to be briefed on what these efforts are so we can get a full picture on all of this. 

With that, thank you Mr. Chairman. No other questions. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you. 

Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. First of all, let me just ask Senator Warner: is 

there life after politics? And if so, how would you characterize that 

life? 

Senator WARNER. Well, I can assure you that I miss all of you 

and the life. But I had a good opportunity for 30 years to experience it, and there is life hereafter. I urge you to reflect carefully 

on it when you get ready to leave and make some preparations. I 

am still getting boxes and boxes of letters that I have to turn 

around and answer one way or another. But that is my constituents. They still recognize that we worked together for many years. 

But there is no greater honor that any person can have than to 

serve in this institution. I say that with the deepest humility. 

Enjoy it while you are here, do your best, and you will never regret 

it. 

Senator CARPER. Well, thank you for that advice. You have given 

us great advice over the years, and you still do. 

Vice Admiral McGinn, you have known a number of Secretaries 

of the Navy, I presume. Is that correct? 

Mr. MCGINN. Yes, sir. 

Senator CARPER. Roughly how many, would you say? 

Mr. MCGINN. I would have to count it up, Senator, but I was 

Lieutenant McGinn when you were Lieutenant Carper back during 

those tough times and fighting that war. I also have always considered Senator Warner as my leader, Secretary of the Navy at that 

time. 
135 

Senator CARPER. Yes, a great role model. 

Senator WARNER. Could I add that you were a naval aviator, and 

he was Top Gun material? 

Senator CARPER. You are kidding. Is that true? 

Senator WARNER. Talk about it a little bit here. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. MCGINN. I have some regrets now, sir, that all of that time 

I spent lighting afterburners in Navy jets may have put some 

greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. MCGINN. So maybe this is a form of penance. But seriously, 

I had a wonderful career. I had an opportunity to command carrierbased squadrons and F–18s and A–7s and, in fact, to command an 

aircraft carrier. 

Senator CARPER. Which one? 

Mr. MCGINN. It was the U.S.S. Ranger out of San Diego. I also, 

interestingly, was the chief test pilot in Senator Cardin’s State 

down at Patuxent River for a couple of years. 

It was a fine career, and it gave me a tremendous exposure to 

science, engineering, and technology. It also gave me a tremendous 

exposure to other cultures in my numerous trips, sometimes for deployments of months and sometimes living for years overseas. 

I was telling Senator Warner not too long ago that one of the 

motivators for guys like retired Admirals and Generals or Captains 

or anybody that has served in the U.S. Armed Services is that 

when you have been to other countries, you get to see what it is 

like. And you come back to this country ,and you say, God, it is 

great to be back because this is the best Nation on earth. It is the 

shining city on the hill. We can and must lead. 

Senator CARPER. Good. I agree. One of my favorite sayings is, I 

would rather see a sermon than hear one. That says a lot about 

leadership, and I agree with you that we need to provide the leadership. 

A lot of people are saying, well, why should we get out there and 

provide leadership? The Chinese are not going to do that much, the 

Indians are not going to do that much. As it turns out, the Chinese 

are doing a lot. You know, they are building a lot of coal-fired 

plants. They are also, I think, doing a better job in terms of their 

emission controls in some of those new plants than we are. 

We are proud of our new CAFE standards for fuel-efficient vehicles, but the Chinese are actually well ahead of us in terms of energy efficiency for the cars they are putting out on the road. I 

would like to ask, and maybe I could start with Senator Warner—— 

Senator WARNER. Could I just say, in working with you, when we 

worked together on the Lieberman-Warner bill, you always had a 

high degree of confidence that this is achievable technologically, 

drawing on your own background. And just recently, China and the 

United States did enter into an executive agreement to begin to 

work on the complexity of sequestration. 

So, it is not just damnation against these other countries. They 

have got special problems. But I do believe, in their heart of hearts, 

and particularly their cultures, they do not want to be viewed by 
136 

the world, nor do they want to see their citizens continue to suffer 

from the detrimental effects to the health, of this CO2 problem. 

Senator CARPER. Good. Let me just follow up on what Senator 

Warner just said. I think maybe some of our colleagues on the committee, and I think maybe I should mention Mr. Rivkin, in his remarks, express concern about China and India not joining us with 

any enthusiasm in reducing greenhouse gases. 

I think we would all acknowledge that we need every country, especially the major emitters, to begin reducing their emissions. I am 

sensing that the Chinese have caught on to that, and I am encouraged that they have. And you just gave us an example. 

Senator Warner, what would you suggest that we do, as members of this committee and as members of the Senate, to better ensure that China and India, and really other developing countries, 

join us with enthusiasm in reducing emissions? 

Senator WARNER. I come back to the simple statement: we have 

got to lead. And I do believe they will follow. They are proud nations. They have struggled with overpopulated areas and from the 

lack of so much of the benefits that the Western world has enjoyed 

for so long. They want to join. They want, I think, to join as responsible nations and work with us. But it is that first long stride 

that we must take that will bring them along. 

Senator CARPER. Admiral McGinn, and is it Captain Powers? 

Mr. POWERS. Yes, sir. 

Senator CARPER. Do you all want to add anything to that? 

Mr. POWERS. Yes, sir. In that leadership, I think the biggest difference between this and some other national security issues that 

would have been talked about, for instance, nuclear weapons, and 

addressing the threat of nuclear weapons is addressing the risk 

that we will have an explosion because of those nuclear weapons. 

We have already seen the risks, the results, of climate change. 

And looking at the core, the root problem of the fossil fuels, and 

addressing the energy security piece is going to be critical, not only 

for our national security, but for our economy. I think that is where 

we can really bring our leadership. 

Mr. RIVKIN. If I could just add, I think what we are all wrestling 

with in good faith is a definition of leadership. Let me stipulate 

that leadership does not mean to do nothing. Leadership does not 

mean not taking the first step, or even the second step. Leadership 

also does not mean being inflexible and seeking to impose exactly 

the same measures on the Chinese or the Indians or the Brazil 

that we would do. That is not leadership. That is stupidity. But 

leadership—— 

Senator CARPER. Let me interrupt. My time is limited. I am 

going to go back to Admiral McGinn here. When I was in the Navy, 

someone once described leadership as staying out of step when everybody else is marching to the wrong tune. Admiral. 

Mr. MCGINN. One of my favorite leadership sayings was: There 

they go. I must hasten after them, for I am their leader. I was talking about the great sailors, marines, airmen and soldiers that I had 

the privilege of serving in and, in some cases, commanding, at least 

in name. 

I think that this idea of leadership is to create opportunities for 

individuals and organizations, and in some cases even nations, to 
137 

be as good as they can be. In China, in India, there is tremendously good work going on toward renewable energy. For example, 

you probably know that China is the world’s largest producer of 

photovoltaic cells. Many of those cells are being used not only in 

China, but even more so outside of China. 

So, I think the United States has an opportunity to lead in many 

ways. We can also lead in technical areas, or perhaps even in some 

of the procedural and policy areas. Our leadership will bring about 

a more secure world. 

Senator CARPER. All right. My time has expired. It is great to see 

each of you, especially my leader. Thank you all for joining us 

today and for your good work. 

Senator WARNER. I think the record should show that we recognize the leadership being given by the President of the United 

States now on this issue. It is key. 

Senator CARDIN. Senator Klobuchar. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Thank 

you to all of our panelists. 

Admiral McGinn, you cited a number of potentially severe consequences from global climate change, and you also said that in the 

military, you must base your decisions on trends and experience 

and judgment because waiting for 100 percent certainty, I suppose 

like if someone is going to attack you, it is too long a wait and a 

crisis can be imminent. 

For at least 20 years, the level of probability for climate change 

has increased significantly. The science has increased significantly. 

At what point would you consider the science sound enough to base 

military planning around it? And where would you rank climate 

change among other global threats? 

Mr. MCGINN. Senator, I would put us well past the point at 

which we need to take action. Every day that goes by, I think the 

threat grows, and we need to recognize that. We need to take prudent steps now. We certainly do not want to unravel our economy 

or way of life. We want to improve it. 

But from a military planning perspective, Senator Warner, in his 

leadership of the Armed Services Committee and his key role there, 

put into the 2008 Defense Authorization Act the requirement for 

the Department of Defense to consider climate change. That work 

is ongoing. It has begun, and it is starting to pick up momentum, 

but much more needs to be done. 

And I fully concur with Senator Warner’s recommendation of involving the Armed Services Committee and their oversight role 

with the Department of Defense and agencies, to see exactly what 

is being done. How do they assess it, and given that level of threat 

assessment and risk, what are they going to do about it to prepare 

us? 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Very good. 

Senator Warner, thank you for your early leadership on this and 

predicting that this would be a problem early on. Do you want to 

comment on that and what more needs to be done? 

Senator WARNER. Senator, you are doing it. I felt, as you were 

out of the room a few minutes ago, that the opening statements 

here today reflect a lot of very objective and hard thinking that is 
138 

being done by the U.S. Senate. I hope you encourage other colleagues to do it. 

The idea, as a matter of fact, I worked on the Clean Air Act 

when I was here. I remember how we went about that was strong 

leadership, again in the Senate. It was Senators Chafee and Moynihan and George Mitchell that led us through that. And everybody 

said, the sky is going to fall in with Clean Air. We cannot do it. 

We cannot do it. But America did do it, again, with strong leadership and the guidance that the Congress gave and the incentives 

that the Congress gave. 

Cap-and-trade is a complicated system. But in contrast to just a 

tax which to me is not the way to go, some form of cap-and-trade 

because it provides an incentive for the industry to step up, and 

with their own initiative, find the technical ways, the financial 

ways, and so forth, to achieve their goals. 

So, press on, I say to my colleagues. Press on. We will solve this 

as a country. We always have. It is an uphill climb. But I must say 

it is one of the most complex, if not the most complex issue, that 

I witnessed in my many years here. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Well, thank you very much. I think one of 

our issues is trying to get information out. Having leaders like you 

talk about the national security angle of this is very important because I do not think people intuitively think about that, as I said 

in my opening statement. 

I wanted to follow up a little with what Senator Carper was talking about. I thought about it, actually, this last week. I watched, 

on Saturday night, with my 14-year-old daughter some movie about 

the landing on the Moon, coinciding with the 40th anniversary, and 

how we were in that major space race and trying to explain it to 

her was kind of interesting. 

Then you fast forward to today which, in a way, we are in an 

energy race, an energy race with the Chinese and other countries. 

And I know we focused on climate change and how we are going 

to have them work with us and what we can do jointly. 

But one of the things that most concerns me is that the finish 

line for this race is not going to be Neal Armstrong landing on the 

Moon. It is going to be a new wind turbine manufacturing facility, 

whether it is built in Ohio or whether it is built in a province of 

China. Whether we are going to be developing the best new battery 

for new cars or whether it is going to be developed in another country. 

So, I wondered if you could comment a little bit about the security risk of losing this manufacturing base and losing our edge 

when it comes to this technology and allowing it to be built in other 

countries like China, which as far as I know has pledged to invest 

$462 billion in renewable energy by 2020. In each of the last 3 

years, China has increased wind power by 100 percent. China’s 

plans include a 10-fold scale-up of solar power in the next decade. 

So, we are looking at a serious effort on their part, which of 

course has its merit. But what I am concerned about is that, if we 

do not do something to encourage more development of this technology, we are going to lose the edge in another way, and more jobs 

are going to go to China. Vice Admiral McGinn and maybe Captain 

Powers. 
139 

Mr. MCGINN. You are absolutely right, Senator. We have the opportunity now to enhance our jobs and economy by creating a new 

energy economy. Every day that goes by, just as it does with global 

warming, our ability to compete gets a little bit tougher as infrastructures get built in these other nations, these competing nations. So we can, in fact, seize it. 

We just need to have the right set of incentives to develop a national portfolio of energy efficiency technology, as well as energy 

source technology, whether it is renewables, nuclear power or what 

have you. We need to try to level the playing field vis-a`-vis fossil 

fuels somewhat. Until that playing field is level, it is going to be 

a tough uphill climb with an erratic policy environment, for example, on investment tax credit or production tax credit, or lacking a 

renewable energy standard, for us to really see the investments 

coming from the private sector that will create that energy economy in this country. 

Having worked as an executive for a time in Ohio at Battelle Memorial Institute running the Energy Transportation Environment 

Division, I really have a good appreciation for what is being done 

in the laboratories and what is being done in the private sector. 

There is a lot of great technology that is just waiting for the investment to scale up. Those technologies will really start making a difference. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. OK. I am almost out of time. 

Captain Powers. 

Mr. POWERS. Madam, I come from Bethel, New York, so I know 

all about the jobs that have picked up and gone overseas. Like any 

national security issue, what we need is a multifaceted interagency 

approach. You know, we cannot just look at the Pentagon, we have 

to look at Commerce and Energy and the departments that will 

really be involved in this. 

And I think that the American Clean Energy and Security Act 

is a great step forward in that, to make sure that we are building 

solar panels, we are building windmills, in the factories that I left 

at home, that are closed. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much. 

Mr. RIVKIN. Can I just take 10 seconds and say this? The reverse 

problem is that if we operate in a carbon constrained environment 

and no other countries do, many industries will go overseas creating its own national security vulnerabilities. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you. 

Senator CARDIN. Let me thank our panel. I think the science information is clear that carbon emissions, greenhouse gases, have a 

significant impact on global climate change and that we have the 

technology to do something about that, that we can reverse that. 

I think this hearing has been particularly helpful. 

Senator Klobuchar is right. I think there is a sound way that we 

can do this in a manner that is going to create additional jobs for 

our economy, and we want to make sure that we do it that way 

so we not only improve our environment, we help our economy. 

But I think what this panel has really contributed to the debate 

is that, if we do this right, it will also be good for our national security. Not just the direct security for energy that we need for our 
140 

economy, but also for the potential risks to America’s international 

commitments. 

I could not agree with the panel more. It is going to be up to the 

United States. The consequences of failure to deal with these issues 

will fall squarely on the national security costs to our country. 

I think this panel has been extremely helpful in furthering this 

debate. I thank all four of you for your patience with our committee 

through our opening statements. Senator Warner pointed out, as a 

former colleague of ours, that our members have a passionate interest in the subject as reflected in their opening comments. I think 

we all want to get this right, and I think you all contributed greatly to the debate. 

Thank you all very much. 

[Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

Æ